View Reference Research Articles

Climate policy. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values.

Climate policy. Mapmakers and navigators, facts and values.

Carbon markets: Effective policy?—Response

Cullenward and Wara raise two main issues: (i) Are carbon markets delivering the reductions they were designed to deliver? (ii) Can we use economic theory to calculate the extent to which carbon markets are reducing emissions? They then highlight two problems—leakage and offsets—that suggest carbon markets are not performing as designed. Emission targets and programs are often designed with some understanding of potential problems. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) was fully aware of the potential for leakage to neighboring regions, and intentionally designed their program to operate with low prices that limit leakage ([ 1 ][1]). California may have believed that it could successfully address leakage, but it also implemented a price floor that largely protects the rest of the program if it occurs ([ 2 ][2]). The European Union placed strict limits on the use of offsets, in turn limiting the potential for their abuse ([ 3 ][3]). Similarly, the Bonn and Marrakech conferences after the Kyoto Protocol largely renegotiated the original targets through limits on credits for carbon sinks, highlighting how even credit provisions that are widely acknowledged to influence environmental effectiveness can be part of an intentional program design ([ 4 ][4]). We believe that although leakage and problematic offsets are never desirable, they are often occurring in a way that was anticipated at the time the program was designed. To answer Cullenward and Wara's second question, we do not think that leakage and offsets negate the mitigation effects of the observed carbon price. We argue that carbon markets—even if flawed—are working and are reducing emissions. Leakage and certain offsets can yield reduction credit where it has not actually occurred in aggregate. Such reductions, however, are in addition to all of the real abatement activities that will occur at a given market price. We can certainly imagine subtleties that caution us from being too precise about our rough calculations, but our review suggests these issues are not problematic. 1. [↵][5]RGGI Emission Leakage Multi-State Staff Working Group, “Potential emissions leakage and the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI): Evaluating market dynamics, monitoring options, and possible mitigation mechanisms” (2007); [www.rggi.org/docs/il\_report\_final\_3\_14_07.pdf][6]. 2. [↵][7]1. H. G. Fell, 2. D. Burtraw, 3. R. D. Morgenstern, 4. K. L. Palmer, 5. L. Preonas , Soft and hard price collars in a cap-and-trade system: A comparative analysis (Resources for the Future Discussion Paper 10-27-REV, 2010). 3. [↵][8]1. D. A. Ellerman, 2. F. J. Convery, 3. C. de Perthius , Pricing Carbon (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2010). 4. [↵][9]1. C. Bohringer , Oxford Rev. Econ. Pol. 19, 451 (2003). [OpenUrl][10][Abstract][11] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #ref-4 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: http://www.rggi.org/docs/il_report_final_3_14_07.pdf [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [9]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [10]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DOxford%2BReview%2Bof%2BEconomic%2BPolicy%26rft.stitle%253DOXF%2BREV%2BECON%2BPOLICY%26rft.aulast%253DBohringer%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%26rft.volume%253D19%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D451%26rft.epage%253D466%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2BKyoto%2BProtocol%253A%2BA%2BReview%2Band%2BPerspectives%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1093%252Foxrep%252F19.3.451%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [11]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToib3hyZXAiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMTkvMy80NTEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyNToiL3NjaS8zNDQvNjE5MS8xNDYwLjMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9

Ecologically scaled perception Coming to Our Senses Perceiving Complexity to Avoid Catastrophes Viki McCabe Oxford University Press, 2014. 285 pp.

Ecologically scaled perception <b>Coming to Our Senses</b> Perceiving Complexity to Avoid Catastrophes <i>Viki McCabe</i> Oxford University Press, 2014. 285 pp.

Talk therapy results speak for themselves

The News Focus story “Talking back to madness” by M. Balter (14 March, p. [1190][1]) highlights the importance of talk therapies as part of mainstream treatment of schizophrenia. Balter focuses largely on one form of psychotherapy, cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), which helps positive, or psychotic, symptoms, but does not benefit other types of symptoms ([ 1 ][2]). Other core features of schizophrenia, such as negative symptoms (social withdrawal, lack of motivation, and flat affect) and cognitive deficits (impairments in attention, memory, and problem-solving abilities) are more common, persist longer, and contribute more to the lifelong disability of schizophrenia. Fortunately, these symptoms also respond to psychotherapies. One meta-analysis showed that negative symptoms respond to social skills training ([ 1 ][2]). Another meta-analysis showed that cognitive remediation therapy improves cognitive functioning (though not other symptoms), especially when combined with psychiatric rehabilitation ([ 2 ][3]). The field may have relied too much, and for too long, on antipsychotic medications as the mainstay in treating schizophrenia. Medications work, but mainly for psychosis, and are limited by side effects. It is encouraging that psychotherapies are receiving more attention. Treatment of this chronic, complex illness must involve multipronged interventions, including medications and effective talking treatments, optimally tailored to the individual patient and phase of illness. 1. [↵][4]1. D. T. Turner, 2. M. van der Gaag, 3. E. Karyotaki, 4. P. Cuijpers , Am. J. Psychiatr. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13081159 (2014). doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13081159 [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6] 2. [↵][7]1. T. Wykes, 2. V. Huddy, 3. C. Cellard, 4. S. R. McGurk, 5. P. Czobor , Am. J. Psychiatr. 168, 472 (2011). [OpenUrl][8][CrossRef][9][PubMed][10][Web of Science][11] [1]: pending:yes [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatr.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.2013.13081159%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13081159&link_type=DOI [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAmerican%2BJournal%2Bof%2BPsychiatry%26rft.stitle%253DAm.%2BJ.%2BPsychiatry%26rft.volume%253D168%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253D472%26rft.epage%253D485%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bmeta-analysis%2Bof%2Bcognitive%2Bremediation%2Bfor%2Bschizophrenia%253A%2Bmethodology%2Band%2Beffect%2Bsizes.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1176%252Fappi.ajp.2010.10060855%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21406461%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10060855&link_type=DOI [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21406461&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F344%2F6188%2F1099.1.atom [11]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000290089000008&link_type=ISI

