silver 4.sil.002 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

A broad array of consumer and medical products employ billionths-of-a-meter scale silver particles as embedded disinfectants. A study now suggests that if those nanoparticles get loose and into the body, they might wreak havoc with the human immune system. Documented effects occurred at very low concentrations — levels as minute as parts per trillion or even, sometimes, one-thousandth that much (i.e. parts per quadrillion).

Perturbing immunity could, of course, be very bad.

I ran into the new study on the last day of the Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry’s North America annual meeting in late November. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire Although one of dozens of studies focusing on potentially toxic impacts of nanoproducts, this study was the only one I encountered that quantified effects on human cells. Its findings, albeit preliminary, reinforce why nanoscale additives should be thoroughly tested before they’re marketed in a way that might let them loose into the environment, much less into our bodies.http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US



When Christopher Perkins and his colleagues at the University of Connecticut’s Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering learned about new medical tubing that was lined with nanosilver particles, it got them curious where else these tiny silver bits were being employed.

Perkins turned up a website by the Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, a program developed by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and Pew Charitable Trusts. The site hosts a growing inventory of products relying on nanoparticles. At present, it describes 235 products using nanosilver. These range from toothpastes, pet shampoos, fabric softeners, bath towels, medicines, cosmetics, deodorizers, and baby clothes, to nanosilver-lined baby bottles, refrigerators, food-leftovers containers, and kitchen cutting boards. There were also silver-enhanced electric shavers, curling irons, ankle braces, wrist bands, women’s bras, ATM buttons, and handrails for buses.

Imagine a place you don’t want to see germs breeding and someone has conceived of a nanosilver product to smite those bugs. Most of these novel goods currently seem to be coming out of Asia.

Published studies have also begun describing immune-system impacts of nanosilver. For instance, one preliminary study by researchers in South Korea (home to many nanosilver-products companies) reported last year in International Immunopharmacology that nanosilver particles can alter the production of immune signaling compounds known as cytokines. The authors’ conclusion: “These experimental data suggest that nano-silver could be used to treat immunologic and inflammatory diseases.”

And in a controlled medical setting, that might be true. But what about in an uncontrolled setting — like in your formula-guzzling baby’s stomach, in the pores of skin slathered with silver-enhanced cosmetics or moisturizers, or in the air of a home doused with an odor-combatting silver spray?

Perkins’ group began pondering whether ingestion or some other internal contact with loosened particles would necessarily be safe, much less beneficial. So they took silver particles that were 10 or 50 nanometers in diameter and incubated them with various types of human cells. Then they quantified “innate” immunity responses — ones that don’t rely on antibodies.

They found that the tinier silver nanoparticles tended to ratchet down the secretion of cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor, also known as TNF, and of various interleukins such as IL-6. This occurred at the parts-per-quadrillion level. Such cytokine suppression, Perkins says, indicates “your immune system is not operating at peak capacity by any stretch.”

The larger particles? They exhibited almost no effect on cytokines, regardless of the test concentration.

The Connecticut researchers then focused on the ability of immune cells to gobble up foreign bodies for disposal. In their tests, the foreign bodies amounted to tiny naked beads — ones lacking any silver coating. Cells encountered the beads alone or after a three-hour exposure to nanosilver. And the nano-pretreatment at parts per million concentrations increased dramatically the rate at which cells gobbled up the foreign beads.

Is that good or bad? Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire Perkins says it’s hard to know. It’s important that cells can clear out pathogens, which the beads were meant to mimic. However, if cells get overly aggressive in this gobbling behavior, they not only waste precious energy but also risk accidentally trying to eat up healthy cells. Sort of a cannibalism. Clearly, that would not be healthy.

Finally, the researchers measured the ability of cells encountering nanosilver to release a “respiratory burst” of free radicals — chemically reactive molecular fragments that can damage or kill cells. Free radicals are supposed to be deadly: their reason for being is to kill invading germs or sick cells that need to die and be cleared from the body.

Ten-nanometer silver particles increased respiratory bursts at the parts per trillion level, which “is probably bad,” Perkins says. “You’ve got all of these free radicals that have to go somewhere. And they’re pretty nonspecific in what they target. Which means they’ll kill healthy cells as well as bacteria or other pathogens.”

By contrast, the 50 nm silver had less of an effect on free-radical generation, except at relatively high parts per billion concentrations. There they tended to diminish free-radical production.

The take-home message, Perkins says, would appear to be that silver nanoparticles can materially alter immunity, in some instances “taking away the ability for your immune system to deal with pathogens.” That may be an acceptable tradeoff in people who are very sick and for whom the disinfectant properties of nanosilver prove beneficial.

