Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Gen 1 -- Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Gen 1 -- Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News

Ratings: (0)|Views: 1,215 |Likes:
Science and Technology Are Essential to Economic Recovery
Regulation Must Be Scientifically Defensible and Risk-Based
Science and Technology Are Essential to Economic Recovery
Regulation Must Be Scientifically Defensible and Risk-Based

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Science
Published by: Mary Ann Liebert, Inc on Jun 03, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Jun 1 2009 (Vol. 29, No. 11)
Point of View
Science and Technology Are Essential to EconomicRecovery
Regulation Must Be Scientifically Defensible and Risk-Based
Henry I. Miller, M.D.
In his weekly message on March 7, President Obama tried to reassure a nation jittery about theeconomy: “With every test, each generation has found the capacity to not only endure, but to prosper—to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis.” But no matter howeffective stimulus packages and strategies may be, recovery from this downturn will be plagued by government regulation that is damaging the ability of industry to perform the kindof scientific and technological innovation that was the engine of past recoveries.FDA, EPA, and USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the agencies that perform a gatekeeper function—needing to approve high-tech products such as gene-spliced plant varieties and pharmaceuticals and other chemicals before they can be marketed—areunscientific, overly risk-averse, and highly politicized, easily prodded to excesses bycongressional demagoguery.The pharmaceutical industry used to be one of the nation’s most innovative and successful.But excessive, erratic regulation has pushed development costs into the stratosphere, made theoutcome uncertain, and slowed approvals to a trickle. As Fred Hassan, CEO of  Schering-Plough, said of the current regulatory climate, “What will it take to get new drugs approved?The point is, we don’t know.”The plight of the industry is likely to become worse. The Congress and FDA have beenmoving gradually toward placing various restrictions on the prescribing, distribution, sale, andadvertising of newly approved drugs. In addition, they have imposed additional requirementsin order to obtain even those limited or conditional approvals, a devastating double-whammythat is dangerous for patients and damaging to one of the nation’s most critical industries.The chemical industry is another favorite target of regulators and politicians. An example isthe EPA’s designation as pesticides of pheromones, natural chemicals by which animals, particularly insects, influence the behavior of other members of the same species. When maleinsects seeking female mates are exposed to appropriate pheromones, they become confusedand cannot easily locate the females. As a result, many of the females fail to mate and layeggs, and the number of offspring is reduced.Although pheromones are effective in minuscule amounts and exhibit virtually no toxicity inanimals other than insects (and are far safer than conventional chemicals), the EPA classifiesthem as pesticides and requires extensive and hugely expensive testing in order for them to beused commercially.
Another example is the EPA’s land disposal restrictions when toxins are present, whichimpose annual costs of approximately $205.5 million in order to avoid 0.22 cases of cancer annually from groundwater contamination and 0.037 cases from air pollution—that is, aboutone case of cancer every four years—and $20 million from property damage.Is a little overregulation all that harmful? The monies spent by the government on anything(whether good, bad, or indifferent), or by citizens and companies to conform to governmentregulations and policies, exerts an “income effect” that reflects the direct correlation betweenwealth and health—depriving communities or individuals of wealth, enhances their healthrisks.Wealthier individuals are able to purchase better healthcare, enjoy more nutritious diets, andlead generally less stressful lives. Conversely, the deprivation of income itself has adversehealth effects, including an increased incidence of stress-related problems, such as ulcers,hypertension, heart attacks, depression, and suicides.Studies that indicate a direct correlation between the deprivation of income and mortalitysuggest that, as a conservative estimate, every $5 million to $10 million of regulatory costswill induce one additional fatality. Moreover, society’s resources are not infinite. Former OMB official John Graham, who is now dean of the Indiana University School of Public andEnvironmental Affairs, has spoken bluntly about the need for more considered and scientificregulation. “Sound science means saving the most lives and achieving the most ecological protection with our scarce budgets. Without sound science, we are engaging in a form of ‘statistical murder,’ where we squander our resources on phantom risks when our familiescontinue to be endangered by real risks.”
Obama Appointees
Many Obama appointees who will be in a position to influence science- and technology-related issues are ideological, radical, and poorly qualified to offer sound, unbiased advice on policy. They constitute a Who’s Who of hostility to modern technology and the industries thatuse it: Kathleen Merrigan, the deputy secretary of agriculture; Joshua Sharfstein, deputy FDAcommissioner; Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator; and Carol Browner, coordinator of environmental policy throughout the executive branch. None of them has shown any understanding of or appreciation of science. Browner wasresponsible for gratuitous EPA regulations that have slowed the application of biotechnologyto agriculture and environmental problems and Jackson worked in the EPA’s notoriousSuperfund program for many years. Merrigan relentlessly promoted the organic food industry,in spite of the fact that organic foods’ high costs make them unaffordable for manyAmericans, thereby discouraging the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables; and becauseof their low yields, are wasteful of farmland and water. While a staffer for the SenateAgriculture Committee, Merrigan was completely uneducable about the importance of genetically improved plant varieties to advances in agriculture.Where are the advocates for science and technology? The president’s nominee for scienceadviser, John Holdren, is a longtime advocate of policies to slow population growth and limitenergy use. During the 1980s, Holdren calculated that famines due to climate change couldleave a billion people dead by 2020. He now concedes that is “unlikely.” Although Holdrenwill head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, he has no history of advocacy for technology.

Activity (31)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
ramdas2430 liked this
Nur Amirah liked this
Daniel Fekete liked this
Mira N. Attieh liked this
Kakav Nered liked this
Sarah F. R. liked this
rosse liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->