Scientific Justification for Animal Capture

In the News & Analysis story “Court slams Japan's scientific whaling” (4 April, p. [22][1]), V. Morell recounts the recent judgment of the International Court of Justice that the second Japanese scientific whaling program in the Antarctic (JARPA II) shall cease. This decision has given extra weight to a principle that is already contained in most existing scientific and ethical guidelines for research involving the taking of wild animals: Sample sizes (numbers of animals taken) must be justified in advance in relation to the specific objectives of the research. Wisely, the court did not try to answer the broader question of what constitutes legitimate scientific research, but it faulted the absence of explanation or analysis as to how the specified numbers of whales to be caught would have contributed to the objectives of the JARPA II program. The ruling has implications for Japan's whaling program in the North Pacific (JARPN II). An Expert Panel appointed by the International Whaling Commission to review Japan's whaling in the North Pacific, which targeted up to 100 sei whales, 50 Bryde's whales, 220 minke whales, and 10 sperm whales a year ([ 1 ][2]), also noted the absence of a scientific justification for the number of whales killed in relation to quantifiable research objectives ([ 2 ][3]). While not restricting the freedom of scientific research, the International Court of Justice ruling highlights the importance of careful analysis and clear justification of the study duration and of the sample sizes required to meet research objectives, in advance of any take of wild animals. 1. [↵][4] International Whaling Commission, J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 11 (suppl.), 405 (2010). [OpenUrl][5] 2. [↵][6] Government of Japan, “Revised research plan for cetacean studies in the western North Pacific under Special Permit (JARPN II),” Paper SC/56/O1 presented to IWC Scientific Committee, Sorrento, Italy (2004). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.344.6179.22 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BCetacean%2BRes.%2BManage.%26rft.volume%253D11%26rft.spage%253D405%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text

Supporting the Scientific Diaspora

In their Editorial “Meeting global challenges” (7 February, p. [579][1]), P. A. Sharp and A. I. Leshner urge scientific institutions and funders to adjust to the increasingly global context of research, policy, and applications. In particular, the authors recognize that more opportunities are needed for scientists “to collaborate in international settings and participate in global science projects during their training years.” To advance this aim, we should provide better support for the scientific diaspora—those scientists working outside their native countries. Scientists working abroad, such as myself, often maintain strong personal and professional connections with our home countries. We have linguistic and cultural sensitivities that enable us to serve as bridges and foster trust between cultures and nations ([ 1 ][2]). This can pave the way for long-term relationships. International scientists can be a valuable resource for both U.S. institutions and the countries of origin, especially among developing nations, counterbalancing historic “brain drain” ([ 2 ][3]). In many disciplines, from field biologists to engineers, scientists working abroad are already extensively engaged internationally. The United States has benefited from the global pool of STEM graduate and postdoctoral researchers of foreign origin ([ 3 ][4]). Yet, at the training stage, we fall between the cracks. For instance, grants such as the Fulbright and National Science Foundation International Research Fellowship aim to provide applicants experience in a novel environment, thus explicitly excluding endeavors in applicants' countries of origin. Non-U.S. citizens are severely limited in funding options before the principal investigator stage. These deficiencies should be recognized and compensated with complementary programs that encourage interaction with countries of origin. Strengthening the capacity of diaspora scientists to do what we are uniquely positioned to do would go a long way toward meeting global challenges. 1. [↵][5] 1. N. P. Anand, 2. K. J. Hofman, 3. R. I. Glass , Acad. Med. 84, 525 (2009). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7][PubMed][8][Web of Science][9] 2. [↵][10] 1. D. Kapur, 2. J. McHale , Give Us Your Best and Brightest: The Global Hunt for Talent and Its Impact on the Developing World (Brookings Institution Press, Baltimore, MD, 2005). 3. [↵][11] 1. J. E. Lane, 2. K. Kinser , The US relies heavily on foreign students to support STEM fields and the knowledge economy: Could the foreign talent bubble burst? (2013); [www.rockinst.org/observations/lanej/2013-05-Is\_Bubble\_Bursting.aspx][12]. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1250725 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAcademic%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DAcad.%2BMed.%26rft.issn%253D1040-2446%26rft.aulast%253DAnand%26rft.auinit1%253DN.%2BP.%26rft.volume%253D84%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D525%26rft.epage%253D534%26rft.atitle%253DThe%2Bglobalization%2Bof%2Bhealth%2Bresearch%253A%2Bharnessing%2Bthe%2Bscientific%2Bdiaspora.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1097%252FACM.0b013e31819b204d%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F19318794%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/ACM.0b013e31819b204d&link_type=DOI [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=19318794&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6177%2F1312.atom [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000267655200029&link_type=ISI [10]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: http://www.rockinst.org/observations/lanej/2013-05-Is_Bubble_Bursting.aspx

