Part the First: The Powell Memo started it all.<\/strong>\u00a0 Written by Lewis Powell, then a Richmond corporate lawyer for Big Tobacco and later Supreme Court Justice, for the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Powell Memo set out how \u201cto take America back\u201d from the hippies and the freaks, Mario Savio, Abbie Hoffman, Tom Hayden, Charles Reich, the Smothers Brothers, and Ralph Nader included.\u00a0 The Heritage Foundation<\/a> is one of many busy children of the Powell Memo<\/a> (i.e., Attack on American Free Enterprise System), and its Project 2025<\/a> has motivated the current President, through his minions, to fire government scientists willy nilly, terminate grants because their keywords are now politically incorrect (sex, climate, ecology, fossil fuel, disparities) and cancel long-term projects like the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study<\/a> (so much for the importance of chronic disease to the current Secretary of Health and Human Services) because it has been run by Columbia University for the past several years.\u00a0 Nature<\/em> covers the story here<\/a>:<\/p>\n The Heritage Foundation\u2026released Project 2025, a policy guidebook and staffing list<\/a>, in April 2023, as a blueprint for what it hoped would be a second Trump presidency. \u00a0Trump, however, disavowed the initiative during his 2024 presidential campaign, saying that he had no knowledge of it, after there was public backlash over the publication\u2019s sweeping Republican policy proposals, such as banning abortion, overhauling the federal government and slashing funding for climate science.\u00a0 But Trump and his administration have closely hewed to Project 2025\u2019s agenda, detailed in a sprawling, 922-page book, passing executive orders to defund climate initiatives and target diversity programmes. The Wall Street Journal<\/em> found<\/a> that more than half of Trump\u2019s executive orders (EOs) align with Project 2025 recommendations. \u00a0And most of its 40 listed authors are now key figures on Trump\u2019s team.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Does the President know he is following Project 2025?\u00a0 Asking for a friend.<\/p>\n Part the Second: Sometimes whistling silently past the graveyard during election season does not work<\/strong>.\u00a0 One of Trump\u2019s defenestrated is Dr. Peter Marks, who was longtime Director the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research at FDA.\u00a0 As the title puts it: Ouster of FDA\u2019s Peter Marks alarms a biopharma industry that saw him as an ally<\/a>.\u00a0 Yes, I would imagine it does, even if Dr. Marks saw himself as something other than an \u201cally\u201d of Big Pharma and Little Pharma:<\/p>\n When Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a longtime and visceral critic of pharmaceutical and biotech companies, was nominated by President Trump to be the nation\u2019s health secretary, the head of biotech\u2019s largest trade group issued a statement saying that he had \u201cevery confidence\u201d that the industry would \u201ccontinue to thrive and deliver\u201d<\/strong> on its goals, and looked forward to working closely with the new administration.<\/p>\n Three months later, in February, when the National Institutes of Health announced plans to slash indirect cost payments to universities and other institutions that have received federal grants, the trade group, the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, <\/strong>issued no response<\/strong><\/a>,<\/strong> even though the work of those universities and other institutions is a critical driver of new drugs and other medical products.<\/p>\n On Saturday, one day after news that the Food and Drug Administration\u2019s top vaccine regulator had been forced out of his post by Kennedy<\/a>, who has since been confirmed by the Senate as health secretary, BIO CEO John Crowley <\/strong>released a statement<\/strong><\/a> saying that the group was \u201cdeeply concerned that the loss of experienced leadership at the FDA will erode scientific standards and broadly impact the development of new, transformative therapies to fight diseases for the American people.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n The historical contexts are incommensurable, but does no one remember Martin Niemoller<\/a> or even Winston Churchill<\/a>.\u00a0 What goes around, comes around.\u00a0 With a vengeance.\u00a0 The foundation of Big Pharma is research supported by the National Institutes of Health and similar organizations.\u00a0 Without a functional, even somewhat pliable FDA at times, nothing good from Big Pharma will ever get approved.