Space Stem Cells Science

8/3/2019 Space Stem Cells Science

1/9

Space, Stem Cells, and Science Policy:

A New Paradigm for Politics-Free Science

Jason ChenFebruary 07, 2008

ENV146S


2/9

I. The Pitfalls of Federal Funding

When Vannevar Bush proposed his National Research Foundation in Science - The Endless

Frontier, he envisioned complete independence and freedom for the nature, scope, and

methodology of research carried on in the institutions receiving public funds.1 This idea faced

fierce political opposition. Truman vetoed the NRF because of the lack of political influence the

president would hold. Senators such as Harley Kilgore (D-WV) also argued for government control

of federal research support.2 Although Bush symbolically defeated Kilgore with the acceptance of

Science five decades ago, the federal government still has not fully adopted his ideas. Today,

federal funding of science is largely a political, rather than a scientific, process. Most research is

funded indirectly through government authorizing and appropriation committees formed by

legislators, not scientists. Politicians often bypass the peer-review process to divert funds through

earmarks, commonly known as "pork-barrel spending." More frighteningly, major scientific efforts

often go unfunded due to partisan political posturing. Through the FY 2008 Omnibus

Appropriations Bill, Congress cut funding to Republican priorities, including high-energy physics

programs and participation in ITER, in order to defy the Presidents stated goals. These cuts were so

drastic that a spokesman for the American Physical Society predicts it probably wipes out

American high-energy physics.3 Bush recognized that inherent differences between science and the

state prevent the federal government from a more scientific approach to funding, and thus advised

on a mechanism to separate the two a separation that has not been achieved.

Historical precedents indicate that state control of science can have long-term negative

consequences. Prewar scientists have traditionally been suspicious of government funding, instead

appealing to wealthy patrons for money.4Indeed, government power over science has often had

1 Vannevar Bush, Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush (United States GovermentPrinting Office, 1945 [cited February 01 2008]); available from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm.2 Bruce L.R. Smith,American Science Policy since World War I I(Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1990).3 Eric Hand, "Budget Blow to U.S. Science,"Nature 451 (2007).4 Smith,American Science Policy since World War I I.

2


3/9

tragic consequences. In the Soviet Union and Maoist China, Trofim Lysenko introduced a

"proletarian," non-Mendelian biology known as Lysenkoism. As a result, the Communist regimes

disavowed real biologists and adopted unscientific agricultural dogmas. Soviet biology lagged

behind Western biology for decades; even worse, in China, the use of Lysenko's policies

contributed to the catastrophic Great Leap Forward, where millions died of famine. 5 Even in the

United States, government has tried to stifle science with political means. A February 2004 report

by the Union of Concerned Scientists concluded that the current Administration has systematically

suppressed and distorted federal research in order to advance a political agenda.6 Additionally, the

report claims that presidential appointees to scientific advisory committees are often subjected to

political "litmus tests" for ostensibly scientific positions. Clearly, political influence can undermine

the integrity of the scientific process, often with far-reaching consequences.

Two of the most pressing scientific issues of today, space exploration & research and stem

cell research, have also come under fire by the political system.7 In response, a new funding

paradigm has emerged for these sectors, allowing for substantial non-federal investment in science.

By diversification of funding resources, scientists have accelerated the growth of these fields

beyond what otherwise would have been possible. Furthermore, the future of these promising

technologies is less subject to political intervention from Washington. This new funding model

could potentially provide similar benefits to other disciplines, and more closely echo Bush's

sentiment for politics-free science.

5 Dennis Fred Simon and Merle Goldman, Science and Technology in Post-Mao China,Harvard Contemporary ChinaSeries (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989).6 Seth Shulman and Kurt Gottfried, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush

Administrations Misuse of Science (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004 [cited February 01 2008]); available fromhttp://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/reports-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html.7 Frank Gottron, "Science and Technology Policy: Issues for the 109th Congress (R L 32837)," ed. CongressionalResearch Service (2006).