It’s also possible, Perkins points out, that the effects his team is reporting would be smaller in a person. Remember, to date they’ve only been witnessed in a test-tube full of white blood cells or other immune cells.

The proverbial “more work needs to be done” applies, he says. But he emphasizes that the findings by his team and others are too troubling to ignore. Which means more work really does need to be done before anyone can rest assured that nanoparticles are benign.

Unfortunately, an uncontrolled experiment to study those effects is already underway in nations that permit the wholesale production and consumer marketing of nanosilver-enhanced products.

* Print
* |
* Comment


Found in: Biology, Biomedicine, Body & Brain, Chemistry, Environment, Science & Society and Technology
Share & Save

* slashdot slashdot
* digg digg
* facebook facebook
* yahoo yahoo

* del.icio.us del.icio.us
* reddit reddit
* google google
* technorati technorati

Comments 5

* Colloid Silver has been used for the treatment of medical ailments for over 100 years due to its natural antibacterial and antifungal properties. The nano-silver particles typically measure 25nm. They have extremely large relative surface area, increasing their contact with bacteria or fungi, and vastly improving its bactericidal and fungicidal effectiveness.

The Colloid nano-silver when in contact with bacteria and fungus will adversely affect cellular metabolism and inhibit cell growth. The Colloid nano-silver suppresses respiration, basal metabolism of electron transfer system, and transport of substrate in the microbial cell membrane. The Colloid nano-silver inhibits multiplication and growth of those bacteria and fungi which cause infection, odour, itchiness and sores.

Colloid Nano-Silver: An Exceptional Antibiotic

Colloidal Silver is the only antibiotic known reportedly to kill all types of viruses, funguses and bacteria. Colloidal Silver is also the only antibiotic known to be perfectly harmless to all parts of the body. Whilst the liver and kidneys can be harmed by other antibiotics, Colloidal Silver promotes healing without any known side-effects.


How Does Nano-Silver Work?


Colloid Nano-Silver is non-toxic to mammals, reptiles, plants and all living things that are not of a one-celled structure. One-celled life uses a different method of Oxygen metabolism, herein lies its weakness. Since Nano-Silver acts only as a catalyst, meaning, it influences a change in the rate, or occurrence of a reaction of one-celled organisms, but does not enter into any chemical reaction with the body tissues. The mere presence of Colloid Nano-Silver near any virus, fungus or bacterium (one celled disease causing pathogens) will immediately cripple their oxygen-metabolizing enzyme, or chemical lung, which suffocates and dies usually within six minutes. The dead organism is subsequently cleared out of the body by the immune and lymphatic system.


Body tissues having 5 parts per million (5ppm) of Colloid Nano-Silver will be free of virus, fungus and bacterium. Colloid Nano Silver particles are long lived in the body because they do not enter into a reaction, but act catalytically. A catalyst is best described as a substance that brings about, or causes a reaction or occurrence without itself participating or being consumed. The Colloid Nano-Silver particles act as a catalyst in disabling a particular enzyme, best described as "chemical lung", as it transfers oxygen and nutrients through the cells walls of the disease causing organism. The organism suffocates! The mere proximity of Colloid Nano-Silver particles will cripple the activity of the particular enzyme common to all viruses, funguses and bacteria - whilst not affecting the enzymes of tissue type cells. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

How Healing is Accelerated?


Mitosis (the usual cell division in the body tissue) is when two new, identical cells are formed. When Colloid Nano-Silver is present in the body tissue, some of the divisions will be different. One duplicate cell and one dedifferentiated cell are formed. The dedifferentiated cell is like a baby cell that can change into any type of cell in the body. It will naturally migrate to a part of the body where there is tissue damage, where the cell changes to a local tissue cell, adding to the normal cell repair in the injured area and greatly lessening scar tissue formation.


While studying silver some researchers have observed a variety of cells which are primitive in appearance, looking just like the active cells in bone marrow of children. These cells grew fast, reproducing a diverse and surprising assortment of primitive cell forms including fully dedifferentiated and rounded fibroblasts.