U.S. Policy Impedes Innovators

In their Policy Forum “Doctoral students and U.S. immigration policy” (1 November 2013, p. [562][1]), K. E. Maskus et al. point to the potential economic benefits of expanding opportunities for the brightest international graduate students to remain in this country after graduation. However, the present immigration system creates unnecessary barriers that prevent many international students from obtaining green cards (permanent residency), thus limiting their postgraduation contributions to innovation and job creation in the United States. International graduate students, typically on F-1 visas, are not permitted to declare dual intent (the intent to study and immigrate), and the opportunities for obtaining a green card after graduation are limited regardless of career path. Graduates who pursue postdoctoral positions in academia are often on exchange visitor J-1 visas that grant, by definition, temporary and nonimmigrant status. In the industry, H-1B visas can lead to employer-sponsored green cards, but the number of available visas is drastically short of demand, as is the number of available employment-based green cards for people born in certain backlogged countries such as India and China. Moreover, despite the critical role of innovation and job creation in growing our nation's economy, graduates who start companies—whose products may spring from work accomplished at American universities—face the tallest hurdles. Legally, international graduate student entrepreneurs are often not allowed to found their companies under their own names and, instead, must be sponsored to work for a company owned by another party. An alternative pathway for entrepreneurs is a foreign investor EB-5 visa, but the personal investment of up to $1 million required from applicants places this option out of reach for most recent graduates. Meanwhile, other countries have created programs to capitalize on entrepreneurs who were trained in the United States but cannot find a way to stay ([ 1 ][2]). From a practical standpoint, these restrictions dissuade future innovators from pursuing careers in this country and thereby encourage the development of new technologies elsewhere in the world. Some straightforward reforms that would improve the situation include: (i) authorizing dual intent for student visa holders, (ii) increasing the number of H-1B visas available to recent graduates and increasing the number of green cards awarded to highly educated immigrants in STEM fields, and (iii) creating a new immigration pathway to encourage entrepreneurship. 1. [↵][3] “Where creators are welcome,” The Economist (9 June 2012); [www.economist.com/node/21556636][4]. 2. The authors are writing on behalf of the Legislative Action Subcommittee of the Graduate Student Council at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1239572 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: http://www.economist.com/node/21556636

Conserving Carnivores: Politics in Play

In their Review “Status and ecological effects of the world's largest carnivores” (10 January, DOI: [10.1126/science.1241484][1]), W. J. Ripple et al. propose the creation of a Global Large Carnivore Initiative (GLCI) endorsed by bold commitments from politicians around the world. However, large carnivores deliver political services in addition to ecological services, and this complication may prevent a GLCI from gaining strong political commitment. Conflicts involving the political response to large carnivores raise controversial questions about land-use and political economies. The animals serve as a powerful symbol to communicate difficulties (often those that they revealed but did not create) and to influence policies. Opposing the recovery of large carnivores or limiting their populations has therefore become an inexpensive way for politicians to pose as defenders of particular interest groups that they might otherwise ignore. An illustrative example is the decline of sheep farming in France. French sheep farmers claim that wolf attacks threaten their livelihoods ([ 1 ][2]). However, this story overlooks political factors. In 1985, French Special Forces sank Greenpeace's flagship boat in Auckland harbor to prevent protests against nuclear tests. As part of the compensation, France agreed to not take measures that could hinder the import of New Zealand lambs into the European Union ([ 2 ][3]). This sudden end to France's protectionist standing has been a tough economic challenge for French sheep farming. Since the wolf naturally came back to France from Italy in 1992, some French politicians took the opportunity to stand for national sheep farming by dramatizing the impact of livestock attacks and opposing the wolf return, without addressing the ultimate market-based causes of sheep farming decline. In 2012, wolf-linked subsidies to sheep farming amounted to 8.8 € million ([ 3 ][4]), and data now reveal that sheep farming fares better in wolf regions ([ 4 ][5]). There are strong political incentives to scapegoat large carnivores. We recommend developing a better understanding of the political ecology of large carnivore conservation. 1. [↵][6] 1. S. Sayare , “As wolves return to French Alps, a way of life is threatened,” New York Times, 4 September 2013, p. A4. 2. [↵][7] 1. C. Harding , Singapore Yearbook Int. Law 10, 99 (2006); . [OpenUrl][8] 3. [↵][9] Ministere de l'Ecologie de Developpement Durable et de l'Energie, Ministere de l'Agriculture de l'Agroalimentaire et de la Foret, “Plan d'Action National Loup 2013–2017” (Paris, 2013); [www.loup.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/130830\_PLAN\_LOUP_2013-2.pdf][10]. 4. [↵][11] 1. L. Garde 1. L. Garde , in Loup et Elevage: S'Ouvrir a la Complexite: CERPAM—Centre d'Etudes et de Realisations Pastorales Alpes Mediterranee, L. Garde , Ed. (CERPAM, Manosque, France, 2007), pp. 14–20. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1241484 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DSingapore%2BYearbook%2BInt.%2BLaw%26rft.volume%253D10%26rft.spage%253D99%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [10]: http://www.loup.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/130830_PLAN_LOUP_2013-2.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text

