Public Affairs

Public Affairs

House Votes To Ban Human Cloning
Representative Bilirakis Introduces NIH Revenue Generating Bill
NIH Seeks Comments on IRG Plans
Foundation for Biomedical Research Introduces Two New Pamphlets
President Bush Okays Limited Stem Cell Research
USDA Initiates Paperless Reporting
Asking Good Questions is Key to Science and Journalism
Rachel Davis, 2001 AAAS/APS Mass Media Science Fellow

House Votes To Ban Human Cloning
    On July 31, 2001, the House of Representatives voted to approve The Human Cloning Prohibition Act of 2001. This legislation, sponsored by Representative David Weldon (R-FL), would prohibit the process of human cloning for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes. Additionally, the bill would create civil and criminal penalties, of up to 10 years in jail and $1 million in fines, for anyone attempting to clone a human being or receiving any embryo produced by human cloning techniques. The final vote of 265-162 came after six hours of debate.
    “It is totally inappropriate for scientists to attempt human cloning,” Congressman Weldon said in a press statement. “Once cloned embryos are available in the lab, it will be virtually impossible to prevent them from being implanted into a woman’s uterus and will open the door to a Brave New World and a post-human future.”
    Members of the biomedical research community were alarmed at the vote and expressed disappointment that Congress acted hastily without considering alternative measures. Many had supported an amendment offered by Representative Jim Greenwood (R-PA). This measure would have banned human cloning but would have allowed private companies to create cloned human embryos and develop therapies from their cells. The House considered the amendment but rejected it on a 216-176 vote.
    Most scientists oppose the cloning of a human being as too risky. However, many believe that useful therapies might be derived from cloned human embryos. They worry that banning all human embryo cloning would have a chilling effect on biomedical research. “Today’s vote is a step backwards and if enacted will reverse progress that could affect potentially millions of patients, “ stated Carl Feldbaum, president, Biotechnology Industry Organization.
    Other scientific groups, such as the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, worried that unintended consequences could unfold as a result of this bill becoming law. “The Weldon bill prohibits American scientists from discovering potential cures for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson’s and spinal cord injuries. If other countries discover these cures, this bill will make it illegal for American patients to use them,” said Sean Tipton, spokesmen for the Society.
    Supporters of Representative Weldon’s bill denounced cloning technology as immoral and grotesque. “By a decisive bipartisan vote, the House has acted to block the creation of human embryo farms, but the biotech firms will begin this ghoulish industry soon unless the Senate also acts,” said Douglas Johnson, legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee.
    A Senate counterpart to the Weldon bill, sponsored by Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), has been introduced in the Senate. However, it is not scheduled for action and some insiders predict that it will have a hard time getting attention from the Democratic leadership in the Senate.

Representative Bilirakis Introduces NIH Revenue Generating Bill
    In an effort to raise additional revenue for NIH, Congressman Michael Bilirakis (R-FL) introduced the Bio-medical Research Assistance Voluntary Option Act (BRAVO) on April 3, 2001. “To win the war on cancer, AIDS, and other diseases, we must give medical researchers the tools they need,” Bilirakis said in a statement. “Passage of the BRAVO Act will speed the day when scientists can find cures for these terrible illnesses and end patients’ suffering.”
    BRAVO would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow taxpayers to designate part or all of their tax refund to be used for biomedical research conducted by NIH. The minimum designation to NIH through this mechanism would be $1.
    The bill specifies that Congress could not reduce NIH appropriations in response to the funds taxpayers provided under BRAVO.
On June 27, 2001, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Health held a hearing on a number of bills and resolutions aimed toward advancing the public health, including the BRAVO Act.
    On July 7, the Subcommittee on Health held a mark-up hearing where the BRAVO act was approved by voice vote. The bill is now awaiting final approval from the full Energy and Commerce Committee so that it can go to the House floor for a vote.