Many researchers are of the opinion that silver is in fact an essential element, not because it is required for any mammalian enzyme system, but conversely, because since it is an anti-bacterial, anti-viral, anti-fungal metabolite that disables specific enzymes that pathogenic and parasitic anaerobic micro-organisms use for respiration, Colloid Nano-Silver functions as a systemic anti-anaerobic microbial and immune system supporter, which may be impaired by a silver deficiency.
Jordan O'Hara Cure Zone
Mar. 9, 2009 at 11:24am
* Nanotechnology is a rapidly growing science of producing and utilizing nano-sized particles that measure in nanometers (1 nm = 1 billionth of a metre). One nanomaterial that is having an early impact in healthcare products is nano-silver. Silver has been used for the treatment of medical ailments for over 100 years due to its natural antibacterial and antifungal properties. http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US

The nano-silver particles typically measure 25nm. They have extremely large relative surface area, increasing their contact with bacteria or fungi, and vastly improving its bactericidal and fungicidal effectiveness. Some appliances may not be worth looking into getting quick loans to get your hands on them. A growing number of home appliances, such as dishwashers, washing machines and dryers, have a dose of a potentially toxic particle, called nano silver, also known as silver nano, a patented form of colloidal silver or silver particles that are spread out on the molecular level. You couldn't get enough quick loans to get the microscope you'd need to see them. The Environmental Protection Agency has yet to publish testing results, but it is believed that nano-silver has toxic effects. Silver poisoning is known to be toxic. The chelation therapy you need to reverse it costs more than a few quick loans worth. To read more about this article check out athttp://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/02/24/nano-silver-quick-loans/
Jovanni W Jovanni W
Mar. 5, 2009 at 1:16am
* Response to Article “Nanosilver Disinfects – but at What Price?

There have been many articles praising the germ killing properties of silver nano particles while casting doubts about the harmful effects they might have on the immune system and/or the environment. As the Senior Scientific Advisor to Colloidal Science Laboratories (CSL), in our experience there has been nothing but good results reported concerning effect on the immune system, and we have experimental proof that the nanoparticles do not remain “nano” in size once they contact any parts of the environment (earth, sand, water from various sources, sunlight). The rapid growth rate greatly reduces the surface area of the particles and, concurrently, greatly diminishes biological activity. Let us take these issues in order.

First of all, examine the question of whether or not nanosilver harms the beneficial bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract.
The small intestine in a healthy individual is teaming with various strains of acidophilus which silver nano particles may potentially kill if it proceeded far enough through the GI tract. We believe that silver nano particles are absorbed in the first feet of the small intestine and therefore should not progress far enough through the GI to cause any problems.
It may well be that, in a healthy person whose small intestine is fully colonized by various strains of acidophilus, there would be no noticeable adverse affect from ingestion of colloidal silver; but a person whose intestines are already compromised due to some other condition (yeast, diverticulitis, etc.) may find that they should take an acidophilus supplement. Yeast is a natural occurrence in everyone's intestinal tract. In a healthy person, yeast may constitute about 5-10% of the total flora in the intestinal tract, and as long as the acidophilus is the predominant constituent in the small intestine, yeast cannot get out of control.
However, when doctors prescribe one antibiotic after another the antibiotics destroy all colonies of acidophilus in the small intestine and the yeast can then grow completely out of control very rapidly. Through the yeast's normal metabolic processes, it creates a pH that is much more alkaline than is conducive to the growth and proliferation of acidophilus, and the acidophilus cannot reestablish itself once the yeast has taken over. Thus, anything that has antibiotic properties that is taken over a long period of time could potentially compromise the colonies of acidophilus and allow yeast to take over. Basically, anything that reduces the amount of healthy flora in my intestinal tract will only serve to assist the yeast.
In practice, very few users have reported any problems in their GI tract as a result of using silver nano particles. Those that believe they have experienced a change in their GI tract have used an acidophilus supplement on an occasional basis and experienced no further difficulty. Silver nano particle do not accumulate in the body, but are flushed out daily in normal bodily excretions.
Furthermore, regular users of silver nano particles have reported overwhelmingly an improvement in health and an apparent resistance to disease and infection, indicating that their immune systems are improving, not being compromised. In vitro studies by EMSL Laboratories have confirmed the effectiveness of silver nano particles against virtually every kind of pathogen.
The second question concerns the effect of silver nanoparticles on the environment. Anyone who has tried to make nano particles knows that nanoparticles do not remain “nanosize” for very long when they come in contact with normal environmental samples, such as soil and water, but they agglomerate to form much larger, much less biologically effective, silver particles which are non-toxic, non-ionic and have no history of being harmful to the environment or aquatic life. Even the researchers who are questioning the harmfulness agree that the larger particles are simply harmless silver metal.
For example, in my paper, “Nanoparticles – No Threat to the Environment”, which can be found in its entirety at www.purestcolloids.com, in the learning center section, it was shown that an 80% reduction in surface area, and therefore high reduction in biological activity, took place in a brief period of time. Furthermore, the zeta potential was in the wrong region to support colloidal stability.
These facts were submitted as a paper to “Environmental Science and Technology”. This journal, which is already publishing counter opinions, dismissed the paper in record time without contacting any of the referees whose names were suggested for the paper. It is clear the this journal is not interested in getting at the truth, but in supporting the positions of big Pharma, whose financial interests are in jeopardy because of the growing trend toward natural cures, such as colloidal silver.