\u00a0 And that is the end of that story.\u00a0 Things not so good getting approved?\u00a0 A good bet.<\/p>\n The text of Peter Marks\u2019s resignation letter is here<\/a>.\u00a0 It is one of the more remarkable documents of its kind, especially on MMR:<\/p>\n The ongoing multistate measles outbreak that is particularly severe in Texas reminds us of what happens when confidence in well-established science underlying public health and well-being is undermined.\u00a0 Measles, which killed more than 100,000 unvaccinated children last year in Africa and\u2026had been eliminated from our shores. \u00a0The two-dose measles, mumps, rubella vaccine regimen (MMR) using over the past decades has a remarkably favorable benefit-risk profile. \u00a0The MMR vaccine is 97% or more effective in preventing measles following the two-dose series, and its safety has been remarkably well studied. Though rarely followed by a single fever-related seizure, or very rarely by allergic reactions or blood clotting disorders, the vaccine very simply does not cause autism, nor is it associated with encephalitis or death<\/strong>. \u00a0It does, however, protect against a potential devasting consequence of prior measles infection, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE), which is an untreatable, relentlessly progressive neurologic disorder leading to death in about 1 in 10,000 individuals infected with measles. Undermining confidence in well-established vaccines that have met the high standards for quality, safety, and effectiveness that have been in place for decades at FDA is irresponsible, detrimental to public health, and a clear danger to our nation\u2019s health, safety, and security.<\/p>\n As you are aware, I was willing to work to address the Secretary\u2019s concerns regarding vaccine safety and transparency<\/strong> by hearing from the public and implementing a variety of different public meetings and engagements with the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. However, it has become clear that truth and transparency are not desired by the Secretary, but rather he wishes subservient confirmation of his misinformation and lies<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n That will not<\/strong> leave a mark, alas.\u00a0 One does wonder what the new Director of FDA, Dr. Marty Makary<\/a>, formerly of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, is thinking right now.\u00a0 Is he good with this?\u00a0 Did he have no influence with the Secretary?\u00a0 This will be revealed in due time.\u00a0 I\u2019m guessing he his on board with the destruction of American biomedical sciences, which will necessarily gut the nation\u2019s first research university \u2013 Johns Hopkins.<\/p>\n Part the Third: Look to China for the next great things in biopharmaceuticals, therapeutic gene editing, and gene therapies<\/strong>.\u00a0 This attack on American science will have consequences, as foreshadowed by Chinese advances in CRISPR therapy for Duchenne muscular dystrophy<\/a> (DMD).\u00a0 As U.S. efforts stall, China pushes ahead with CRISPR treatments for muscular dystrophy:<\/a><\/p>\n Two of the first efforts to treat Duchenne muscular dystrophy with CRISPR gene editing are getting off the ground in China, even as projects in the U.S. have seemingly stalled<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Trials for the fatal muscle-wasting disease were started in the last couple of months by two different Chinese companies. One, GenAssist, has already dosed one young boy. Huidagene, the other biotech, expects to dose the first of three boys soon and report data by Q1 next year.<\/p>\n The efforts are notable, as scientists and advocates have long hoped CRISPR could unlock a more powerful treatment for Duchenne than the technology used in Elevidys, Sarepta\u2019s much-debated gene therapy. The need for such a treatment only grew last October, when trial results confirmed that Elevidys<\/a>, while potentially useful, is far from a cure.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Would it be churlish to note that it has been ten years since Eric Olsen of University of Texas-Southwestern in Dallas showed<\/a> that CRISPR could be used correct a genetic defect<\/a> associated with DMD?\u00a0 And that this result was so promising that Vertex Pharmaceuticals<\/a> bought his startup company, Exonics for $245M.\u00a0 Long live the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980!\u00a0 But in fairness to all, delivery of any DMD therapeutic is a very difficult proposition because skeletal muscle is a very large target to cover, and the agent must remain active for a long time.\u00a0 Liver is the much easier target for viral vectors.