3


4/9

II. Space

Space exploration and research is the first of these issues. Half a century separates us from

the Sputnik launch that awakened America to the need for scientific development, and space has

begun to fade from national priorities. Many people now view space exploration as a pointless

endeavor, wasting billions of dollars a year only to satisfy the curiosity of scientists. Indeed, 55% of

respondents to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll in 2004 indicated that they preferred NASA funding

to go towards domestic programs instead; 48% opposed the Moon/Mars space program.8Scientists,

however, realize the potential of space exploration to open new opportunities for humanity. Stephen

Hawking believes space exploration and the eventual colonization of space is critical for

humanitys survival.9Even the President has recognized that preparing for exploration and

research accelerates the development of technologies that are important to the economy and national

security.10 Establishing a launchpad on the Moon would allow substantial savings in the future of

space exploration - escaping Earths gravity well would be a much less daunting task. 11 A

privately-funded space program could ultimately result in low-cost access to the solar system,

heightened understanding of the universe, and cutting-edge technologies - advancements that could

have a drastic effect on the future.

This understanding gap between laypeople and scientists in space exploration is indicative

of a deep-running misunderstanding of space science. In a 2001 scientific literacy study, only 33%

of adults surveyed correctly identified the Big Bang as the beginning of the universe. Only 75%

recognized that the Earth travels around the Sun; only 54% correctly answered that it takes a year

for the Earth to go around the Sun.12 With such an inadequate understanding of science among the

8 Will Lester,Poll Shows Tepid Support for Space Research (MSNBC.com, 2004 [cited February 01 2008]); availablefrom http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3940410/.9Archon X Prize (X Prize Foundation, 2008 [cited February 01 2008]); available from http://genomics.xprize.org/.10 George W. Bush, "The Vision for Space Exploration," ed. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2004).11 John Marburger, Speech by O S T P Director John Marburger to the 44th Robert H. Goddard Memorial Symposium(2006 [cited February 01 2008]); available from http://www.moontoday.net/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999.12 "Appendix Table 7-10," in Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, ed. National Science Foundation (2006).

4


5/9

public, the space science community cannot expect the funding it deserves or the correct

distribution of federal money towards exploration and research endeavors. For example, lawmakers

have attached wording explicitly banning NASA from funding any research, development or

demonstration activity related exclusively to Human Exploration of Mars in the FY 2008

Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill.13 These politicians have usurped the decision-

making ability that Bush envisioned for experts. While not immediately an issue for NASAs

progress, the language illustrates political control by non-scientists of the fundamental workings in

a supposedly scientific organization.

A groundbreaking funding paradigm has emerged from the deep controversy of continuing

the space program. In 1996, Peter Diamandis proposed the X Prize, designed to stimulate private-

sector spaceflight. In its final incarnation, the X Prize offered a $10 million incentive for the first

spacecraft that could reliably fly into space. With improvements in space technology, low-cost

spacecraft could fly resources to the Moon and beyond. Space tourists, following in the footsteps of

Dennis Tito, could fund these missions and ultimately the scientific endeavors behind them. In

2004, following two successful spaceflights, Burt Rutan's Tier One team won the prize with their

innovative SpaceShipOne vehicle. Although the prize was $10 million, an estimated 10-fold return

was invested by the competing teams, with an even larger return in follow-up investment and social

benefits.14 SpaceShipOne has opened the door for low-cost commercial exploration of space, which

may be a springboard for future journeys into the solar system. Academia and industry will have a

reason to begin space research, accompanying NASAs efforts into the final frontier.

The success of the X Prize has inspired similar concepts for space and other research fields.

The Archon X Prize, Automotive X Prize, and Lunar X Prize have attempted to duplicate this idea

in other fields. Even government agencies have replicated the X Prize model: NASA has created a

13 Alan B. Mollohan, Subcommittee Passes Fy08 Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Bill(2007 [citedFebruary 01 2008]); available from http://appropriations.house.gov/pdf/Mollohan%20SubC%202008.pdf.14 Kaspar Mossman, "Sciam 50: Policy Leader of the Year (X Prize Foundation)," Scientific American 2007.

5


6/9

"Centennial Challenges" program to stimulate non-government funded research in space science.

III. Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Embryonic cells hold vast therapeutical promise for many of todays diseases, including

cancer, diabetes, and Parkinsons disease. The undifferentiated cells can theoretically mature into

any cell type in the human body, thus providing a source of tissue for disease treatment.