george maass george maass
Dec. 17, 2008 at 3:38pm
* I suspect that the colloidal silver information is on the way. There is a ton of research on this product and much misinformation as well. The nano scale findings are troubling to say the least. I had no idea that nano silver was so ubiquitous. (Janet, will this information appear in a print SNL?). My local Coop market will be interested in this information. Thanks.
richard search richard search Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
Dec. 1, 2008 at 7:04am
* I'm disappointed there's no comparison to colloidal silver, a well known cure-all that has the side effect of turning people's skin blue - permanently. If the size and shape of colloidal silver particles is similar to the high tech & trendy "nanoscale" then perhaps much accidental research has already been done in humans.

While I did a Google search - colloidal silver skin - looking for an individual's cautionary tale, http://dermatology.cdlib.org/111/case_reports/argyria/wadhera.html is a more

study 4.stu.3324 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

The decades-old clinical practice of giving multiple courses of steroids to pregnant women at risk of delivering prematurely may actually cause harm to the baby, a new study in the Dec. 20/27 Lancet shows.

“This will be the definitive study on repeated doses,” says John Newnham of the University of Western Australia in Perth. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire “It’ll profoundly change clinical practice.”

Babies born prematurely often have underdeveloped lungs, leading to respiratory distress and other serious health issues. Doctors know that a single course of steroid hormones given to a pregnant mother, often two doses 24 hours apart, unequivocally hastens lung development, improving the outcome for the baby.http://Louis1J1Sheehan1Esquire.us

But, currently, women at risk of giving birth early are routinely given numerous rounds of steroid hormones, believed to enhance the development of the lungs even more.

“The practice changed before trials could take place,” says Kellie Murphy of the University of Toronto in Canada. “We like to think we have all of the answers, but we don’t.”

Some doctors thought the effectiveness of the single course would wear off if the mother remained pregnant for some time after the treatment. Earlier, smaller studies of human babies suggested that doses of steroids given every 14 days might be more beneficial to the baby’s health than a single course, says Murphy.

But other data offered a conflicting view. Studies in animals have suggested that multiple rounds of steroids may interfere with the development of other organs, like the brain and the pancreas. Regardless, many doctors gave multiple courses of steroids, believing the benefits outweighed the costs.

In the largest study of its kind, Murphy and her collaborators looked at 1,858 pregnant women who were at high risk of giving birth prematurely. All of the women in the study received one course of steroids. Researchers then split the women into two groups: One group received additional courses of steroids every 14 days until delivery or week 33 of pregnancy. Women in the second group received a placebo.

Babies exposed to more doses of steroids weighed less, were shorter and had a smaller head circumference at birth than babies exposed to the placebo, which can affect long-term health. These babies born to women who received multiple rounds of steroids had similar rates of mortality to babies exposed to the placebo.

“The results are clear that we saw no benefit,” says Murphy. But it wasn’t just an absence of benefit, she adds. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire The researchers found the multiple courses of steroids to be harmful to developing babies.

A study by Newnham in 2004 also found a harmful link between multiple doses and developmental problems. That study of 541 children found kids who were exposed to multiple rounds of steroids while in the womb were more likely to have behavioral problems, including hyperactivity.

Murphy and colleagues plan to continue monitoring the health and development of the children in the study to look at the long-term effects of steroid exposure in the womb.

“Always in medicine, we try to do no harm. We want to treat people and make things better,” Murphy says. Large, random clinical trials like this one “have the power to change clinical practice.”

study 4.stu.3324 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

The decades-old clinical practice of giving multiple courses of steroids to pregnant women at risk of delivering prematurely may actually cause harm to the baby, a new study in the Dec. 20/27 Lancet shows.

“This will be the definitive study on repeated doses,” says John Newnham of the University of Western Australia in Perth. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire “It’ll profoundly change clinical practice.”

Babies born prematurely often have underdeveloped lungs, leading to respiratory distress and other serious health issues. Doctors know that a single course of steroid hormones given to a pregnant mother, often two doses 24 hours apart, unequivocally hastens lung development, improving the outcome for the baby.http://Louis1J1Sheehan1Esquire.us

But, currently, women at risk of giving birth early are routinely given numerous rounds of steroid hormones, believed to enhance the development of the lungs even more.