\u00a0 Stem cells in the bone marrow even easier, if more dangerous because for that transplant to take place the entire immune system must be obliterated first.\u00a0 Given current developments, it seems unlikely that US Science will remain up to the task.<\/p>\n What exactly does \u201cMake America Great Again\u201d really mean?\u00a0 Which is not to say that the scientific establishment is above reproach, that the entire structure and mechanism is the best of all possible world.\u00a0 An incremental approach can improve American science across the board.\u00a0 But the \u201cslash-and-burn\u201d here is a solution to nothing, unless the goal is to destroy and rebuild from scratch.\u00a0 Which is not possible.\u00a0 From Links earlier this week: Xi Jinping is investing in China\u2019s science and technology research as Trump is gutting America\u2019s research foundations<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n Part the Fourth.\u00a0 Driving while nonwhite is a thing (not that we didn\u2019t know this already)<\/strong>. From ArsTechnica: Study of Lyft rideshare data confirms minorities get more tickets<\/a>.<\/p>\n First<\/strong>: The data showed one thing clearly: Lyft has incentives for its drivers to avoid traffic violations, and they work. \u201cCompared with the general population of motorists, our sample is less prone to speed, especially more than 10 mph over the limit,\u201d the team writes. \u201cAs a result, our analysis examines only 1,423 citations for speeding.\u201d While lower than you\u2019d expect, that\u2019s more than enough to do some statistics on the frequency of these citations.<\/p>\n Second<\/strong>: The results clearly reproduced a similar pattern to earlier research. Minority Lyft drivers were about 30 percent more likely to be pulled over and cited for speeding (the two analyses produced results of 24 and 33 percent). Once cited, they were also likely to receive higher fines, either 23 or 34 percent more than white drivers.<\/p>\n Third<\/strong>: The remaining question was why \u2013 the police could potentially be acting out of bias, or they could be attempting to deter minority drivers because they are more prone to problematic driving. So, the researchers compared the actual frequency of speeding based on the GPS data and used accidents as a proxy for problematic driving habits. Neither of these showed any significant differences between minorities and white drivers.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Diversity causing inequity and inclusion with malice aforethought?\u00a0 Probably.\u00a0 The article is published in Science<\/a>.\u00a0 Be sure to click on the \u201cAuthors Info and Affiliations\u201d link on the landing page.\u00a0 More leading universities getting themselves in trouble, again?<\/p>\n Part the Fifth. Slow Science could be the new Slow Food<\/strong>.\u00a0 From The Conversation, Reliable science takes time. But the current system rewards\u00a0speed<\/a>.\u00a0 Yes, it does.\u00a0 I will violate Horowitz\u2019s Law here, from my freshman sociology teacher: \u201cNever let you own necessarily limited personal experience lead you to generalize, too far.\u201d\u00a0 But slow science is exactly right.\u00a0 At its largest my laboratory had three PhD students who joined the lab in successive years, two high-level research coordinators with Master\u2019s degrees, and a gaggle of undergraduates.\u00a0 We published 3-4 papers in good journals in a good year.\u00a0 That was enough.\u00a0 The imperative to move fast means that you will inevitably break things, unintentionally or otherwise.\u00a0 Another personal anecdote.\u00a0 I was involved in a startup long ago as the person who actually knew how to do the protein chemistry necessary to produce the product.\u00a0 That is until one day I pushed back with the question, \u201cWhy is there never enough time to do the experiment right but always enough time to do it over?\u201d\u00a0 Just as well.\u00a0 I was long gone when the crackup resulted in several ruined careers.\u00a0 From the article, much of this covered here before:<\/p>\n Lately, there have been many headlines on scientific fraud<\/a> and journal article retractions<\/a>. If this trend continues, it represents a serious threat to public trust in science.<\/p>\n One way to tackle this problem \u2013 and ensure public trust in science remains high<\/a> \u2013 may be to slow it down. We sometimes refer to this philosophy as \u201cslow science.\u201d Akin to the slow food movement, slow science prioritises quality over speed<\/a> and seeks to buck incentive structures that promote mass production.