NIH Seeks Comments on IRG Plans
    The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) at NIH is asking for public comments on proposed guidelines for two new Integrated Review Groups (IRGs): Musculoskeletal, Oral, and Skin Sciences (MOSS) and Biology of Development and Aging (BDA). This request is part of CSR’s continuing efforts to reorganize NIH peer review under the framework first proposed in 1999 by its Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review.
    If your research falls within these two areas, you are strongly urged to comment on these proposals before they are finalized on October 17 (MOSS) and November 12 (BDA). If your areas of interest fall outside these IRGs, you are encouraged to follow the links from the CSR home page (http://www.csr.nih.gov) to determine when the IRGs for your own research interests come up for consideration.
    When the Phase 1 report of the Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review was first published in 1999, the APS wrote a letter of comment expressing concern that “the proposed alignment shortchanges many areas of both basic and applied physiological research.” The APS noted, “The proposed realignment appears to convey a bias toward reductionist approaches to the detriment of integrationist ones.” Despite the boundaries panel’s own statement that it wanted to provide “a home for the review of all science relevant to contemporary biomedical research,” many physiologists concluded that its recommendations failed to provide sufficient emphasis and review opportunities for integrative approaches to biomedical problems.
    The CSR is currently involved in Phase 2 of the boundaries panel project, which involves refining the parameters of each proposed integrated review group (IRGs) by defining the research topics to be covered by its study sections. Each IRG will be considered in turn by a steering committee comprised of scientific experts and NIH staff, which will develop specific criteria for its study sections. Further explanation of this process and the order in which the IRGs will be considered is available at http://www.csr.nih.gov/PSBR/IRGComments.htm. This page also has information about recommendations currently open for comment:
    The Guidelines for the MOSS IRG are open for comment until October 17 at http://www.csr.nih.gov/PSBR/MOSS/MOSSIntro1.htm.
    The new BDA IRG guidelines are open for comments until November 12, 2001 at http://www.csr.nih.gov/PSBR/BDA/BDAIntro.htm.
    Given that it has been several years since the CSR study section structure was revised, these proposals may have long-term implications for research opportunities and the NIH peer review process. A report on each proposed new IRG and study section guidelines will be presented to the CSR advisory Committee, which will in turn make its recommendations to CSR Director Ellie Ehrenfeld. The public comment periods may represent the last opportunity to bring scientists’ concerns to CSR’s attention.

Foundation for Biomedical Research Introduces Two New Pamphlets
    The Foundation for Biomedical Research has just introduced two new pamphlets which highlight the advances in biomedical research due to the use of animal models and dispel many misconceptions associated with the use of animals in conducting research.
    The first booklet, The Proud Achievements of Animal Research, offers a brief overview of the remarkable contributions that animal research has made in improving the lives of both humans and animals. In addition to providing poignant examples of the benefits of animal research, the booklet also provides an account of all the promises that would be lost if animal research were stopped or severely limited.
    The second booklet, Animal Research: Fact Vs. Myth, is a timely document that aims at dispelling many of the myths associated with animal research. Many of the myths that are addressed include lost and stolen pets are sold to labs; there are no laws or regulations that protect research animals; and research animals are kept in pain and researchers are indifferent to the well-being of animals.
    Both publications are available in Adobe PDF format on the Foundation’s Web site at http://www.fbresearch.org and can be purchased for $0.25 per copy or the bulk discount price of $0.10 for orders exceeding 200. Contact the Foundation for more details at (202) 457-0654.

President Bush Okays Limited Stem Cell Research
    On August 10, President Bush made his long-awaited announcement regarding federal funding of research using human embryonic stem cells. Speaking from his ranch in Crawford, TX in his first nationally televised speech since his inauguration, Bush stated that the government would fund research on the 60 or so cell lines that had already been created. Bush also announced the decision to establish a President’s Council on Bioethics to be headed by biomedical ethicist Leon Kass of the University of Chicago to promote continued discussion of the ethical ramifications of this research.
    The news of President Bush’s decision was met with mixed reviews from both the scientific community and antiabortion forces.
Many scientists involved in embryonic stem cell research felt that their work would be constrained by the limited number of cell lines they were allowed to work with, while others breathed a sigh of relief that at least for now, the door is open for some research to proceed. FASEB President Robert Rich expressed appreciation for the President’s decision, calling the announcement a positive step. Rich commented that FASEB is “pleased that the President decided that human embryonic stem cell research will be allowed to proceed with federal support and oversight, if only in a limited way.” Other scientists, including former NIH Director Harold Varmus, commented that the research community is “in a more fortunate place than we might have been,” had President Bush banned the technology at the onset of his term.
    Other researchers were more critical of the decision. Ben Barres, who studies neural stem cells, said that that the Bush decision was wrong and would cause a brain drain to other countries with fewer restrictions on stem cell research. One early casualty of the uncertainty over US policy was Roger Pedersen, an embryologist who is considered by many to be one the foremost experts on stem cell research. Pedersen announced in mid-summer that he would move his laboratory to the UK because of concerns about the US stem cell research policies.
    Antiabortion forces were equally divided on the Bush decision. The National Right To Life Committee, the largest anti-abortion group, announced that it was “delighted” with the President’s speech, as did Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell. Even Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition praised Bush’s compromise, saying that the decision was “an elegant solution to the thorny issue of stem cell research by firmly protecting the rights of the unborn.”
    However, many in the anti-abortion movement were stunned by the decision and asserted that the President had reneged on his pro-life campaign stance. Richard M. Doerflinger, spokes-man for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, accused the President of sending the nation into an ethical dilemma: “By the time the scientists come forward with the next group of cell lines, that destruction (of embryos) will already have been done, too…where is the moral limit?”
    With this policy, the NIH could theoretically start funding grants by as early as 2002. However, a number of problems remain. Some researchers question whether the already-existing cell lines are, in fact, usable, and whether their owners will be willing and able to make them available to other labs. These cell lines may not be suitable for all kinds of research. Furthermore, it will be very difficult to use them to develop therapies because most have been nurtured using embryonic mouse cells, raising the possibility that they are contaminated with murine diseases that might infect humans.

