Conservatives for Science: Medical researchers and activist terror tactics

Scientists working on cures and therapies for numerous human afflictions require the use of animals as testing subjects before their work can advance to human testing. Many of these researchers face an increasing threat of violence and intimidation from extremist animal rights activists. Now a victim of this violence is standing up for himself and other researchers.

NPR: Animal Researchers Unite After Extremists’ Attacks

Over the last few years, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, have received death threats, had their cars firebombed and had their homes vandalized by activists who want to stop animal testing. This week, one UCLA professor said enough is enough.David Jentsch is a neurobiologist who studies the effects of drug addiction and mental illness. He uses monkeys in his research, and that’s made him a target of animal rights extremists. Early in the morning on March 7, they set his car on fire.

“I rose my head up from my pillow and looked out my window, and I saw a glow coming from the window that if you’ve ever seen, you wouldn’t mistake for anything else,” he recalls.

Jentsch ran downstairs, out the door, grabbed his garden hose and frantically tried to put out the fire.

“But at that point, the damage had been done,” he says. He’s not talking about the car; he means the terror he now lives with.

The goal of these extremists is to literally scare scientists away from using animals in their research. If these terror tactics succeed it could potentially lead to the suspension of important research in a number of fields. But David Jentsch refuses to be intimidated.

For his part, Jentsch refuses to give into the fear. After his car was set on fire, he founded UCLA Pro-Test, an organization that supports animal research and the UCLA scientists who have been targeted by extremists.

Last week, he spoke before hundreds of UCLA medical students, professors and technicians rallying in Los Angeles to support animal researchers.

“Whether you participate in animal research or not, we are all a community of scholars and we are standing up today to say that that horrible face that comes in the night can’t come anymore — it has to stop,” he told the crowd.

Just to underscore the seriousness of these intimidation tactics, note that one of these extremists was just added to the FBI’s Most Wanted List.

David Jentsch and other courageous researchers should be applauded and supported. Please take a moment to check out their petition. You can also follow UCLA Pro-Test on Twitter.

Conservatives for Science: More Ideology Trumping Science on the Left

Ronald Bailey at Reason dissects a Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) report on crop yields and asks an excellent Earth Day question:

Why don’t environmentalists celebrate modern farming on Earth Day?

First, keep in mind that farmers are not stupid, and especially not poor farmers in developing countries. The UCS report acknowledges that American farmers have widely adopted biotech crops in the past 13 years. Why? “The fact that the herbicide-tolerant soybeans have been so widely adopted suggests that factors such as lower energy costs and convenience of GE soybeans also influence farmer choices.” Indeed. Surely saving fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gases should be viewed by a UCS advocacy scientist as an environmental good. And what does Gurian-Sherman mean by “convenience”? Later, he admits that biotech herbicide resistant crops save costs and time for farmers. Herbicide resistance is also a key technology for expanding soil-saving no-till agriculture which, according to a report in 2003, saved 1 billion tons of topsoil from eroding annually. In addition, no-till farming significantly reduces the run-off of fertilizers into streams and rivers.

Bailey answers the specific claims in the UCS report and notes that the group’s own history of supporting burdensome regulation that may have hampered biotech crop advancement puts UCS in a weak position to be lamenting that bio-engineered crops have failed. His conclusion:

Increasing crop yields to meet humanity’s growing demand for healthful food while protecting the natural world will require deploying the full scientific armamentarium. This includes advances in crop breeding, improvements in cultivation practices, the safer deployment of fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides—and, yes, genetic engineering. It is odd that while the UCS accepts the scientific consensus on man-made global warming, it refuses to accept the scientific consensus on the safety, usefulness, and environmental benefits of biotech crops.

Conservatives for Science: Sarah Palin on AGW, Alaska, and domestic energy

Several media outlets and blogs have taken note of Gov. Sarah Palin’s recent remarks on oil and natural gas development in Alaska. Palin made those remarks at a hearing held in the state by Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

It is her discussion about global warming and the effects being felt in Alaska that have drawn the most attention. While Palin could not seem to definitively decide if global warming was man-made (or at least man-influenced) during the presidential campaign, she now appears to unambiguously embrace anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

This clarification did not go unnoticed by even her more vociferous critics.

Island of Doubt: Sarah Palin: global warming convert?

You may recall Sarah Palin’s curious approach to the science of climate change. Although while running for vice-president of the United States she insisted humans were not responsible, she nevertheless advocated doing something about it. This week Alaska’s governor offered some details of just what we should do.

Hrynyshyn excerpts from Palin’s remarks focusing primarily on these two paragraphs:

Some would have you delay exploration and development in the federal offshore of Alaska over concerns related to global warming and its effects in the Arctic. First of all let me make it clear that the State of Alaska understands the effects of climate change in the cryosphere. We Alaskans are living with the changes that you are observing in Washington. The dramatic decreases in the extent of summer sea ice, increased coastal erosion, melting of permafrost, decrease in alpine glaciers and overall ecosystem changes are very real to us.

Many believe that in order to mitigate these long term and systematic changes it will require a national and global effort to decrease the release of human produced greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, simply waiting for low carbon emitting renewable capacity to be large enough will mean that it will be too late to meet the mitigation goals for reducing CO2 that will be required under most credible climate change models, including the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) modeled scenarios. Meeting these goals will require a dramatic increase, in the very near term, to preferred available fuels – including natural gas – that have a very low carbon footprint and that can be used within the existing energy infrastructure. These available fuels are required to supply the nation’s energy needs during the transition to green energy alternatives.

Hrynyshyn questions other parts of Palin’s remarks as well as her general premise. However he still concludes:

…this speech represents progress toward that elusive goal of coherence, and I think it safe to assume she’s not likely to get raked over the coals (so to speak) in the manner we grew accustomed to seeing during last year’s campaign.