“The practice changed before trials could take place,” says Kellie Murphy of the University of Toronto in Canada. “We like to think we have all of the answers, but we don’t.”

Some doctors thought the effectiveness of the single course would wear off if the mother remained pregnant for some time after the treatment. Earlier, smaller studies of human babies suggested that doses of steroids given every 14 days might be more beneficial to the baby’s health than a single course, says Murphy.

But other data offered a conflicting view. Studies in animals have suggested that multiple rounds of steroids may interfere with the development of other organs, like the brain and the pancreas. Regardless, many doctors gave multiple courses of steroids, believing the benefits outweighed the costs.

In the largest study of its kind, Murphy and her collaborators looked at 1,858 pregnant women who were at high risk of giving birth prematurely. All of the women in the study received one course of steroids. Researchers then split the women into two groups: One group received additional courses of steroids every 14 days until delivery or week 33 of pregnancy. Women in the second group received a placebo.

Babies exposed to more doses of steroids weighed less, were shorter and had a smaller head circumference at birth than babies exposed to the placebo, which can affect long-term health. These babies born to women who received multiple rounds of steroids had similar rates of mortality to babies exposed to the placebo.

“The results are clear that we saw no benefit,” says Murphy. But it wasn’t just an absence of benefit, she adds. Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire The researchers found the multiple courses of steroids to be harmful to developing babies.

A study by Newnham in 2004 also found a harmful link between multiple doses and developmental problems. That study of 541 children found kids who were exposed to multiple rounds of steroids while in the womb were more likely to have behavioral problems, including hyperactivity.

Murphy and colleagues plan to continue monitoring the health and development of the children in the study to look at the long-term effects of steroid exposure in the womb.

“Always in medicine, we try to do no harm. We want to treat people and make things better,” Murphy says. Large, random clinical trials like this one “have the power to change clinical practice.”

stimulus 8.sti.001 Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Researchers look to the new administration to bring fresh perspectives to health, energy, climate policy and science funding
By Janet Raloff
March 14th, 2009; Vol.175 #6 (p. 24) Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire
font_down font_up Text Size
access http://louisijisheehan.blogspot.com
Enlargemagnify
SCIENCE STIMULUSView larger version | Researchers look to the new administration to bring fresh perspectives to health, energy, climate policy and science funding.Illustration: Edel Rodriguez Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Barack Obama has proven to be an impresario at selling new policies — and at selling himself as the best man to implement them. http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US On the stump a year ago he promised a no-nonsense, let’s-fix-this approach to the nation’s mounting social and economic ills. His campaign pledges ranged from making health care insurance universally affordable to fixing schools to assuring that tax credits supporting industrial research and development wouldn’t expire.

And, particularly encouraging to scientists, Obama pledged that research agencies would receive better funding based on smarter criteria. Climate protection would be a priority. So would new national strategies aimed at conserving energy and other natural resources.

Science would not be muzzled in the pursuit of economic agendas or environmental deregulation; it would be embraced as the foundation for federal policies. Wasteful, duplicative and pure-pork programs would be eliminated. New policies would reverse the trend of outsourcing industrial jobs overseas.

And Obama promised that virtually all federal activities would become transparent to taxpayers. Key to that transparency would be digital records of events, transactions, proposals, e-mails and meetings.

Now that most voters have bought Obama’s pitch, the big question remains: Can he deliver?

The research community appears optimistic that the new president will follow through with as much as Congress allows. Many experts say they are impressed with the cadre of politically astute science and biomedical advisers that President Obama has already mustered to work for his White House and with Congress.

No surprise to anyone, “The real problem is going to be the economy,” observes physicist Leon Lederman, a Nobel laureate and former director of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Ill.

Federal funding for science has been eroding over the past eight years, Lederman says. Meanwhile, the nation is in a recession, continues to direct huge sums of money into overseas wars and the importation of oil, faces an expected $1.2 trillion budget deficit this year, and strains under a national debt exceeding $10.6 trillion.

Against that backdrop, Lederman believes that reversing federal funding trends in science and engineering will prove a challenge. However, he adds, based on conversations with his former senator, Obama, “I’m convinced that he has an unusual grasp of science. Not that he can write down a differential equation. But Obama understands science in a deep way and reveals it by commenting on the beauty of new discoveries.

“To me, he deserves three checks for clearly understanding the power of science.”

And that, Lederman argues, is why Obama’s inauguration brought him a genuine sense of hope: “It feels like the marines are arriving — and just in time, hopefully.”