Obscuring Gender Bias with “Choice”—Response

I believe that Conner et al. misrepresent my article and misconstrue my intentions in writing it. Along with them and Science Careers, I strongly deplore and oppose bias and discrimination of any kind in science. My colleagues and I work assiduously to help female (and male) scientists and aspiring scientists advance in the careers of their choosing. In line with that goal, I report on research that helps scientists of both genders understand the career opportunities that currently exist so that they can make choices that maximize their chances of finding and prospering in positions that fit their values, goals, aspirations, and definitions of success. Research ([ 1 ][1]) reveals that scientists value and aspire to a wide range of career goals, with some of both genders desiring traditional academic careers leading to top institutional leadership positions and others desiring to pursue different career objectives both in and out of academe. Evidence both formal ([ 2 ][2]) and anecdotal also shows that many young scientists report feeling strong pressure from their professors and advisers to pursue traditional academic careers in preference to other types of work that they may prefer. The letter writers' use of the term “downshift” to describe a physician's choice to pursue a career of teaching and clinical practice rather than of academic research may in itself exemplify this type of bias. Contrary to the Letter, I did not conclude—in the sense of arriving at a judgment—that “women's service motivations” keep them from traditional tenure-track careers. As Conner et al. acknowledge, I, like the study's ([ 3 ][3]) authors, do not know why women chose as they did. I suggested a possible explanation also mentioned by the authors and ended the article with the authors' own statement that the question “deserves further analysis.” I do not believe that this misrepresents their work. 1. [↵][4] 1. M. Roach, 2. H. Sauermann , Res. Pol. 39, 422 (2010). [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6] 2. [↵][7] 1. H. Sauermann, 2. M. Roach , PLOS ONE 7, e36307 (2012). [OpenUrl][8][CrossRef][9][PubMed][10] 3. [↵][11] 1. A. P. Mayer 2. et al ., Acad. Med. 89, 312 (2014). [OpenUrl][12][CrossRef][13][PubMed][14][Web of Science][15] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DRes.%2BPol.%26rft.volume%253D39%26rft.spage%253D422%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.respol.2010.01.004%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.004&link_type=DOI [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.stitle%253DPLoS%2BONE%26rft.aulast%253DSauermann%26rft.auinit1%253DH.%26rft.volume%253D7%26rft.issue%253D5%26rft.spage%253De36307%26rft.epage%253De36307%26rft.atitle%253DScience%2BPhD%2Bcareer%2Bpreferences%253A%2Blevels%252C%2Bchanges%252C%2Band%2Badvisor%2Bencouragement.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pone.0036307%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22567149%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pone.0036307&link_type=DOI [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=22567149&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6176%2F1200.2.atom [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DAcad.%2BMed.%26rft.volume%253D89%26rft.spage%253D312%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1097%252FACM.0000000000000089%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24362384%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/ACM.0000000000000089&link_type=DOI [14]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=24362384&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6176%2F1200.2.atom [15]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000330305900031&link_type=ISI

Raw Data: Access to Inaccuracy

In “Raw personal data: providing access” (Policy Forum, 24 January, p. [373][1]), J. E. Lunshof and colleagues argue that donors should have access to raw data derived from their contribution to research or clinical repositories. Fairness, reciprocity, and respect for autonomy are compelling ethical reasons for access, if not for one major problem: the intrinsic inaccuracy of most research data. Even the best-documented population studies cannot guarantee accurate data for individual participants. Limited research budgets force researchers to decide between assessing a few variables at high quality or many variables at lower quality, and they typically choose the latter. More data means more research opportunities, and suboptimal data quality is perfect enough when conclusions are drawn for populations at large. Yet, the data cannot be used to inform about individual participants. ![Figure][2] CREDIT: T. POPOVA/ISTOCKPHOTO To illustrate the moral obligation for granting access, the authors draw an excellent analogy with money banks, but the example actually undercuts their point. Money banks would never provide customers access to their bank accounts if they had even the slightest doubt about the accuracy of the balances. Inaccurate account data not only harm individual customers, who then remain uncertain about their financial position, but also destroy public trust in money banks. This is a risk that banks would not even think of taking, and scientists should not either. High-quality online genome data interpretation tools, health professionals, and other independent experts cannot make sense of data when they cannot rely on the quality. A disclaimer concerning data accuracy, as the authors propose, does not solve that problem. If researchers respect their participants, take them seriously, and want to do more good than harm ([ 1 ][3]), they do not give them all they have, but give something valuable in a responsible way ([ 2 ][4]). And that is not merely access to data. 1. [↵][5] The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (1979); [www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html][6]. 2. [↵][7] 1. J. P. Evans, 2. B. B. Rothschild , Genet. Med. 14, 358 (2012). [OpenUrl][8][CrossRef][9][PubMed][10] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1249382 [2]: pending:yes [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DGenetics%2Bin%2Bmedicine%2B%253A%2B%2Bofficial%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAmerican%2BCollege%2Bof%2BMedical%2BGenetics%26rft.stitle%253DGenet%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DEvans%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BP.%26rft.volume%253D14%26rft.issue%253D4%26rft.spage%253D358%26rft.epage%253D360%26rft.atitle%253DReturn%2Bof%2Bresults%253A%2Bnot%2Bthat%2Bcomplicated%253F%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252Fgim.2012.8%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22481183%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/gim.2012.8&link_type=DOI [10]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=22481183&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6174%2F968.1.atom

Raw Data: Research and Health Care Goals Differ

In their Policy Forum “Raw personal data: Providing access” (24 January, p. [373][1]), J. E. Lunshof et al. suggest that more should be done to enable persons who had their genome sequenced, either as research subjects or as patients, to actively access their raw data. They argue that routinely providing them with personal access codes to those data would be a matter of transparency and respect for autonomy. We think Lunshof et al. underestimate the dangers of actively handing out data that we know are not fully reliable and can lead to misinterpretation. In our view, the proposed policy would be at odds with the responsibility of health professionals. In health care, clinical utility should have priority over social utility. An appeal to reciprocity between donors and users of genomic data does not change this argument. Patients are not the same as data donors. If patients become data donors by consenting to have their data stored in research registries, they should be aware that they have entered a different relationship, in which they primarily contribute to the benefit of future patients. Lunshof et al. ignore the crucial difference between health care and research when they criticize the recent recommendations of the European Society of Human Genetics (ESHG). To avoid the unnecessary generation of incidental findings, these recommendations advise the use of targeted forms of testing if that is sufficient to address the patient's problem ([ 1 ][2]). According to Lunshof et al. , this is problematic as it “systematically precludes the possible discovery of complex genetic causation.” We disagree: Discovery is the aim of research, not of health care. Conflating these aims risks turning patients into research subjects without their consent. 1. [↵][3] 1. C. G. van El 2. et al ., Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 21, 580 (2013). [OpenUrl][4][PubMed][5] 2. The authors are writing on behalf of the ESHG Public and Professional Policy Committee. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1249382 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEur.%2BJ.%2BHum.%2BGenet.%26rft.volume%253D21%26rft.spage%253D580%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23676617%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [5]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=23676617&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6174%2F968.2.atom