USDA Initiates Paperless Reporting
    The US Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will this year offer research facilities the option of submitting annual report forms electronically. The annual report of research facility annual use (APHIS form 7023) is required under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). APHIS was to send registered facilities instructions on how to complete an electronic filing of this form in mid-September.
    Reports are due by December 1. According to APHIS Deputy Administrator for Animal Care W. Ron DeHaven, the electronically submitted data will go directly to the APHIS database. “The information will be more accurate and we will be able to save time and money by not using resources to input the data,” DeHaven said in a statement.
    The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) of 1998 requires federal agencies to make all their forms available for electronic filing no later than October 21, 2003. “We had been working toward electronic filing before GPEA was passed, so we are well ahead of the game,” according to DeHaven.
    Animal Care is moving forward on other electronic information projects as well. In FY 2000, it made its web page accessible to the visually disabled, and Animal Care facility inspection reports conducted after October 1 will be made accessible to the public through the APHIS E-FOIA web page. However, in response to concerns raised by the research community, these reports will not be available for a 21-day period while they are processed and approved by the regional offices. The first reports will be available in late October, assuming no technical issues arise. All reports will still be available through the regional offices.
    Questions about reporting information or access to inspection data may be addressed to Animal Care regional offices or directed via email to the national office at ace@aphis.usda.gov.

Asking Good Questions is Key to Science and Journalism
Rachel Davis 2001 AAAS/APS Mass Media Science Fellow

    Hanging in the central staircase of the Manhattan Newsweek building is a three-story mosaic of the magazine’s famous covers—more than 67 years of exceptional journalism. Descending the stairs, you move through history viewing the faces of artists and actresses of the 1930s, military planes and bombers of the 1940s, and the fun colorful covers of the 1970s that took on more topical themes like Fashion and Jazz. It isn’t until the bottom of the staircase that a scientist’s eyes really begin to light up. Ebola, the brain, AIDS and malaria grace the covers of the 1990s. And today, the science stories are more specialized and even news-breaking. It is an exciting time to be a science writer.
    When I decided to trade in my lab bench and microscope for a cubicle and telephone and spend the summer as an APS-sponsored AAAS Mass Media Fellow at Newsweek, I had no idea what to expect. While I was familiar with Newsweek’s exceptional staff of writers, I was not aware of its dedication to science coverage. I quickly discovered that Newsweek knows what its readers like and that science on the cover sells. (This was big lesson number one: the magazine is a business, and not an educational journal.) During my 10-week internship, we ran cover stories about an AIDS doctor with a promising new treatment, the design of an artificial heart, the stem cell debate, biological clocks and fertility, and skin cancer.
    While reporting on stories that included the biology of aging, hybrid engines, angiogenesis, and the physics of wet sand, I interviewed top scientists and CEOs, attended press conferences, and learned to write about the history and story behind the facts. Although demanding, I enjoyed the challenge of learning about new research areas that were unfamiliar to me.
    I learned about new demands faced by the writers at a weekly magazine in this era of “24/7” news. Newsweek no longer wants to just recap the week’s stories since newspapers and TV saturate the public well before the magazine goes to press. Writers and reporters must constantly read and analyze scientific findings, asking interesting questions in order to find unique story angles. As a physiology student, I had learned that the most important thing a research scientist can do is to ask the right questions. I found out that the same is true in science journalism.
    The addition of the web site to the weekly magazine has also changed what is expected of a science writer. The Newsweek-MSNBC web site hosts a live chat and question and answer session with the cover story writer each week. Since health coverage appears to be the most popular topic among readers, the web page often resembles Web-MD more than a weekly news magazine. Readers ask questions that they would normally ask their doctors. Without overstepping boundaries of actually giving medical advice, the science writers provide valuable information and direct readers to a number of the best resources.
    With a weekly readership of over 22 million, Newsweek is able to reach a mass audience including those who need information such as a new treatment option, good doctors, or simply a personal story they can relate to. Having my first reporting experiences at a major publication gave me the opportunity to witness this immense power of the written word first hand.
    It was a bit frightening when I was asked to do one of my first big interviews with Geraldine Ferraro, the former New York congresswoman and vice presidential candidate who has Multiple Myeloma. However, she was very easy to talk to, and, in fact, she made it clear to me just how important good science journalism is. When the New York Times did an article on her efforts to raise public awareness about this cancer, it generated more than a half million hits on the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation web site. “And your article will help get the word out,” she told me.
    Regardless of whether or not any of the AAAS fellows should decide to pursue science writing after this summer, the experience will enhance our careers as both scientists and teachers. It has made clear the many demands and skills that must be cultivated in order to be successful in this exciting field, and has provided us with a great start. I thank the APS for sponsoring me and hope that this fellowship continues to offer graduate students the same wonderful opportunities.