Why private funding inhibits scientific, medical progress

With the success of the Philae lander, the European Space Agency has effectively landed on a comet traveling through space 300 million miles from Earth. The data it collects may help answer questions about Earth’s history and even the origin of life. Such major accomplishments are commendable, but rare in an international climate in which funding for research—including medicine—is perpetually on the chopping block. If public funding has dried up, the obvious alternative is the private sector. This is the recent trend in space exploration that has yielded such conspicuous failures as NASA’s outsourced Antares rocket and Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo.ith the success of the Philae lander, the European Space Agency has effectively landed on a comet traveling through space 300 million miles from Earth. The data it collects may help answer questions about Earth’s history and even the origin of life. Such major accomplishments are commendable, but rare in an international climate in which funding for research—including medicine—is perpetually on the chopping block.

Back on solid ground, the pharmaceutical industry is a more comprehensive, long-running example of how science and engineering can fall short when they are left exclusively to private for-profit entities. Big Pharma companies like Merck and Pfizer are as wealthy as ever. But the innovation that the industry was built on—the discovery of new drugs—has stalled in the last few decades.

Writing for The New York Times, Dan Hurley pointed the finger at “target-based” drug research. Under this model, investigators find the genetic origin of a disease in the form of a mutation and then develop a drug to specifically target the disease. This method has been prevalent in pharmaceutical research and development since the genomic revolution of the 90s.

The problem is that this method has been a spectacular failure. “A study published last year … found that only 17 of 50 novel drugs approved by the FDA between 1999 and 2008 came from target-based research,” Hurley said. According to chemist Derek Lowe, “Bayer committed half a billion dollars into human genome research, and they got nothing for it.”

Hurley advocated for the “old-fashioned” method of drug research, “Making tentative hypotheses and then going through a long tinkering process of trial and error to find something that works,” he said.

This sounds like a case for applied research over pure research. After all, pharmacologists are not unlike engineers. They build molecules for a specific function like NASA engineers build rockets. But in reality, this is not the case. It is a case of companies jumping on a bandwagon hoping it will lead to untold riches.

Genomic drug research is more limited than originally thought because it grossly oversimplifies the biology of disease. Despite this, Big Pharma may have gone all-in on the research because the decision-makers in companies are businesspeople, not scientists. They can latch onto a buzzword like “targeted therapy” without understanding it, especially when it promises a short-term explosion in profits. This is a key difference from public and academic institutions. Such shortsighted tunnel vision is antithetical to good research, which respects the complexity of a system and is invested in the long-term.

Profiteering can limit the scope of research in other ways. Diseases are prioritized in terms of moneymaking potential. Most of the highest-earning drugs treat chronic conditions; everything from diabetes to depression to erectile dysfunction.

In the face of emerging drug-resistant strains of bacteria, there is a dire need for novel antibiotics. This need is not being met. I have worked in natural products research directed towards finding new antibiotic compounds––a field composed of small labs that are often woefully underfunded. The pharmaceutical industry isn’t filling this void, nor would it be expected to. Antibiotics aren’t profitable.

To be fair, many drugs that have made Big Pharma companies rich have also helped bring human health into the modern era. Private, for-profit research has its place. But its place is not as a substitute for public funding of nonprofit institutions.

Liberals: Don’t panic over midterms just yet

The American people have spoken and President Barack Obama is now a lame duck. Conservatives are gloating and liberals are freaking out. Liberals everywhere: abandon all hope. Let’s not panic and move to New Zealand just yet, however. Democrats lost dismally, but the Grand Old Party that won on Nov. 4 was not the GOP of the last four years. Gone is the Tea Party hybrid, pledging to dismantle this or that department and presaging the biblical end of times. This election went well for the Republican Party, but it may spell the end of the foaming-at-the-mouth neo-conservatism that reigned in the 21st century––that’s something to smile about.

Midterms are classically described as referenda on the presidency. This is not to say they reflect whether or not the president is doing a good job, just whether or not voters regard the administration positively. Halfway through a second term, they rarely do.

I sound like a sore loser—because I am—but the way Obama found his way to the Oval Office was not much different than the way Republicans won this election. Once again, the result had more to do with a throw-the-bums-out mentality than actual support for a platform.

