In the November 18 issue of Science, Robert Service reports on the truly amazing possibilities in treating cancer with nanotechnology. How’s this for cool: gold-covered nanoparticles that attach to cancer cells and then heat up to more than 40C, cooking the cancer cells to death! Stay tuned for the remake of the Incredible Journey… The article concludes with a brief discussion on the toxicity of nanoparticles, stating, “environmental health and safety agencies around the world continue to grapple with how best to regulate these novel materials.” Despite the promise of nanotech (indeed, it’s already being used in some products), research and development should proceed with one eye on potential benefits, and the other eye on possible harms. We should avoid moving so quickly that we find ourselves with the nanotech equivalent of asbestos, MTBE (methyl tertiary-butyl ether… a gasoline additive now being phased out due to contamination in of groundwater and uncertainty regarding its health effects in large doses), or even worse, the dreaded ‘grey goo’.

However, before any health or environmental agency can regulate nanotechnology, agencies need information about the risks of nanotech. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of total R&D focuses on identifying such risks. Today, however, the NY Times reports, “the much smaller field that investigates the technology’s possible risks is also growing”. The Times continues: “The most comprehensive effort yet to provide such a research database is to go online today at nanotechproject.org… The database, which includes just over 200 research programs, also has a small number of projects financed by the European Union, Germany, Britain, Canada and Taiwan, as well as some work that has been paid for by the private sector.” I encourage you to visit the site, sponsored by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

In addition to the database, the Project’s Director, David Rejeski, recently testified before the House Science Committee. He identified four challenges regarding nanotech safety research needs: more transparency and disclosure of government research; the need for the Fed to address public perception of nanotech risks; perform a thorough analysis of regulatory and oversight institutions in order to assess their ability to address future safety issues; and the need to prepare for the unexpected.

I applaud the Project’s work and I view this as an important step in gathering and collating the necessary information to ensure public safety. While Rejeski rightly drives home the importance of transparency and legitimacy in research needs (a point which cannot be overstated), he missed one important factor concerning the production of useful research. For the scientific research to be useful, it also needs to be relevant. Does the nanotech safety research community know what kind of information policy makers may need? Are the researchers assessing the safety of nanotech at different scales and quantities? Do researchers take into account the political constraints and realities of policy making, that is, the more rapid pace of political decision-making, the need to make decisions under uncertainty, and the shorter strategic planning horizon characteristic of U.S. politics? More importantly, are researchers, regulators, industry, and other concerned stakeholders communicating about what research is available, needed, and useful?

While this point may seem obvious, research on the production of ‘useful’ information for a variety of environmental and health policy issues indicate that science and policy are often disconnected from each other. Scientists produce information that may not be relevant to policy makers, and in turn, policy makers’ information needs go unmet or they may be unaware of existing information. Nanotechnology safety research needs to be relevant, transparent, and intentional. While the promise of nanotechnology is exciting, uncertainties regarding its health and safety effects are too great to for ‘business as usual’ in the production of policy-relevant information. Time to bring scientists, stakeholders, policy makers, and industry together to develop a plan for the production of useful scientific information.

Before this report becomes another dividing line between ‘Bush bashers’ and ‘Bush defenders’, we need to take a close look at what kind of leadership is necessary to run an emergency agency and whether political patronage has a place in such agencies. My answer is that both experienced emergency responders and political appointees are necessary, but ideally, those top leaders should be both.

First question: does emergency response require ‘different’ leadership skills than, say, leadership of other departments such as USDA, HUD, EPA, etc.? I argue yes. A large component of effective leadership (some may say all) is making good decisions. A lot of decision making at agencies occurs in the framework of formal processes: identify the problem, gather information, allow for public comment, explore options, make decision, etc. Obviously the process is not perfect, linear or surgical as some who read this will be quick to note. My point, however, is that there tends to be an unfolding of the decision process that is radically different from the decision making process, hence leadership, required in emergency and emergency response situations, particularly on a temporal scale. Decision making process become truncated, intelligence may be incomplete, and multiple problems demand solutions almost simultaneously. The importance of situational leadership (well articulate by Hershey) and the leaders’ ability to make decisions given the requirements of the particular emergency context cannot be overstated. Effective leadership in ‘crisis’ situations often requires years of training and experience to hone those qualities that separate capable leaders from those who are out of their league.

Second question: does political patronage have a place in emergency response agencies? Yes, it does. The Washington Post quotes Richard A. Andrews, former emergency services director for the state of California and a member of the president’s Homeland Security Advisory Council says, “You need people in there who have both experience and the confidence of the president, who are able to fight and articulate what FEMA’s mission and role is, and who understand how emergency management works.” Political leadership and influence inside the Beltway is obviously important. Also, political appointments are as much a part of Washington as summer humidity and the practice won’t be going away anytime soon.

Third: Must the President choose between one who is an experienced emergency response leader and one who possesses those leadership skills necessary to succeed inside the Beltway? Absolutely not, nor should he. Political connection and emergency response leadership are not mutually exclusive qualities. James Witt, former FEMA director, embodies those qualities. The emergency response community has a talented pool of people from across the country from which to select such people. But with President Bush’s appointments to FEMA (at least the five mentioned in the Post article), he clearly placed the value of political patronage over the operational requirements of an agency that requires leadership skills that most managers and bureaucrats just don’t have. In the aftermath of Katrina, President Bush has an opportunity to make changes in FEMA’s leadership cadre, and indeed he should.

