Notebook

'BAD NEWS': APS’s Robert Park believes there is still time to salvage greater science funding from Congress. WORTH FIGHTING FOR: Mary Woolley of Research!America points to surveys indicating the popularity of biomedical research. Science observers were not cheered by the balanced-budget agreement forged by the White House and Congress last month, but they're preaching optimism nonetheless. As of press time, the House and Senate still needed to iron out some minor differences, but it appears that federal spending on science will fall by 7 percent by 2002, the target date for a balanced budget. A proposal by Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.) to increase science funding by 5 percent a year without tax cuts fell in the House by a vote of 339 to 91. "The agreement is bad news for science," wrote Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland and the American Physical Society's director of public relations, in his online newsletter "What's New" (May 23). Park compared the budget resolution to New Year's resolutions, commenting that the budget plan "sets broad goals, but does not have the force of law. We should view the budget agreement as a reminder that the scientific community still has a lot of persuading to do-and not a lot of time." Mary Woolley, president of the Alexandria, Va.-based advocacy group Research!America, agrees: "I don't think it's over yet. We know there are leaders in both the Senate and the House who are fighting hard for doubling the [National Institutes of Health's] budget by 2002, for example. . . . There is a sense of 'we can all give up too early here,' which I would encourage people not to do, especially since [Research!America polls show] the citizenry does not want medical research funding cut as a way to balance the budget." Negotiations revolving around the Senate's approval of a budget resolution in late May included a 98-0 vote to support a call by Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to double National Institutes of Health funding over the next five years. However, the measure is simply a "sense of the Senate" resolution and is not binding. The Senate also voted 63-37 to table a proposal by Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) to reduce agency administrative accounts and use the $1 billion savings to increase NIH funding in fiscal year 1998 by 7.5 percent. "Neither result was unexpected," comments David B. Moore, associate vice president for governmental relations at the Association of American Medical Colleges. He explains that the Mack-Feinstein vote reflects support of a politically popular position that "doesn't cost anything," while the second is "evidence of how difficult it is to shift money around and how tight of a budget situation that Congress is facing this year." Meanwhile, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) reportedly has been meeting with scientific society heads to build bipartisan support for his National Research Reinvestment Act, which would double spending on basic science in 10 years. TRAILBLAZER: Nobel laureate Alfred Hershey used bacteria viruses to help uncover the role of DNA in heredity. Nobel laureate Alfred D. Hershey, who helped revolutionize molecular biology with a Waring blender, died on May 22 at age 88. Hershey shared the 1969 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine with Max Delbrck and Salvador Luria, two longtime collaborators. The three collectively were known as the "phage group" because of their pioneering work with bacteriophages, viruses that infect bacteria. In the 1940s, they determined that the bacteriophage was a model organism for exploring the molecular basis of biology, especially cellular reproduction and heredity. In experiments at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in 1952, Hershey and assistant Martha Chase radioactively labeled viral DNA and viral protein and subsequently infected E. coli bacteria, spinning the solution in a blender. They found that the phage DNA was integrated into E. coli cells, showing that it was DNA-and not protein, as some scientists previously thought-that carries genetic information for infection, growth, and development. "The work supported the role of DNA [as opposed to a protein] and in a way helped stimulate [James] Watson and [Francis] Crick to go on to reveal its structure," notes Norton Zinder, a professor of molecular genetics at Rockefeller University. "Al was one of the most careful and clear-thinking scientists I ever knew. He had a powerful intellect and the ability to focus on a problem and keep the world away." As Congress reconvenes for its summer session, House sponsors of the HIV Prevention Act of 1997 are gathering support. The act, introduced earlier this year by physician-politician Tom A. Coburn (R-Okla.), proposes a number of measures that supporters say will "curtail the spread of HIV." One controversial provision calls for a confidential registry of all new HIV cases-including demographic and personal information such as age, sex, race or ethnic group, and transmis- sion or risk category. The Chicago-based American Medical As- sociation (AMA) strongly supports the act; in a letter to Coburn, AMA executive vice president P. John Seward contended the "legi- slation would refocus public health efforts on HIV prevention." But opponents disagree. Jocelyn White, president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association (GLMA) in San Francisco, and Ken Mayer, a GLMA board member, wrote to Seward in late April expressing profound dismay with AMA and the act's provisions. GLMA questions how a registry of all HIV-positive people will help prevent the spread of AIDS, among other concerns. "HIV surveillance is not HIV preven- tion," says Marj Plumb, GLMA's public policy director. "No research has shown that what Coburn's purporting is effective prevention." She acknowledges that epidemiologists may need some kind of database for research, "but don't call it HIV prevention." The bill has close to 100 sponsors so far, reports Roland Foster, a senior legislative assistant in Coburn's office. Three Democrats as well as 96 Republicans expressed support for the act as of press time. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) has introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Images of the devastating April floods that wreaked havoc with homes and businesses in North Dakota are still fresh in many minds. The damaging waters affected the personal and professional lives of millions, including many scientific resear- chers and students. The University of North Dakota in Grand Forks estimates its losses at approximately $50 million, and Willis K. Samson, chairman of the physiology department in North Dakota's School of Medicine and Health Sciences, is seeking financial assistance and equipment donations from the scientific community to help re-establish his department. Among the worst destruction experienced there is the total loss of the teaching laboratory, which was completely inundated by flood waters and raw sewage. "We're limping forward," Samson remarks. The Bethesda, Md.-based American Physiological Society is presenting the department's plight to its executive council to see whether the society can make any contributions, says executive director Martin Frank. In the meantime, the society has posted information on its Web page (http://www.faseb.org/aps) and is distributing a flier in its June newsletter describing the situation in North Dakota. For more information on how to help, contact W.K. Samson at the Department of Physiology, University of North Dakota School of Medicine, 501 N. Columbia Rd., Grand Forks, N.D. 58201; (701) 777-3974. Fax: (701) 777-4490. E-mail: wsamson@mail.med.und.nodak.edu World Wide Web: http://www.med.und.nodak.edu TEAMING UP: Roger McClellan of CIIT says scientific credibility won't be sacrificed by his institute's new partnership with the Chemical Manufacturers Association. Seeking a wider funding base for its research into health and ecology issues related to the chemical industry, the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (CIIT) of Research Triangle Park, N.C., has announced plans to partner with the Arlington, Va.-based Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), the industry's lobbying group. Officials at CIIT-whose 1996 budget of $17.5 million was provided largely by its 36 member companies-say that the added support of CMA's 180 member companies will help the institute's research activities to expand. CIIT president Roger O. McClellan feels the move will "provide us an improved base of stability. I would hope over time it provides the opportunity to demonstrate the value of the research being conducted at CIIT to a broader group of chemical companies." At the same time, he maintains that retaining scientific independence was uppermost in CIIT officials' minds: "There's no change in terms of our corporate bylaws and guidelines, which continue to vest the responsibility for the specific research projects, the specific chemical study, the specific methodology used, the analysis of the results and their publication, with the scientific staff at CIIT." McClellan notes that all CIIT research is published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that the institute "will continue to have a very strong and independent scientific advisory committee." The National Cancer Institute (NCI), hoping to increase its pool of young researchers, is offering 10 new scientists the opportunity to become principal investigators. In the NCI Scholars Program, launched last month, new investigators will vie for six-year awards. The awardees will receive $600,000 over four years while at NCI, to be followed by $125,000 for each of the next two years so they can return to academia armed with research support. The grant will "allow them to try out new, risky, and novel ideas," explains Vincent J. Cairoli, chief of NCI's cancer training branch and one of the program developers. While the National Institutes of Health already has several programs for new investigators through its extramural grant system (S. Benowitz, The Scientist, May 26, 1997, page 13), Cairoli points out, "there's no existing NIH [intramural] mechanism for a career transition award such as this." Scientists who submit applications and research proposals must pass through several layers of peer review. Cairoli sees the Scholars Program as a "win-win-win" situation: "NCI gets an opportunity to recruit young investigators with a high potential for new ideas and who can help stimulate intramural research. Researchers get funding for six years, and institutions get scientists who already have support for at least two." But, he says, because such an intramural program has never been attempted before, "NIH considers this an experimental program." Other institutes have plans for similar programs, which are in various stages of development. For a paltry $33 trillion, you too can purchase all of the planet's ecosystem services. So says an international team of 13 researchers (R. Costanza et al., Nature, 387:253-60, 1997), who put Earth's annual worth between $16 billion and $54 trillion; $33 trillion is their best guess. If you're interested, you'd better start counting your pennies: The combined gross national product of all the globe's countries is only around $18 trillion. Not everyone thinks such studies are a good idea. A New Scientist editorial (May 17, page 3), contending that they come in response to bottom-line-oriented politicians, sniffs: "Nature, like liberty, is beyond price."

Notebook

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of