There was something different about this election, however. Republicans did not run on bold slogans and bolder promises like Obama did. They just had to sit back and watch as Democrats unsuccessfully tried to convince their electorate that they hate the president too.

As cowardly as the Democrats were, the most memorable refrain of the past year was a meaningless dodge by Republicans. The default response to questions regarding global climate change was, “I am not a scientist.” This is a non-statement. Like Kentucky Democrat Allison Grimes’ refusal to admit she voted for Obama, it says nothing yet speaks volumes.

This is not to say the likes of Republicans United States Sen. Mitch McConnell and Sen. John Boehner have given up on ignoring scientists. It really isn’t unfair to characterize the Republican Party as anti-science when its most reasonable spokespeople believe that the veracity of evolution is a matter of personal opinion.

It does show that, at least with regards to impending climate disaster, public opinion is swaying toward the evidence. It is a good sign that McConnell has to evade denouncing environmental science in such a hive of progressive thinking as Kentucky. In red states like Alaska and Louisiana, the reality of warming is becoming impossible to ignore.

So the new U.S. Congress isn’t the “Crazy Caucus” of 2010. It is still composed of some really frightening individuals, however. The soon-to-be chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee Sen. Jim Inhofe is the author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. Political satirist Bill Maher’s “Flip a District” campaign failed to unseat Rep. John Kline in Minnesota, who is notorious for his relationship with the parasitic for-profit college industry.

Due to the Republican takeover of the Senate, both of these incumbents will be in better positions to legislate for their psychotic agendas. Just because the rhetoric has been toned down a bit doesn’t mean the GOP will instantly turn from the far-right organization of the last decade into the fairly centrist party of yesteryear. This does not do much to suggest that the promises of compromise by McConnell and Obama are anything but posturing.

Again, this doesn’t signify the end of the world. The Republican Congress will most likely set about passing ridiculous bills so they can point fingers at the president when he vetoes them. Gridlock will continue. And maybe, just maybe, the most obstructionist and fringe elements of the party will finally be held accountable.

Decreasing funding for scientific innovation could bear serious global consequences

Criticism of the “Ebola in America” coverage has become almost as monotonous as the coverage itself. This catastrophic atmosphere is as old as the 24-hour news cycle and is often poorly received, but that does little to stop it. The end––brought about by joblessness, national debt or hordes of illegal aliens––has been perpetually nigh. The result is that society–– and by extension lawmakers––has forgotten that there is a future beyond the next crisis. Of course the public does care about the world our children will live in, but it does a poor job of showing it.

America’s infrastructure is crying out for rebuilding, yet there’s little impulse to do anything about it. In the face of endless budget cuts, science and technologic fields are being hamstrung. In a culture of calamity, the will to build and innovate has given way to desperate self-preservation.

The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman described this refusal to invest in the future as both shortsighted and nonsensical. Due to the need for spending in a stagnant economy and historically low interest rates “borrowing to build roads, repair sewers and more seems like a no-brainer. But what has actually happened is the reverse.”

The desire to ensure a reasonable quality of life and the obsession with job creation are not enough to counteract deficit-phobia. The looming specter of national debt supposedly threatens to swallow us whole, yet it has shown no sign of doing so. This is not to say that pretenses at budget austerity will actually lead to long-term debt reduction. We will need that borrowed money for the next war we wage under the delusion that it will keep us safer.

While infrastructure has been ignored, funding for scientific research has been actively shattered. Lawmakers have adopted a callous attitude toward budgeting for research and engineering; one that does not favor building new and expensive machines. Funding for academic research from federal sources was slashed by 5 percent for the 2013 fiscal year—a huge blow, but only a small part of an ongoing trend. For all the exaltation of science, technology, engineering and mathematics degrees as a pragmatic choice, prospects for the tenure track in the natural sciences may soon be as dismal as other academic disciplines.

The situation is not much better in Europe where austerity measures are taken much more seriously. A collection of European scientists penned an open letter in The Guardian titled “They have chosen ignorance” which highlights the incongruity between politics and science.

“[European Union governments] have chosen to ignore that research does not follow political cycles; that long-term, sustainable [research and development] investment is critical because science is a long-distance race,” the scientists said.