Health | A shot in the arm

The first wave of those marines has been dropping from the skies in what have been termed “parachute teams.” Beginning immediately after election day, the Obama transition advisers dispatched small groups to study federal agencies — through interviews with staff and talks with outsiders who monitor federal activities. The goal: to investigate not only what Uncle Sam has been charged with doing but also what major obstacles exist to carrying out those charges.

Some parachutists dropped in on Mary Woolley and her colleagues at Research!America. Woolley’s team, based in Alexandria, Va., has been documenting declining federal investment in biomedical and health research, and the impacts of that decline. She offered Obama’s team the following assessment of the big picture:

With an estimated one-in-six Americans lacking health insurance, a key campaign issue in 2008 was how to help people qualify for affordable insurance even if they’d lost their jobs.

Medical costs have continued to spiral upward while nearly every other economic indicator has fallen. Crucial to reining in costs will be smarter use of health resources — be they physician access, medicines, diagnostic procedures or patient data, Woolley explains. The health care industry would work more efficiently now if it knew how to, she contends.
access
Enlargemagnify
OBAMA'S SCIENCE CADREView larger version | Last December, then President-elect Obama explained his attitude toward science. It’s to see “that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Promoting science is “about listening to what our scientists have to say,” he added, “even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States, and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”From Left: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; John F. Kennedy School of Government/Harvard University; AP (Lubchenco and Varmus); Rick Friedman/Corbis

“You don’t know what constitutes misspent money until you do research to investigate that — what’s called health-services and comparative-effectiveness research.”

Woolley describes most medical practice today as “anecdotal” — a process best exemplified by the trial-and-error diagnostic and therapeutic approaches embodied each week on the TV drama House. Its fictional physicians analyze a battery of diagnostic test results and then prescribe some therapy. If it doesn’t work, they try another. Still no luck? More tests and a new round of alternative therapies until some treatment actually controls the patient’s particular condition.

Effects of most treatments differ depending on a patient’s age, gender, genetics, coexisting conditions and even social habits. Comparative-effectiveness research attempts to acquire therapeutic data on broad cross sections of the population — employing health information technology, or IT — and then sifts through these data to evaluate when or where a treatment performed best. A few health care systems, like Kaiser Permanente and the Mayo Clinic, have exploited health IT for these types of analyses, Woolley says, “but it’s not done, far and away, for most patients in this country.”

Obama’s plans for a major push in health IT have the potential to facilitate such studies in the future. He has pledged to make investments that would ensure that “within five years all of America’s medical records are computerized.” The priority shows up in the economic stimulus package that the president signed into law February 17.

Energy | Powering alternatives

Jason S. Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, based in Washington, D.C., served as energy and climate adviser for Obama’s presidential campaign. What motivated him to sign on, he says, was his faith in the candidate’s commitment to changing how the nation powers itself.

“Every president since Richard Nixon has aspired to energy independence in one form or another. And we’ve been yammering at each other as a nation for 10 years about global climate change while the votes [in Congress to do something about it] have basically stayed essentially locked.” To Grumet, the question was “not only who gets in [as president], but, in fact, who can get it done,” he says. Obama pledged to reduce the nation’s carbon footprint, but also recognized, Grumet says, that meeting this commitment while also facing the energy challenge is “not like any problem that we’ve faced before.”

Last year at a meeting with environmental reporters, Grumet recalled how he had lobbied members of Congress on cutting dependence on foreign oil. His goal: new federal policies that would force Detroit to build more efficient cars. Yet every time Grumet pointed out that it would take a decade to retool manufacturers and then get enough fuel-efficient cars on the road to make a big difference, the lawmakers would suddenly yawn. “And they’d look at their watch. And they’d thank me for my great work.”

He made the same pitch to Obama and his staff. One look at the numbers on oil imports and transportation’s role in climate, Grumet says, and the senator volunteered: “We’ve got to do something about cars.” When Grumet pointed out the decade lag time in seeing a benefit from federal action, Obama told him: “Well then, we better get started now.”

A few months later Obama met with U.S. automakers and members of the United Auto Workers for what Grumet described as “a tough love” talk. Obama informed Detroit that he would begin pushing his congressional colleagues for significantly strengthened mileage standards.

It was the same message that Obama sent voters last year when he vowed to eliminate oil imports from the Middle East and Venezuela within 10 years, get a million super-efficient plug-in hybrid cars on the road by 2015 and ensure that 10 percent of the nation’s energy comes from alternative fuels by 2025.

Obama reiterated those themes in January in his stimulus package outline as he pledged again to quickly “spark the creation of a clean energy economy” with big investments in alternative energy, programs to weatherize homes and federal buildings and initiatives that put Americans to work constructing fuel-efficient cars.