Innovation Goes Global

By taking a U.S.-national approach to innovative capabilities and comparing the present with the postwar period, W. B. Bonvillian (“Advanced manufacturing policies and paradigms for innovation,” Policy Forum, 6 December 2013, p. [1173][1]) ignores the truly transformational change that has occurred over the past several decades: the growth of the global science system. The critical knowledge needed to innovate into the next generation of production is increasingly distributed across the globe, and it is just as likely to be located in India or China as in Ohio. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development reports that the growth in the number of triadic patents demonstrates the worldwide spread of innovative activities ([ 1 ][2]). U.S. researchers are actively tapping this global resource by collaborating with researchers from many other countries. The global network of international links (drawn from coauthorships on publications) has tripled in density over the past 20 years ([ 2 ][3]), with many new members joining the global network from developing countries, particularly China. Chinese addresses now appear more frequently than any other country in publications coauthored with U.S. researchers. Scientific globalization does not threaten an end to U.S. excellence in innovation; quite the opposite. The diffusion and rooting of scientific capacity to new places provides opportunity for greater efficiency in research activities, particularly by removing redundancy. Creative problem-solving can be enhanced by having new entrants grapple with technological challenges, as many U.S. companies are finding as they invest in foreign research. Culturally tied knowledge is often important to market access in foreign countries. These goods require a deliberate policy shift on the part of U.S. agencies from pushing knowledge creation to fomenting knowledge scanning and integration. Scanning the globe for the best new knowledge and ensuring local uptake is the more promising approach to closing the gaps in U.S. know-how than building a U.S.-only R&D effort, as Bonvillian suggests. 1. [↵][4] OECD, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Scoreboard 2013 (OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013). 2. [↵][5] 1. L. Leydesdorff, 2. C. Wagner , J. Informetrics 2, 317 (2008). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7][Web of Science][8] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1242210 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJ.%2BInformetrics%26rft.volume%253D2%26rft.spage%253D317%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.joi.2008.07.003%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1016/j.joi.2008.07.003&link_type=DOI [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000260903700007&link_type=ISI

China's Ivory Market: The Elephant in the Room

Levels of illegal ivory hunting reached a peak in 2012, and in 2013 elephants were massacred at an unprecedented rate ([ 1 ][1]). One of the largest buyers hiding behind the massacre is China, and the Chinese market is the most important factor leading to the explosion of the illegal ivory trade. In 2007, despite the great pressure of world opinion, the Chinese ivory industry persuaded the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) to grant it permission to purchase certain quotas of ivory, justifying the need by claiming to support “the traditional heritage of ivory sculpture” ([ 2 ][2]). However, instead of slowing the decrease in the elephant population, the CITES decision, with its goal to keep “equilibrium between protection and utilization,” has become a permanent umbrella for the illegal ivory trade, and ivory gained illegally can be laundered easily on the so-called “legal market” by smuggling it into China ([ 3 ][3]). In China, many or most legal enterprises dealing in ivory processing and sales are involved in illegal ivory trade, and there is a bulky ivory consumer market behind this black market chaos. Due to the influence of traditional ideology and the widespread love of flaunting wealth, the abnormal consumption of ivory products in China remains obstinately common. Recently, the Chinese government confiscated and destroyed 6 tons of ivory in an attempt to address this issue (“By the numbers,” News of the Week, 10 January, p. [124][4]). This inspiring step in the right direction sends a clear message that the government has zero tolerance for illegal ivory trade. To move forward, the relevant Chinese government departments should strictly track the legality of ivory resources and ivory products, amend as quickly as possible the supervision loopholes that exist in the illegal ivory trade under the shield of “legal ivory,” and control the abnormal consumption of ivory and ivory products. These actions may be crucial to rescuing African elephants. 1. [↵][5]1. D. Cressey , Nature 503, 452 (2013). [OpenUrl][6][CrossRef][7][PubMed][8][Web of Science][9] 2. [↵][10]“The destination of ivories: The black markets in China boosted the illegal ivory trades internationally,” Southern Weekly (9 December 2011); [www.infzm.com/content/65944][11] [in Chinese]. 3. [↵][12]“China became the premier destination for the ivory smuggling: The ivories were easily laundered when they entered China,” A Xinhua Net (13 November 2013); [in Chinese]. [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: #ref-3 [4]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6167/122.3.full [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNature%26rft.volume%253D503%26rft.spage%253D452%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252F503452a%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24284712%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1038/503452a&link_type=DOI [8]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=24284712&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6171%2F611.2.atom [9]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000327464200011&link_type=ISI [10]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [11]: http://www.infzm.com/content/65944 [12]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text

The Changing Role of Medieval Women

In his Perspective “Women, fertility, and the rise of modern capitalism” (25 October 2013, p. [427][1]), A. Alesina correctly pointed to the importance of the Black Death, alongside new Protestant ideas, in transforming Late Medieval European economies. He and other economic historians have noted that the Black Death substantially reduced the population of rural producers, bringing better returns to labor by comparison with earlier periods. Alesina also argues that women's fertility decreased as their labor in the fields increased. Alesina did not mention the export industry or social unrest, both of which contributed to economic changes and the status of women during this time. In the 14th century, England was becoming a major exporter of high-quality wool products. Initially, the benefits from these exports were enjoyed by the elite. However, centralized control of production was inefficient, and there was little to motivate their obligated labor force ([ 1 ][2]). Raw wool export also was increasingly supplanted by more local cloth production ([ 2 ][3]). The changing wool economy drew more female producers into the labor force. Women took jobs in weaving, basic production, and the growing service economy. The social unrest that characterized this period also contributed to women's changing roles. Growing commerce brought new opportunities for women, not only as producers, but also as marketers. As E. P. Thompson pointed out ([ 3 ][4]), women were often the leaders in riots in the marketplaces because they were more involved in market transactions than men, they understood market conditions in detail, and they had much to gain from institutionally improved market conditions. 1. [↵][5] 1. R. Hilton , Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism: Essays in Medieval Social History (The Hambledon Press, London, 1985). 2. [↵][6] 1. R. Britnell , Britain and Ireland 1050–1530: Economy and Society (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2004). 3. [↵][7] 1. E. P. Thompson , Past Present 50, 115 (1971). [OpenUrl][8] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1246228 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DPast%2BPresent%26rft.volume%253D50%26rft.spage%253D115%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx

Research Tax Credits: An Important Tool

In his News & Analysis piece on the lapse of the U.S. research and experimentation (R&E) tax credit (“U.S. tax credit: Boondoggle or boon for research?,” 3 January, p. [13][1]), D. Malakoff quotes Citizens for Tax Justice advocates who argue that we might be better off “if Congress killed the credit and used the money for targeted, direct research grants.” While we do not defend the credit in its current form, we believe (and have recently explained) that optimal innovation policy requires a mixture of financial incentives for research and development, including tax credits as well as other tools such as grants, patents, and prizes ([ 1 ][2]). Targeted research grants are effective only when government decision-makers can obtain reliable information about the costs and benefits of potential research projects. For many new technologies, the government is at a comparative disadvantage when it comes to picking winners, and market signals may provide a more accurate proxy for social benefits. Under these circumstances, incentives such as tax credits may be preferable to grants. Because tax credits only refund a portion of research expenses, they are generally used in combination with private investment and do not displace the role of markets in allocating resources. Tax credits might appear inferior to patents as a way to leverage private information because tax credits impose a higher cost on the federal budget, but this disadvantage is illusory. The reward to innovators from patents comes from higher prices on patented products, and these higher prices impose a “shadow patent tax” on consumers comparable to the more transparent taxes that fund tax credits, grants, or prizes. This is not to say that the current implementation of the R&E tax credit is ideal, but we think that tax credits play an important role in our innovation policy portfolio. 1. [↵][3] 1. D. J. Hemel, 2. L. L. Ouellette , Texas Law Rev. 92, 303 (2013). [OpenUrl][4] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.343.6166.13 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DTexas%2BLaw%2BRev.%26rft.volume%253D92%26rft.spage%253D303%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx

Misleading Results: Don't Blame the Mice

In the news focus story “when mice mislead” (22 November 2013, p. [922][1]), J. Couzin-Frankel raises concerns about practices that give rise to misleading scientific findings. The case studies cited demonstrate procedural errors that can occur in the design or execution of experiments. These unfortunate mistakes can happen in any area of research and are not the exclusive domain of mice or animal models; clinical research is certainly not immune to error. Even well-executed studies can give rise to misleading results for reasons that are insidious and hard to control ([ 1 ][2]). With regard to mice, the first “risk of bias question” that a reviewer should ask is, “Was the result replicated in more than one genetic background?” Idiosyncrasies of particular mouse strains can be misleading ([ 2 ][3]). Ignoring the effect of genetic background is the most pervasive source of bias in animal studies. To reduce the problem of false or irreproducible scientific findings, we need to address two root causes. Science today is driven by an incentive system that often rewards precedence and impact over quality of the work. Statistical training of scientists often emphasizes analytical techniques over experimental design and quantitative reasoning. These are systemic problems that will not change without substantial effort. However, the message in this News Focus story does suggest some simple advice that can redress many of the pitfalls of experimental studies: Be wise, randomize. 1. [↵][4]1. J. P. A. Ioannidis , PLOS Med. 2, e124 (2005). [OpenUrl][5][CrossRef][6][PubMed][7] 2. [↵][8]1. V. Kumar 2. et al ., Science 342, 1508 (2013). [OpenUrl][9][Abstract/FREE Full Text][10] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.342.6161.922 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.stitle%253DPLoS%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DIoannidis%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BP.%26rft.volume%253D2%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253De124%26rft.epage%253De124%26rft.atitle%253DWhy%2Bmost%2Bpublished%2Bresearch%2Bfindings%2Bare%2Bfalse.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1371%252Fjournal.pmed.0020124%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16060722%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124&link_type=DOI [7]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16060722&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6169%2F370.1.atom [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DKumar%26rft.auinit1%253DV.%26rft.volume%253D342%26rft.issue%253D6165%26rft.spage%253D1508%26rft.epage%253D1512%26rft.atitle%253DC57BL%252F6N%2BMutation%2Bin%2BCytoplasmic%2BFMRP%2Binteracting%2Bprotein%2B2%2BRegulates%2BCocaine%2BResponse%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1245503%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F24357318%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [10]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzNDIvNjE2NS8xNTA4IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjQ6Ii9zY2kvMzQzLzYxNjkvMzcwLjEuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9