So what does this have to do with science policy? Researchers, practitioners, and private training companies are familiar with the unique qualities required of an emergency response leader. Why then did President Bush forego appointing more qualified people to FEMA in lieu of political patronage? Is this a problem of the ‘right’ scientific information not getting to the right people, e.g. President Bush and his staff? And if it is, how do we as researchers ensure that we get the right information about important leadership qualities to the right people in the future?

Since the moratorium on commercial whaling was established in 1986, countries have been allowed to “kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research” according to guidelines that are established by each member nation. For example, the current 2004 permit for Japan allows for “220 common minke whales, 50 Bryde’s whales, 100 sei and 10 sperm whales” to be killed in the name of scientific research. This is in addition to another research program in which “it takes 440 minke whales from the southern ocean each year”. Japan is now proposing to introduce a new research plan that would boost the minke harvest up to 935, and fin whales and humpbacks up to 50 in Antarctic waters.

Again, according to the BBC News, 63 scientists working with the IWC condemned Japan’s proposal for two reasons. First, results from the first 18 years of research have not yet been evaluated. Second, with the new proposal, Japan’s catch would approach commercial levels that were in place before the 1986 moratorium was established. Still other critics are calling for non-lethal methods of research.

But this isn’t about scientific research done in the name of resource management.

When was the last time we’ve read about the killing of African Elephants, Bald Eagles, Bluefin Tuna or California Condors in the name of enhancing our scientific knowledge of that species’ management? While having the entire animal available for research could certainly be scientifically useful, it begs the question, what N is the optimal size for conducting valid research?

Let’s face it, Japan’s scientific whaling program is a clever way of utilizing the IWC’s own bureaucratic framework to legitimize the commercial harvest of whales that supports a lucrative whale-meat industry back home (Whale Burgers). Indeed, the BBC reports that Japan has undertaken a promotional program celebrating whale meat.

So let’s take science out of the debate and assume for a moment that substantive whale research can still be undertaken using non-lethal means, and by utilizing the occasional whale carcass that washes ashore. Indeed, a resolution proposed by Australia that asked Japan to switch to non-lethal research passed in the IWC by a slim margin. Instead we should focus on what this debate is really about: politics, economics, gastronomy and values. Keep your eye on this ‘scientific’ debate as Japan recruits more Lesser Developed Countries and small island states to join the IWC, and ostensibly, support increased whale harvests in the name of scientific research.

First, the SCRF plays fast and loose with the purpose of basic research, which is essentially curiosity-driven and free from consideration of use, with solutions, cures and remedies. While they get the notion of basic research right: “We can’t know what lies ahead and we must be realistic!” they unfortunately slip into sales-pitch-mode with allusions of future cures for stroke, heart disease “and for a huge array of other diseases and conditions”. Furthermore, they say, “…the only problem with stem cell therapy is that it isn’t progressing fast enough!” Aha! So if I donate money to support innovative basic research then stem cell therapies will be developed sooner. The problem is that there is no guaranteed connection between the basic research the foundation supports, and any future pay-off. And according to my layperson’s eye, most of the current research seems to be basic in nature. (I’m open to correction if I’ve read it wrong). But as the science community knows all too well, at least as far as Federal funding is concerned (see this posting), in order to compete for limited resources and get funded, promises of future pay-offs and benefits have to be made. Has the SCRF learned to play the game, and if so, is this even a game that is appropriate to play?

Second, the letter has a rather distasteful overtone that reminds one of snake-oil salesmanship. Note the following sentences which are obviously geared toward vulnerable populations: “Imagine the hope this research would bring to the cancer patient who wants to see a favorite grandchild graduate – the stroke sufferer who would give anything to hold someone’s hand – the burn victim desperately in need of new skin cells”, and even worse: “If you know someone suffering from a disease who feels life is leaking away along with all hope of aid, I urge you to pass on this exciting news to bolster their flagging spirits”. Step right up, Grandma. I know you’re on a fixed income and time is running out, but could you spare $50 to support some basic research?

Sure, a lot of 501(c)3 organizations use similar rhetoric in their appeals for donations, but there is a big difference between what the SCRF seems to be asking for (support for mostly basic research and – fingers crossed – cures to nasty diseases in the future) and other organizations that have deliverables. For example, while donations to the American Heart Association support research, it also supports public education (diet, exercise, etc.), training (e.g. CPR), and support for treatment. The SCRF could improve its image (at least in my mind) if it were to be more honest and forthright about its mission and the intrinsic value of basic research and not make any allusions to future pay-offs they can’t guarantee.

So what? The folks over at the American Journal of Bioethics recently discussed the problem on their blog of what they call the “get it now or else” call from supporters of stem cell research. The editors highlight a recent opinion piece written by UC Irvine professor, Peter Bryant, who makes a claim that unless the administration lifts its restrictions of funding for federal stem cell research, “those treatments [e.g. limb regeneration and repair of spinal cord injuries] may never be available to the maimed veterans in VA hospitals”. The AJB writers point to the downside of the “get it now ore else thing” which “just makes it easier for the opponents of stem cell research to paint stem cell researches as over-eager salesmen of therapeutic misconception.”

At what point does society draw the line in this sort of marketing? Should it? The FDA has the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications that regulates advertising and claims made by drug manufacturers. Is there a role for such an organization in the world of stem-cell research? Not likely, but stem cell supporters and researchers may hurt their interests in the long term if the public begins to view them in the short term as just another special interest group that makes over zealous claims of cures and therapies.