The rewards of this long-distance race are not abstract. Many politicians operate under the misconception that foundational research is useless if it does not immediately yield results. As with infrastructure, the benefits extend beyond the obvious long-term societal advances. The letter asserts, “In an ‘innovation State’ like the United States, over half of its economic growth has come from innovation with roots in basic research funded by the federal government.” Unfortunately, this innovative United States described in this letter may be an outdated notion.

Stop bragging about procrastination

Willpower, grit, stick-to-itiveness––regardless of its name, this trait is held up as a fundamental American virtue. Willpower can be loosely defined as the ability to delay gratification, to put long-term benefit before immediate temptation. It is arguably the most important determinate of success in college. Despite recent findings about the value of self-control, college students are seen as less productive than ever. This is perhaps explained by the false dichotomy between having a social life and being productive. In reality, self-control may be as much about looking outward as much as it is looking forward.

Stanford University psychologist Walter Mischel conducted a classic series of experiments on delayed gratification beginning in the 1960s. Pre-school students were presented with a single marshmallow. They were told that if they waited to eat it, they would be given two. Mischel found that over the following decades, those who waited longer for the second marshmallow as kids were more likely to have higher average SAT scores, be financially stable and less likely to be obese.

Average study time among college students is steadily declining nationwide in defiance of colleges’ recommendations to study two to three hours per subject per week. The false dichotomy between emotion and logic––between social atmosphere and productivity––perpetuates the idea of the hard worker as aloof, introverted or indifferent to their desires. Mischel’s work suggests, however, that such a disposition is largely innate or the result of upbringing. Most people are very emotional and social; college is likely to be the most hyper-social time in their lives. This feeling of community may actually be the key to happy productivity.

Daniel Desteno of Northeastern University has proposed that social emotions are not the enemy of self-control, but rather that they are crucial to mastering it.

“While willpower certainly offers assistance, we’ve been neglecting the weapon that comes straight from our nature as innately social beings, not just rational, calculating loners,” Desteno said. Just as athletes tend to benefit from emotions like excitement or anger, emotions like gratefulness and pride can improve our ability to resist temptation.

Part of the problem is that we are taught to be “humble” about our professional or scholastic accomplishments. Everybody is quick to highlight their incredible procrastination and accomplishments are seen as more impressive if they were achieved effortlessly. The result is mutual, negative reinforcement: thinking that other people are innately more talented.

Everyone can play a part in creating an environment where work is seen as part of, not the opposite of, social culture. Don’t be afraid to let your friend know that they should take a break from a Netflix marathon to study for their test. If their work pays off, congratulate them. Studies by Desteno suggest that the feeling of pride when one’s work is recognized and appreciated––even in small ways––makes the work seem less toilsome and more rewarding.

The significance of delayed gratification are more than an awards shelf, secure finances or good health. Economist Robert Frank, who developed the original idea of emotional self-regulation, conjectured that these emotions exist to make us better members of a society. Self-control reaps social as well as personal benefits.

Grades can often seem arbitrary, so it is easy to forget that we are at Geneseo for a reason. Be grateful for the wonderful and rare opportunity to get an education, or think of the positive impact you can have on others. That can be the little push it takes to find purpose in the drudgery.

IS, Palestine and the question of separatism

With bombs no longer falling in Gaza, the global community has turned its attention to the newly christened Islamic State. The Islamic State and Israel-Palestine issues seem as different as can be––the former is a universally feared enemy while the latter is an unending moral quagmire. The common denominator, however, is separatism. This is the idea that political borders can and should be drawn along racial, ethnic and religious lines. It is a regressive doctrine that is both untenable in light of globalization and the best guarantee of endless conflict.

IS is the most obvious and extreme kind of a culturally homogenizing movement. It is beyond separatist; the IS doesn’t just want their own caliphate of only Jewish people, they want to spread and wipe out as many infidels as possible.

In a recent visit to the White House, Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speculated that the unprecedented alliance of Arab nations needed to eradicate IS could be used to build the long-awaited two-state solution between Israel and Palestine. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe this is the case. The New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has compared this situation to post-World War II climate. He asserts that an alliance of desperation will evaporate as quickly as it was formed.