Misleading Results: Translational Challenges

We agree completely with the news focus story “When mice mislead” (J. Couzin-Frankel, 22 November 2013, p. [922][1]). Many of the issues identified in this article, such as investigator bias, blinding, randomization, and inclusion and exclusion criteria, were clearly identified in the Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Round Table publication in 1999 ([ 1 ][2]) and discussed further by others ([ 2 ][3]). Tightening the standards for animal experimentation, especially for those experiments that test drugs for their neuroprotective effects, is critical as we try to translate these drugs into human stroke therapy. There have been hundreds of drugs tested for neuroprotective effects and many, if not most, have positive effects, in animal models. If a mouse or rat had a stroke, we would know exactly how to treat it. Unfortunately, none of these drugs has shown success in humans. It is unlikely that poor methods used in animal studies account for all the negative clinical trials that have been performed based on preclinical studies. After all, some investigators do perform appropriate experiments, and even those studies rarely lead to positive clinical trials. One important issue not mentioned in the News Focus piece could also account for the lack of positive clinical trials: Most researchers in the stroke field work with normal, young, healthy animals. Humans who participate in neuroprotective drug clinical trials are most often not normal, young, or healthy. They have a variety of comorbid diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and vascular disease, which could alter the way in which drugs work in humans. We suggest that in future animal experiments, drugs be tested in animals that are aged, with comorbid diseases. Such studies may help to identify potentially effective drugs in an animal model that mimics more closely a human with stroke. 1. [↵][4]Stroke Therapy Academic Industry Round Table, Stroke 30, 2752 (1999). [OpenUrl][5][Abstract/FREE Full Text][6] 2. [↵][7]1. M. M. Macleod 2. et al ., J. Cerebral Blood Flow Met. 29, 221 (2009). [OpenUrl][8][Abstract/FREE Full Text][9] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.342.6161.922 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DStroke%26rft.stitle%253DStroke%26rft.volume%253D30%26rft.issue%253D12%26rft.spage%253D2752%26rft.epage%253D2758%26rft.atitle%253DRecommendations%2Bfor%2BStandards%2BRegarding%2BPreclinical%2BNeuroprotective%2Band%2BRestorative%2BDrug%2BDevelopment%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252F01.STR.30.12.2752%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10583007%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [6]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6OToic3Ryb2tlYWhhIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEwOiIzMC8xMi8yNzUyIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjI6Ii9zY2kvMzQzLzYxNjkvMzY5LmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [8]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJournal%2Bof%2BCerebral%2BBlood%2BFlow%2Band%2BMetabolism%26rft.stitle%253DJ%2BCereb%2BBlood%2BFlow%2BMetab%26rft.aulast%253DMacleod%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BR.%26rft.volume%253D29%26rft.issue%253D2%26rft.spage%253D221%26rft.epage%253D223%26rft.atitle%253DReprint%253A%2BGood%2BLaboratory%2BPractice%253A%2BPreventing%2BIntroduction%2Bof%2BBias%2Bat%2Bthe%2BBench%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1038%252Fjcbfm.2008.101%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F18797473%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [9]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NToic3BqY2IiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiMjkvMi8yMjEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMjoiL3NjaS8zNDMvNjE2OS8zNjkuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9

Regulating Dual-Use Research in Europe

The European Society for Virology (ESV), which represents scientists active in basic, medical, veterinary, plant, and environmental aspects of virology, has been following with particular interest the debate on “gain-of-function” studies catalyzed by the H5N1 influenza virus transmission studies from the Dutch group led by Ron Fouchier and published by Science in June 2012 ([ 1 ][1]). The Dutch government insisted that Fouchier ask for official permission (an export permit) before publishing his research abroad, on the basis of European Council regulation EC 428/2009, which was issued in 2009 to prevent the spread of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Although Fouchier complied before the Science paper was published, Erasmus MC Rotterdam sued the government over the requirement for an export permit, based on the fact that the Annex to Council regulation EC 428/2009 contains an exclusion clause for basic scientific research and information already in the public domain. The appeal was recently rejected by a district court, and the case is now being brought before Amsterdam's Court of Appeal. The News of the Week story “Virologist appeals decision on H5N1 export rules” (8 November 2013, p. [676][2]) stated that the ESV has “sided with Fouchier.” Roughly 90 viruses and microorganisms that can cause disease in humans, animals, and plants are listed in the Annex to Council regulation EC 428/2009. ESV's position stems from the concern that results from scientific work carried out in Europe on these organisms would require an export permit before they can be published in international scientific journals. This prospect raises a number of serious issues. Under what circumstances should this EC regulation be applied to biomedical research? Who is going to decide when the EC regulation does or does not apply? What should be considered “basic scientific research,” and who is going to judge this criterion? (This is not a trivial question, especially in the European Union context, where, in theory, there might be 28 different interpretations of the same regulation.) Does this create the potential for discrimination among scientists working in different European States and between European scientists and those in the rest of the world? Does this decision apply only when specific results are going to be published in journals outside Europe, or does it apply universally? It may be that controversial questions related to this issue were ignored for too long, allowing a precedent to be set prematurely. We are overdue for discussions on how to regulate the dissemination of “sensitive” data in a way that does not compromise biosecurity, while maintaining the principle that acquiring important and meaningful knowledge cannot simply be stopped. ESV believes that export control does not represent the best way to deal with this issue. Our intention is not to criticize or to disregard the work of jurisprudence experts. We believe that the European Commission should take steps to promote a common understanding of the current regulation by existing working groups or by a new advisory committee created to deal with the dual-use research in a harmonized and balanced way throughout Europe. In the meantime, we have expressed our willingness to provide law officers with proper scientific advice, making available the expertise of our many European scientists. 1. [↵][3]1. S. Herfst 2. et al ., Science 336, 1534 (2012). [OpenUrl][4][Abstract/FREE Full Text][5] [1]: #ref-1 [2]: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6159/676.2.full [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.aulast%253DHerfst%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%26rft.volume%253D336%26rft.issue%253D6088%26rft.spage%253D1534%26rft.epage%253D1541%26rft.atitle%253DAirborne%2BTransmission%2Bof%2BInfluenza%2BA%252FH5N1%2BVirus%2BBetween%2BFerrets%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1213362%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F22723413%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [5]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMzYvNjA4OC8xNTM0IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjQ6Ii9zY2kvMzQzLzYxNjkvMzY4LjIuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9