Obama selected a strong ally to champion these programs in Steven Chu, who is now the Secretary of Energy. As director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California, Chu had already been stumping for those same issues.

Chu has been campaigning for the equivalent of an Apollo program for energy (SN: 10/25/08, p. 32). He envisions a huge, federal investment to develop new technologies to pare energy use in especially energy-hungry sectors of the economy.

Although “it’s kind of dumb,” Chu notes, “most people won’t invest in energy efficiency unless it pays for itself in one or two years.” In fact, for buildings with an expected 50-year life span, for example, “a 10- to 15-year payoff should be reasonable” for investments in energy efficiency, Chu says. Until industry and the public accept that, he says, Uncle Sam — in the guise of the agency Chu now leads — may have to step in and promote research aimed at achieving big and clever energy savings.

Climate | Sea change
access
Enlargemagnify

As part of the “Apollo program,” Chu would like to see a major new thrust on technologies that can affordably sequester the carbon emitted by the world’s most abundant fossil fuel, coal.

At his confirmation hearing on January 13, Chu was asked to put in context a quote attributed to him about coal use being the nominee’s “worst nightmare.” Chu said that he meant, “If the world continues to use coal the way we’re using it today — and by the world I mean not only the United States, but China, India and Russia — then it is a pretty bad dream.” Together, he points out, these four nations account for two-thirds of the world’s known coal reserves — a cheap energy source difficult to ignore. And even if the United States abandons coal burning, India and China will not, he believes. Power plants in those nations also tend to be far dirtier than their U.S. counterparts.

That’s why “it’s imperative that we figure out a way to use coal as cleanly as possible,” Chu argues. And he’s optimistic that “we will develop those technologies to capture a large fraction of the carbon dioxide that is emitted by coal plants and to safely sequester it” (SN: 5/10/08, p. 19). Because he was coached for the hearing by Obama’s transition team, Chu’s comments reflect the goals of the new administration.

Which is good, notes R.K. Pachauri, director-general of the Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, India, and chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In contrast to the economy, which is the world’s leading short-term crisis, climate change is the looming mid- to long-range one. And the world may have only seven to 10 years to avert major perturbations in long-term climate, Pachauri says. Obama’s pronouncements on climate show this president is thinking seriously about acting quickly to curb the use of climate-damaging energy technologies.

And not a moment too soon, adds Stanford University climatologist Stephen Schneider.

People have argued that the Bush administration was in denial about the looming impacts of unrestrained carbon dioxide emissions. “But it wasn’t denial,” Schneider contends. “They didn’t not believe it.” He charges that evidence indicating climate change — and the role of human activities in it — was simply ignored “because it was inconvenient for Bush campaign contributors, like oil company CEOs.”

With Obama’s administration, Schneider says, “it’s now virtually certain we’ll have a [national] climate policy. The only question is: Too little, too late?”

Estimates on the costs of setting U.S. energy policy on a more climate-friendly trajectory hover around $1 trillion to be spent over a decade, he says. That amount is high, he concedes, but no more than the cost of 300 days in the Iraq War.

The Bush administration’s response to energy needs was “drill, baby, drill” — be it for oil or coal. In the new financial climate, Obama’s economic team is undoubtedly lobbying him to restrain “costs, baby, costs,” Schneider says.

But Obama seems to have focused on a more visionary goal — energy-sparing technologies, says Schneider, adding that the president has selected a very articulate spokesman in Chu. This new energy secretary will offer a strong voice in the Cabinet for “sustainability, baby, sustainability,” Schneider suspects.

Obama’s selection of former Environmental Protection Agency administrator Carol Browner as White House coordinator of energy and climate policy further propels Schneider’s optimism that substantial U.S. action on climate is pending. Browner, Schneider says, is a get-it-done person and is “a great balance to Chu, who’s an idea guy.”

What that pairing offers, he believes, is the opportunity for “open — probably pretty contentious — debate inside the closed doors of the Cabinet.” In fact, Browner’s special assignment as energy/
climate czar should “elevate these issues above where they’d have been by just letting Cabinet secretaries manage them,” argues Schneider. That’s why the nominations of Chu and Browner gave him “much more hope than I’d had before that [Obama] will be able to pull off substantial climate policy.”

It will then be up to Congress to implement that policy. Unfortunately, Schneider worries, it may take “a super-typhoon souped up by global warming that devastates a mega-delta city of 10 million in China” to catalyze action, or another heat wave like the one that killed 50,000 people in Europe six years ago. “I really wish we didn’t need to be kicked in the teeth — if not lower — before we acted.”