Friedman likens Israel’s strategy regarding Palestine to the United States’ approach to the Soviet Union. But in the battle of East versus West, the U.S. was––and is––fighting for principles that are easy to get behind, specifically the idea of freedom over totalitarianism.

Netanyahu does not even pretend that spreading or maintaining democracy is his goal. In May, he announced his intent to amend Israel’s basic laws (which are analogous to a constitution) in order to define Israel as not just a Jewish state, but as a state for Jews only.

“The state of Israel provides full equal, individual rights to all its citizens, but it is the nation state of one people only––the Jewish people––and of no other people,” Netanyahu said.

This ethnic separation that right-wing Israelis want is a pipedream. Currently, the major roadblock to peace is the continued “settlement” (i.e. colonization) of Palestinian territory by Israelis. This is largely driven by the notion that certain territories belong to the Jews independent of international law.

Denying Palestinian right of return will not change the fact that many Israelis are ethnically Arab. If national ethnic purity was ever a good idea, it is simply not possible in a globalized world. The only recourses left to a separatist nation are to either subjugate ethnic and religious minorities or expel them.

The desire for ethnic and religious separation is not a product of the nation-state itself, but a geopolitical manifestation of the human tribal instinct. How do we stop that instinct from taking over? Friedman points to quality of life, economic stability, peace and basic tolerance as areas to focus on to achieve this goal.

Pluralism needs common ground as much as it needs diversity. The idealized melting pot of the U.S. is a good model, but racial tensions and ignorance are still present here and everywhere else in the world.

As President Barack Obama has described it, we are working toward “a new order,” one that is entirely novel to our species.

Climate change denialism a chilling indictment of Washington ignorance

The People’s Climate March and United Nations Climate Summit have showcased the global community’s promising commitment to averting total catastrophe. The scientific consensus on human-induced global warming has been overwhelming for some time. But as any evolutionary biologist will tell you, the correlation between scientific consensus and public opinion is unreliable. A 400,000-person march is a good sign that many are aware of the situation’s gravity and are willing to do something about it. Combatting the rise of atmospheric greenhouse gas levels also requires governmental action in addition to citizen involvement. Unfortunately, the United States Congress is populated with a manner of ignoramuses.

Some are bought and paid for, some are merely stupid or cowardly. Together, they espouse climate denialism and their collective lunacy is a serious danger to almost all life on earth.

Science blogger Mark Hoofnagle describes denialism as “the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.”

These tactics range from conspiracy theory––wherein peer review is one big get-rich plot on the part of climatologists––to the straw man argument, where denialists purposefully misrepresent climate science, or use their own misunderstanding to their advantage.

The degree of willful ignorance in the House of Representatives stretches the limits of credulity. In a 2009 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, U.S. Rep. John Shimkus cited Bible verses Genesis 8 and Matthew 24 as evidence against human-influenced climate change. After quoting verses in a manner that one would quote a credible study, he asserted, “I believe that’s the infallible word of God and that’s the way it’s gonna be for his creation.”

The punch line is that Shimkus is now the chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee on Environment and Economy. Denialism is so endemic because it is insulated from any reasonable discourse. Thousands of studies mean nothing to a person who believes issues of environmental policy can be determined by scriptural interpretation.

Then there is campaign finance, the other deity every American politician is expected to worship. So far this year, the total expenditure for oil and gas lobbying is $67 million. This is not new information; avarice is a cliché of modern American politics. It does explain, however, why climate change denial is more prominent than other forms of reactionary pseudoscience like anti-vaccine or evolution denialism.

Greed and ignorance account for the incredible delusion in Congress; climate deniers receive a large stipend for staying in their fantasy realm of liberal egghead conspiracy.

The present atmosphere in Washington is dire and embarrassing, but not hopeless. For those of you going into science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields, don’t isolate yourself from non-scientists. Make sure others know how to spot charlatanism when they see it. We can only expect to have scientifically competent representatives if voters meet the same standard. Better science education at the primary and secondary level is the obvious answer.