Biodiversity: Ecuador Deters Protection Efforts

In their Policy Forums, both S. Le Saout et al. (“Protected areas and effective biodiversity conservation,” 15 November 2013, p. [803][1]) and N. Butt et al. (“Biodiversity risks from fossil fuel extraction,” 25 October 2013, p. [425][2]) identified protected areas in the Ecuadorian Amazon that need further protections and management. Because Ecuador has irreplaceable areas that overlap with fossil fuel reserves, an initiative launched by the Ecuadorian government in 2007 to keep its oil underground was considered historic and attracted worldwide support ([ 1 ][3]). Its recent cancellation by the Ecuadorian government on 16 August 2013 was followed by unexpectedly few bids from international corporations to extract oil ([ 2 ][4]). Amid great public opposition, government officials are moving forward with the selection of the best offer. Unfortunately, in the process, the Ecuadorian government is disregarding, and even dismantling, environmental organizations that have voiced their opposition ([ 3 ][5]). The environmental and indigenous rights group Fundacion Pachamama was shut down on 4 December 2013 after their alleged involvement in the physical harassment of oil executives during protests against the government-sponsored XI Oil Round. President Rafael Correa's administration characterized the protests as “threatening the security of the state” ([ 4 ][6]). The group rejected violent demonstrations and vowed to dispute the government's decision and to continue their efforts to defend the collective rights of indigenous people and the rights of nature as enacted in the Ecuadorian Constitution ([ 5 ][7]). The history of environmental damage and displacement of indigenous groups associated with oil extraction in Ecuador demands that the international community keep a watchful eye on these events as they continue to unfold. 1. [↵][8] United Nations Development Group, Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office ( ). 2. [↵][9] Iniciativa Yasuni-ITT ( ). 3. [↵][10] “Presidenta de ONG disuelta apelara accion del Ministerio del Ambiente,” El Comercio (2013) [in Spanish]. 4. [↵][11] “ONG disuelta tras 16 anos de activismos,” El Universo (2013); [www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2013/12/22/nota/1945116/ong-disuelta-tras-16-anos-activismo][12] [in Spanish]. 5. [↵][13] “Fundacion Pachamama releases statement on shutdown of their offices” ([www.pachamama.org/news/fundacion-pachamama-on-international-and-public-opinion][14]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1239268 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1237261 [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #ref-5 [8]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [10]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [11]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text [12]: http://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2013/12/22/nota/1945116/ong-disuelta-tras-16-anos-activismo [13]: #xref-ref-5-1 View reference 5 in text [14]: http://www.pachamama.org/news/fundacion-pachamama-on-international-and-public-opinion

Antibiotics: Call for Real Change

![Figure][1] CREDIT: ALVAREZ/ISTOCKPHOTO (MODIFIED BY G. GRULLON/ SCIENCE ) In his Editorial “Time to Deal with Antibiotics” (15 November 2013, p. [777][2]), D. Kennedy mentioned our assessment of the impact of the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production (IFAP) ([ 1 ][3]). We support his call to end the misuse of antibiotics in animal agriculture. We believe, however, that finalization of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents will not have a meaningful impact on the way these life-saving drugs are administered to animals; thus, they will not slow the contribution of IFAP to our rapid progression toward a postantibiotic era. These guidances—nonbinding pleas for the cooperation of drug companies—do not call for an end to the use of antimicrobials in the absence of a microbial disease or documented disease exposure, as recommended by the Commission ([ 2 ][4]). Instead, they would effectively rebrand uses currently labeled “growth promotion” as “disease prevention.” Like growth promotion, prophylactic uses entail low, subtherapeutic doses and can span much of the animal's life span. They apply continuous selective pressure for antibiotic resistance and may even induce new resistance-conferring mutations ([ 3 ][5]). Furthermore, the FDA's proposal for veterinary oversight would eliminate the federal requirement that a valid “veterinarian-client-patient relationship” exist before veterinarians order the use of antibiotics in feed, allowing veterinarians to prescribe antibiotics for use at operations they have not visited recently for administration to animals they have never seen. The head of a large drug company recently told The Wall Street Journal that the guidances will not substantially affect revenues ([ 4 ][6]), implying that minimal changes to antibiotic sales are expected. This explains why companies support voluntary limits on their products: The limits will have little practical effect. We share Kennedy's assessment of the problem, but instead would call for meaningful regulation—comparable to what he attempted as FDA commissioner almost four decades ago—to curb irresponsible antibiotic use. If such efforts fall short, legislative relief is needed. 1. [↵][7] Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Industrial Food Animal Production in America: Examining the Impact of the Pew Commission's Priority Recommendations (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 2013); [www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/\_pdf/research/clf\_reports/CLF-PEW-for%20Web.pdf][8]. 2. [↵][9] Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, Putting Meat on the Table: Industrial Farm Animal Production in America (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, 2008); [www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf][10]. 3. [↵][11] 1. D. C. Love, 2. M. F. Davis, 3. A. Bassett, 4. A. Gunther, 5. K. E. Nachman , Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 279 (2011). [OpenUrl][12][PubMed][13][Web of Science][14] 4. [↵][15] 1. P. Loftus , Zoetis chief leads animal-health firm following split from Pfizer, Wall Street Journal (2013); [1]: pending:yes [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1248056 [3]: #ref-1 [4]: #ref-2 [5]: #ref-3 [6]: #ref-4 [7]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [8]: http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-and-institutes/johns-hopkins-center-for-a-livable-future/_pdf/research/clf_reports/CLF-PEW-for%20Web.pdf [9]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [10]: http://www.ncifap.org/_images/PCIFAPFin.pdf [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text [12]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEnvironmental%2BHealth%2BPerspectives%26rft.stitle%253DEnvironmental%2BHealth%2BPerspectives%26rft.aulast%253DLove%26rft.auinit1%253DD.%2BC.%26rft.volume%253D119%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D279%26rft.epage%253D283%26rft.atitle%253DDose%2Bimprecision%2Band%2Bresistance%253A%2Bfree-choice%2Bmedicated%2Bfeeds%2Bin%2Bindustrial%2Bfood%2Banimal%2Bproduction%2Bin%2Bthe%2BUnited%2BStates.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21030337%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [13]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=21030337&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fsci%2F343%2F6167%2F136.1.atom [14]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000287926700013&link_type=ISI [15]: #xref-ref-4-1 View reference 4 in text