Leaving aside Hrynyshyn’s somewhat patronizing tone, Palin’s entire remarks are really worth the read.

The Governor’s proposition is straight-forward. Renewable, low carbon emitting energy on an industrial scale will not be ready soon enough to make the immediate dent in CO2 emissions that climate experts say we need. She suggests alternative options like using more natural gas, that emits about half the CO2 of coal, as a bridge to that green energy future.

Experts can debate the particulars of her recommendations or similar propositions like the Pickens Plan. For conservatives though, Gov. Palin’s remarks demonstrate that we can acknowledge AGW while simultaneously making serious proposals that increase our country’s domestic energy production.

This approach will also help conservatives contrast themselves with President Obama, who while claiming that CO2 reduction is a national priority, has already managed to undermine nuclear energy production — the energy source providing 20% of our country’s power and 70% of our CO2 free energy.

Conservatives for Science:

Just imagine the kind of campaign you would orchestrate if your goal was to cause the maximum harm to the most vulnerable members of society.

It would look a lot like Ukraine, where antivaxxer superstition (deliberately fanned by the homeopathic industry) and government incompetence may lead to millions of Ukrainians being denied common vaccines.

AP: Vaccine scare threatens health in Ukraine

A widespread scare about vaccine side effects in Ukraine has led to a sharp drop in immunizations that could result in disease outbreaks spreading beyond the former Soviet republic, international and local health officials say…

…In 2003, imams in northern Nigeria fomented a boycott of polio vaccinations claiming they were a Western plot to make Muslims infertile or infect them with HIV. Authorities in Indonesia are discussing a plan to end childhood immunizations against a number of diseases out of fears that foreign drug companies are using the country as a testing ground. A budding movement of parents getting exemptions from pre-school vaccination laws is seen as partly responsible for a spike in U.S. measles cases.

Experts blame the Ukrainian scare on government mismanagement and irresponsible media coverage of an anti-vaccination campaign launched after the May death of a 17-year-old boy who had received a combined shot for measles and rubella.

Activists including members of the homeopathic and alternative healing industries blamed his death on the vaccination. Ukrainian authorities said they needed to investigate and halted the campaign to revaccinate 9 million Ukrainians aged 16-29 for measles — a leading cause of childhood death — and rubella, which can cause serious birth defects.

The Ukrainian Health Ministry and World Health Organization concluded that the boy died of septic shock from a bacterial infection unrelated to the vaccine. But the ministry decided last month to terminate the revaccination campaign, saying there was no longer enough time to administer the vaccines before they expire this summer and that people would refuse the shots.

Conservatives for Science: How did ‘naturopathy’ became aligned with the American Left?

Science-Based Medicine has two posts that help explain how the ‘naturopathic medicine‘ movement, once a fixation of the Far Right, has more recently became aligned with the Political Left. For those like myself who are still fairly new to the entire pseudomedicine topic, both posts also help provide a foundation for understanding the related controversies.

A View to the Past

By 2000, a major shift had occurred. Although chiropractic seemed to adhere more to right wing principles, and right holdovers Hatch, Burton, and the old-style supplement set persisted, quackery’s advanced guard had become predominantly left-wing. It included the cultural relativism, post-modern wing that fertilizes “Integrative” medicine. The push in California for naturopaths and for loosening practice guidelines for sectarian practices came from the left. The ’90s had brought a surprising and revolutionary change – from the left, and recognizable as the outgrowth of the student rebellions of the 1960s – manifested in 40-50 year olds who bore the same anti-establishment psychologies of their youth. That part of the change was easy enough to see and understand. But what came next surprised and perplexed us, taking us another decade to figure out. It was political attack from the left.

Naturopathy and Liberal Politics: Strange Bedfellows

How did naturopathy ever become affiliated with the American Left? I can only imagine that this sprang from the Sixties and the essential lapse of critical thinking, especially among young people, that accompanied the social upheavals of the time, laudable and not so laudable. I was a college student in the early 1970s, and can easily recall the intellectual laissez-faire that was encouraged, even required of otherwise intelligent people—including students who, only a few years previously, had been expected to learn the tools of critical thinking as part of their college educations. Thus “other ways of knowing” and “differing paradigms” (a mangling of the writings of Thomas Kuhn) had suddenly become de rigueur.

Conservatives for Science: Toledo Blade proclaims “NIMBY Rules”

Local media outlets across the country continue to report and opine on the implications of the Obama administration’s decision to “nuke” the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal site.

The Toledo Blade quite capably sums up the cognitive dissonance that has been demonstrated by the White House’s position and Secretary Steven Chu’s statements.

Conservatives for Science: The Left and Science: Ken Salazar vs. Environmentalists

Washington Post:

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar’s decision to stick with a controversial Bush administration move that took gray wolves off the endangered species list in most of the northern Rockies reflects the independent streak that has defined his career. But it has alienated key Obama administration allies, including environmentalists and some lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

It appears Salazar based his decision on the clear scientific consensus.

Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said Salazar had followed the unanimous recommendation of Fish and Wildlife Service scientists in setting the new policy, rather than letting political factors influence him. “This was a decision based on science,” she said…

Based on President Obama’s proclamation that his administration will separate politics from science, Salazar’s decision to do just that should be the final word right?

Umm…wrong.  Apparently, only when a policy decision concurs with what the Left wants is it acceptable to be based solely on science.

The Left’s reaction includes this priceless quote:

One House Democrat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, framed it in even more blunt political terms. “I just don’t see what this does for us,” the lawmaker said. “Here we are alienating people who did the most — who did a lot to help us in the last election.”

You can the read the rest here.