This is only a long-term solution. Working against global climate change is urgent. The tobacco industry waged a similar denialism campaign in the latter half of the 20th century. Despite massive spending, big tobacco has taken a considerable hit while the public has been won over by the evidence. As future researchers, policymakers and citizens, we must do what we can to ensure the cult of climate denial meets the same end. Then our government can join the rest of the world in confronting the menace of climate change instead of ignoring its existence.

Freedom of speech cannot take backseat to political correctness

On Sept. 15, Yale University’s William F. Buckley, Jr. Program hosted a lecture by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a women’s rights activist and a noted critic of Islam. The event ran without incident, giving no suggestion of Ali being the proponent of “hate speech” that the Yale Muslim Students Association accused her of in an email circulated to the entire university. Some 30 other organizations signed the letter as a show of their “concern.” This debacle is yet another example of the outbreak of polite censorship that threatens to erode the foundation of inquiry upon which great American colleges are built.

In April, Brandeis University offered Ali an honorary degree, only to retract it in the face of a whirlwind of indignation on the part of the Brandeis Muslim Student Association and outside interests. This was purportedly due to certain statements brought to the administration’s attention, among them a 2007 interview with the London Evening Standard in which Ali referred to Islam as “a destructive, nihilistic cult of death.”

If they found such statements shocking, Brandeis had no idea who they were planning on giving a degree. Born into a conservative Muslim family in Somalia, Ali was a victim of genital mutilation and later sought asylum in the Netherlands to avoid an arranged marriage. Her attacks on Islam and advocacy for subjugated Muslim women and girls are rarely less than vitriolic. Denunciation of any religion is taboo in American discourse, so the college’s decision is understandable, if spineless.

But the Yale MSA’s effort at grassroots censorship is an entirely different issue. For one independent student organization to attempt to undercut the actions of another because it offends them is shameful and insulting. Such behavior can do real damage if others are willing to indulge it.

Religious Activities chair of the Yale MSA Abrar Omeish was courteous enough to explain the incident in the Yale Daily News. Of course, she begins by clarifying her organization’s commitment to free speech. She then echoes the feigned shock and condescension at the root of the Brandeis fiasco, saying, “We were surprised to see that a group of our fellow Yalies would invite a speaker so well-known for her hate speech and assumed that they must not have been aware of the extent of her intolerance.”

This is a frightening sort of doublethink: Omeish extols “free speech” and proceeds to select what is and what is not free speech. Obviously Ali’s statements are deeply hurtful to many Muslims. She condemns a faith that is a major part of their personal identity. But that does not make it hate speech. Disparaging an ideology is not the same as disparaging the people who hold that ideology.

A similar culture of self-righteousness has extended to Geneseo. Upperclassmen will remember how professor of philosophy Theodore Everett was essentially burned in effigy following the announcement of a philosophy colloquium criticizing sexual assault awareness talking points. He was accused of bigotry and victim-blaming before the colloquium even took place. Students who had never heard of him called for him to be fired, all for having the audacity to take a critical lens to a painful subject.

Universities’ endless declarations of their commitment to intellectual freedom are useless and vapid if they are unwilling to defend it. Administrations and students must decide if fostering productive dialogue is more important than making sure nobody’s feelings get hurt.

The chronic greed of medicine

Throughout the media frenzy surrounding the spread of Ebola virus in West Africa, some expert always reminds us that Americans need not worry; none of us will die of Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever. Because of that, we fundamentally do not care. Cancer kills us. Heart disease kills us. These are the diseases that take our loved ones and elicit our donations. I think instead—and it is not an unfair assumption—that the goal of researching and treating deadly diseases should be to save as many lives as possible. Ebola serves as a reminder of the reality of disease outside our sterile bubble.

The World Health Organization reported 4,350 cases of EHF and 2,226 resulting deaths as of Sept. 7. Their current models predict that the outbreak will last nine months, with 20,000 cases by that time. These estimates are conservative. Models by some American epidemiologists suggest that the crisis could last twice as long and be many times more severe.

Such a major outbreak, however, only accounts for a small proportion of worldwide deaths from communicable diseases. According to WHO estimates, nearly 10 million people died of infectious conditions in 2012. The vast majority of these were in the poorest nations in the world.

I will not pontificate on the need to solve world poverty. The fact is that countries most susceptible to infectious disease are also least equipped to contain and treat such diseases.