Additionally, these stem cells could prove invaluable in basic and clinical research, where their

unique properties could be exploited to study human development and diseases. However, ethical

and religious disputes surround the use of embryonic stem cells. Federal funding for such

controversial research is thus mired in political debate. In the meantime, many American-trained

scientists leave for less restrictive labs in foreign nations, and European and Asian researchers have

taken the lead in many emerging stem cell technologies.15

Several legal obstacles exist for funding embryonic stem cell research. From FY 1997 to FY

2006, the Dickey Amendment has been attached to every Health and Human Services

appropriations act. This rider stipulates that HHS cannot use federal funds to create human embryos

for research purposes or destroy any embryos for research, something that is crucial to stem cell

research.16 However, in 1999, HHS discovered a loophole in the law federal funding could

continue if the embryos were destroyed with private funds.17 In 2001, President Bush declared that

stem cell research would be federally funded, but restricted the funding to existing stem cell lines.

However, these stem cell lines are severely limited and suffer from quality issues, setting back stem

cell research significantly. Of the more than sixty lines that Bush spoke of in 2001, less than

15 Dennis Normile and Charles C. Mann, "Asia Jockeys for Stem Cell Lead," Science 307, no. 5710 (2005).16 Judith A. Johnson and Erin D. Williams, "Stem Cell Research: Federal Funding and Oversight (R L 33540)," ed.Congressional Research Service (2007).17Chapter Two: Current Federal Law and Policy (2004 [cited February 01 2008]); available fromhttp://www.bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/chapter2.html.

6


7/9

twelve are available for research.18 In 2005, Congress passed H.R. 810, which would effectively

reverse this situation. However, the House was unable to override the Presidents veto, and the

status quo remains unchanged.19

In response to these crippling restrictions on embryonic stem cell research, several states

have created their own research funding. The most prominent example is the California Institute for

Regenerative Medicine (CIRM). In 2004, California voters approved Proposition 71 with bipartisan

support. The new act codified embryonic stem cell research as a state constitutional right,

established CIRM, and authorized $3 billion in funding over a 10 year period by selling general

obligation bonds.20 CIRM is governed by the Independent Citizens Oversight Committee (ICOC), a

panel of university representatives, leading researchers, and industry representatives appointed by

the state. In essence, the state of California has begun its own funding of basic and applied research

in universities and industries, taking a role traditionally assumed by the federal government. And

while ICOC is not completely free of government influence, it is much closer to Bushs vision of

disinterested scientists than appropriations committees and earmarks.

Other states have begun to develop embryonic stem cell funding as well. Ohio established

the Center for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine in 2003, with $19.5 million in funding.

Wisconsin created the Wisconsin Institute of Discovery, and provided almost $1 billion in funding.

Connecticut passed legislation pledging $100 million to research over 10 years. Other states are

attempting to push through funding for embryonic stem cell research.21

State support could represent a new paradigm in research funding. By decentralizing the

funding sources for research in the United States, industries and universities may look forward to

18 Ibid.19 Shulman and Gottfried, Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administrations Misuseof Science.20Proposition 71 Official Title and Summary (California Attorney General's Office, 2004 [cited February 01 2008]);available from http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_71_entire.pdf.21 Judith A. Johnson and Erin D. Williams, "Stem Cell Research: State Initiatives (R L 33524)," ed. CongressionalResearch Service (2006).

7


8/9

less politicized control of research funds. Additionally, the diversification of funding sources from

both the state and the federal level can ensure the stability of funds over a period of years so that

long-range programs may be undertaken, one of Bushs Five Fundamentals.22

IV. The Future of Funding

Vannevar Bush believed (perhaps idealistically) that basic research could be funded by a

panel of scientists, away from the political involvement of the president and the legislature. Today's

funding mechanism strays from Bush's ideal, and politicians in Washington oppose handing a

"blank check" to scientists. This problem is apparent in space exploration and stem cell research,

where public controversy has overridden scientific needs in policy decisions. New funding

paradigms bring hope, however. Space is fast becoming a part of the private sector, with private

money financing part of the push to space. Stem cell research has found new life in California and

other states due to state funding. While industry and state funding will also have strings attached, a

diversified funding source will stimulate research with less bureaucracy, less political bias, and less

threat of censorship. Science could continue without a lessened threat of public and government

intervention, as Vannevar Bush originally intended. If these trends continue, American science may

find itself better equipped to explore the endless frontier.

22 Bush, Science the Endless Frontier: A Report to the President by Vannevar Bush.

8


9/9

Bibliography

9

Documents

Space Stem Cells Science