Research | The other infrastructure

News accounts describing the nation’s eroding infrastructure point to water main breaks, cracked and rusting bridges and aging power plants. Although less visible, the nation’s research infrastructure is also fraying.

A January 7 report by the Washington, D.C.–based Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, or ITIF, argues that the nation’s digital infrastructure — computers, broadband networks, health IT and the electrical grid — deserves a major overhaul. An investment here “delivers more jobs and makes America more competitive than spurring consumer spending or even investing in traditional physical infrastructure,” says Rob Atkinson, ITIF’s president. His group made a good case. The stimulus package now contains more than $41 billion for digital infrastructure. ITIF anticipates stimulus spending in this area will, through 2016, ultimately create 1.1 million person-years of new employment.

Research labs also warrant refurbishing. Atkinson and his colleagues proposed devoting $2 billion of the stimulus money for one-time research infrastructure grants. This program should not only support jobs in the companies that make research equipment, Atkinson points out, but also “leave us with something tangible to serve our nation’s next generation of researchers.” The stimulus package contains about $1.26 billion for research facilities and equipment, says ITIF’s Daniel Castro.

To encourage private concerns to invest more in infrastructure and research, ITIF also proposed a new system of tax credits. Currently, a company receives no tax credit for spending on R&D until the amount exceeds 50 percent of the company’s average R&D expenditure in the previous three years. Then the credit kicks in, and at a rate of only 14 percent. ITIF would increase the credit to 20 percent.

The group also proposes a “40 percent flat credit on all research and development expenditures made in collaboration with a university, federal laboratory or research consortium.” This proposal stems from the finding of a recent ITIF study showing that although innovations now stem largely from collaborative projects, private companies have been cutting back on such early stage cooperative programs.

To date, Obama has endorsed the idea of making existing tax credits for R&D investments permanent. “And that’s nice,” Atkinson says. “But at the end of the day, that’s not going to do the job. The point should not be permanency but expansion [of tax credits].”

ITIF also recommends openly acknowledging the importance of technology and innovation to American competitiveness and creating a standing federal agency — one akin to the National Science Foundation — tasked with promoting the development and commercialization of new technologies (see “A proposed NSF for innovation,” Science & the Public, SN Online: 4/29/08). He hopes such a focus might also spur investments in unusual, high-risk — but also potentially high-payoff — projects, such as those supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

As a member of two Obama transition teams, Atkinson says he has briefed the president’s advisers.

Basic science research could also use a strong funding boost. But Atkinson is dubious: “The science community has not been very aggressive in pushing for its needs.” Other interest groups are better at promotion, he says. But to stimulate the economy, “in the short run, funding in science would be just as good as in any other area, and in the long term, it would have a better economic impact,” Atkinson says.

Lederman seconds that. “I think the public would come on board and support greater funding for research if they understood the situation” — that R&D funding, which drives innovation and the economy, has been languishing. He faults the scientific community, in part, “for not speaking up for science more in Washington.” http://LOUIS-J-SHEEHAN.US

Still, reasons for optimism are emerging. As noted by the Washington, D.C.–based American Association for the Advancement of Science, the stimulus package includes $21.5 billion for research and non-digital infrastructure, a total that well exceeds amounts initially recommended by the House ($13.2 billion) and Senate ($17.8 billion).

OBAMA’S SCIENCE CADRE Last December, then President-elect Obama explained his attitude toward science. It’s to see “that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology.” Promoting science is “about listening to what our scientists have to say,” he added, “even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States, and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.”

Steven Chu

Physicist, Nobel laureate

Secretary of Energy

During early January, Chu zipped through his Senate confirmation hearing for the energy secretary post. The day after Obama was inaugurated, Chu — the former director of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory — joined the presidential Cabinet, becoming the first Nobel laureate ever to do so.

John Holdren

Physicist

President’s science adviser

Holdren will head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Director of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts, Holdren is also director of science, technology and public policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where his research has focused on energy and climate. He is past president and board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Jane Lubchenco

Marine ecologist

Chief, NOAA

Another former AAAS president joins Obama’s inner circle: The Oregon State University marine scientist will head the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lubchenco’s research, among the most cited in ecology, has focused on factors regulating marine communities, biodiversity and global change. She received a MacArthur award in 1993.

Harold Varmus

Biologist, Nobel laureate Louis J. Sheehan, Esquire

Cochair, PCAST

Varmus is renowned in the biomedical arena and will cochair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. As director of the National Institutes of Health for six years, he is credited with nearly doubling that agency’s budget. Most recently, he has been head of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City.

Eric Lander

Genomicist