It is no coincidence that the only two infected Americans both survived a condition for which the mortality rate is over 50 percent. They had access to the best possible care at Emory University Hospital. To compare, director of the infectious disease unit at Emory University Hospital Bruce Ridner said that hospitals in West Africa lack the basic equipment to do necessary blood and electrolyte counts.

The disparity in medical infrastructure is mirrored in medical research. Worldwide spending on cancer research from 2004-2005 was over $18 billion. Oncology is a massive industry. Funding drives, awareness campaigns and various walks to “end cancer” are ubiquitous. I am not suggesting that non-communicable diseases like cancer are undeserving of attention or funding, but not of such a grossly disproportionate amount.

Chronic conditions are more profitable. Be it heart disease or erectile dysfunction, these maladies often require treatment for a person’s entire life. Vaccines and antibiotics are not profitable, especially when distributed to people who cannot pay for them—that is, those who need them most.

It is worth noting that Ebola––for all the panic and death it has caused––is tame compared to many other viruses, since the current strain only transmits by close contact. It will not spread to the United States. Due to the absence of new antibiotics and proper infrastructure in developing nations, however, drug-resistant varieties of historical killers like tuberculosis may pose as a real threat.

The HIV/AIDS crisis stands in evidence of this threat––and how quickly we forget about it when an epidemic is not raging on our soil. If global empathy is insufficient, self-interest should motivate us to look beyond ice bucket challenges and celebrity-promoted 5Ks. We need to focus on the sinister microbes that cause millions of annual deaths; the ones that have the potential to give rise to a pandemic that would make Ebola seem insignificant.

Going beyond "learning to think"

Belief is stronger than fact. According to Yale Law School professor Dan Kahan, we are all hardwired to be sectarian and close-minded. The main thrust of his work is in motivated reasoning, which he defines as, “the unconscious tendency of individuals to process information in a manner that suits some end or goal extrinsic to the formation of accurate beliefs.” Another one of his recent studies suggests that political bias has a negative effect on mathematical cognition. Subjects given politically charged data were less able to analyze it than subjects given the exact same data without political connotations.

Geneseo students, however, must be above such irrationality; we’re raised above the primordial ooze of ignorance to the ivory heights of objectivity. Right? Not according to Kahan’s research.

The most disheartening result from this study showed that the greater the individual’s mathematical capability, the more it was inhibited by their bias. Intelligence alone does not confer rationality.

If this is so, then Geneseo cannot expect to produce “socially responsible citizens” just by giving them knowledge. The much-maligned liberal arts education—intended to teach students how to think—presents a wonderful opportunity to replace motivated reasoning with the rationality to which we aspire.

According to Kahan’s findings on objectivity, just telling someone to be unbiased does not help. In fact, giving someone cues to be open-minded tends to make them less so. “Individuals naturally assume that beliefs they share with others in their defining group are ‘objective,’” Kahan said.

This is readily apparent in the sciences. The debate of evolution versus creationism is supposed to be the classic example of evidence against rationalized belief. Many evolutionary biologists, however, are as firmly entrenched in their respective paradigms as creationists.

They have all the facts on their side but invite opposition by ferociously clinging to their own interpretation of evolution. Both sides justifiably view the other as biased, but cannot see the same bias in themselves.

Only a generation of thinkers who are truly objective can positively affect the world outside of their own like-minded sphere, but it seems that impartial cognition requires hard training. Geneseo and all institutions of higher education must make fostering critical and impartial learning a priority.

This is why the liberal arts doctrine of “learning to think” is so important, but it cannot be limited to learning the basics of philosophy in Humanities. It cannot be limited to mere “tolerance” or “acceptance” of differing viewpoints.

Productive discourse is not built upon agreeing to disagree; no idea should be safe from criticism by others or the person who holds it. It is too easy for professors to pass on their biases to students in the guise of impartiality without either party realizing it.

To embrace the uncomfortable and constantly reshape our thinking as we take in new information must be a personal choice. The drive to question everything––especially one’s own beliefs––must permeate every aspect of collegiate education.

If not, a university risks producing brilliant physicists, historians, philosophers and citizens who are extremely skilled at keeping their heads in the sand.