Letter from the Dean
Dear Readers,
I’m concerned. I think you should be too.
In late February, Dr. Liz Blackburn, a professor of biochemistry and
biophysics at UC-San Francisco, learned from the White House that her
services on the President’s Council on Bioethics were no longer
needed. This council’s task is to report on the ethics of therapeutic
and reproductive cloning and Blackburn, an experienced cell and molecular
biologist and a member of the Institute of Medicine and the National
Academy of Sciences, had been one of only three full-time biomedical
scientists among the 19 members.
Blackburn says she made it her responsibility to describe to the council
the great potential for human health held by therapeutic cloning (more
appropriately known as somatic-cell nuclear transfer). Blackburn’s
favorable point of view toward SCNT is at odds, however, with the administration’s.
In the end, Blackburn learned that the administration did not want her
perspective considered. New England Journal of Medicine readers were
informed in an April 1 opinion editorial penned by Blackburn that even
though she provided the council information about animal models indicating
the potential benefits of such research, this information failed to appear
in the committee’s final Report on Monitoring Stem Cell Research.
Observes Blackburn: “…the best possible scientific information
was not incorporated and communicated clearly in the council’s
report, suggesting that the presentation was biased.”
Unfortunately, this is no isolated incident.
In the past three years I have watched ideology seep deep into scientific and
medical research. To be sure, the phenomenon is bipartisan.
More disturbing examples:
• Last year, the U.S. House of Representatives passed, with a
clear margin, a law setting draconian limits on stem cell research.
• In January, Georgia’s superintendent of education proposed
eliminating the word “evolution” from the state’s science
curriculum.
• In February, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a group of 60
influential scientists including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a report
detailing the negative impact of actions at the federal government level
that have modified scientific research to accommodate political and ideological
goals.
The group launched a campaign, “Restoring Scientific Integrity,” with
an open letter calling for regulatory and legislative action “to
restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking.” Stanford’s
Paul Berg, the Robert W. and Vivian K. Cahill Professor of Cancer Research,
Emeritus, was one of the individuals who signed this letter.
This is a call to action. As physicians, scientists and researchers
we must play an active role in our democratic system. We cannot afford
to sit back and wait for someone else to raise the issues. Too much is
at stake. Moreover, ideology’s encroachment of science has dire
implications for our representative government, reliant as it is on an
informed citizenry. Furthermore, it spells trouble for medicine’s
ability to pursue breakthroughs in disease prevention and treatment.
I would encourage each reader of this magazine — whether you are
a physician, researcher, student or simply a concerned citizen — to
educate yourself about the issues and, where appropriate, take an active
role in responding when it is clear that political ideology is thwarting
scientific research that serves the public’s interest.
This is a crucial time in our effort to improve the quality of life
of people who suffer from disease. Please join me in advocating for policies
that will give us the best opportunity to succeed in this most important
endeavor.
With best regards,
Philip A. Pizzo, MD
Professor of Pediatrics and of Microbiology and Immunology
Carl and Elizabeth Naumann Professor
Dean, Stanford University School of Medicine
Back
To Contents