<\/p>\n Slow science may not represent an obvious way to improve science because we often equate science with progress, and slowing down progress does not sound very appealing. However, progress is not just about speed, but about basing important societal decisions on strong scientific foundations. And this takes time<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Unfortunately\u2026<\/p>\n Much as with fast food, scientists are incentivised to produce as much science as possible in as little time as possible. This can mean cutting corners<\/strong>. We know, for instance, that larger samples lead to more trustworthy results<\/a> because they are more likely to be representative of the relevant population. However, collecting large samples takes time and resources.<\/p>\n Fast science is also associated with gaming the system<\/a>. As a hypothetical example, an educational scientist might collect data to find evidence for their theory that a new teaching style promotes better learning. Then, they look at the data and realise the intervention did not quite improve learning.<\/strong> But if you squint at it, there might be a trend if you drop a couple of pesky outliers that didn\u2019t see a benefit. So, they do just that.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Final anecdote based on the above.\u00a0 In my current life I have on occasion read the literature on medical education.\u00a0 Suffice to say that if these scholars were studying the molecular basis of genetics they would still be arguing whether proteins (complex) or DNA (ATGC in sequence, simple) are the genetic material.<\/p>\n One thing I am proud of is that my primary professional home, The American Society for Cell Biology<\/a>, led the way on DORA: Declaration on Research Assessment<\/a>.\u00a0 Will things come around?\u00a0 One can only hope, without being particularly optimistic.<\/p>\n Part the Sixth: Leading scientists make a point while missing the larger point.<\/strong>\u00a0 This Guardian<\/em> article, More than 1,900 scientists write letter in \u2018SOS\u2019 over Trump\u2019s attacks on science<\/a>, is encouraging on the surface.\u00a0 The letter is here<\/a>.\u00a0 For the most part it is forceful.\u00a0 The signers are truly a Who\u2019s Who of Science, many of them I know and admire.\u00a0 But in my view they make a critical error with this sentence:<\/p>\n The quest for truth \u2013 the mission of science \u2013 requires that scientists freely explore new questions and report their findings honestly, independent of special interests.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Yes, the mission of science requires scientists to \u201cfreely explore new questions and report their findings honestly, independent of special interests.\u201d\u00a0 The problem is that too much of what the lay public sees as science is not \u201cindependent of special interests,\u201d as the past five years have demonstrated.\u00a0 Moreover, the mission of science is not \u201cthe quest for truth.\u201d\u00a0 The mission of science is to produce useful knowledge that leads to a deeper understanding of the natural world.\u00a0 Science is provisional, always.\u00a0 With truth, well that all depends.\u00a0 This view has been presented here previously in Our Loss of Science in the 21st<\/sup> Century and How to Get It Back<\/a>, following the work of the philosopher Nancy Cartwright and her collaborators.<\/p>\n The \u201cquest for truth\u201d has something for all of us, and it has different meanings to the artist and craftsman, scientist, historian, theologian, priest, professor, philosopher, and the farmer, machinist, electrician, and plumber.\u00a0 On the other hand, the quest for truth generally has little meaning for politicians and their acolytes, and their useful knowledge is entirely context dependent.<\/p>\n Corey Robin<\/a> has a somewhat different take on this as he compares the scientists\u2019 letter with one from the Harvard Law School faculty. The question of \u201ctruth,\u201d perhaps?\u00a0 Whose truth and for what?\u00a0 In any case, the best way to alienate your interlocutors is to declare that you are righteously searching for the truth, while implying the opposite for them.\u00a0 Corey Robin also asks Where is our tank man?\u00a0 So far, nowhere to be found.<\/p>\n Part the Seventh: Snow leopards in the high mountains of Pakistan<\/strong>.\u00a0 A mother and three cubs<\/a>.\u00a0 LiveScience is a bit cluttered for anyone\u2019s taste other an internet ad sales rep but the animals are magnificent.<\/p>\n See you next week.<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
![\"Print](\"https:\/\/cdn.printfriendly.com\/buttons\/print-button-gray.png\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n