Nature.20081002.pdf

(25719 KB) Pobierz
2.10 Editorials.indd MH Colin.indd
340214332.009.png
www.nature.com/nature
Vol 455 | Issue no. 7213 | 2 October 2008
A question of balance
The turmoil in the financial markets could lead to severe cost-cutting by governments, but US politicians
would do well to note the benefits of continued support for clean energy and climate policies.
collapsing financial sector remained in limbo in the US Con-
gress. Some such deal may yet be passed. If it is, it still may not
be enough to stop the global economy from sliding into recession.
Faced with the prospect of fresh outlays and declining revenue, the
US government may soon be looking for ways to tighten its belt, a
situation likely to be echoed in Europe and beyond. For science and
technology, this could mean less money for basic research, education
and clean energy, and could pose fresh threats to the long-promised
climate legislation in the United States.
Those who favour cutbacks — or, in the case of climate regulations,
not moving forward — will say such activities cannot be afforded.
In some cases, they may well be right; scientists may have to gird
themselves for flat budgets into the foreseeable future, and set their
priorities accordingly. But there is a danger that the debate will be
framed entirely in terms of costs, with no consideration of the ben-
efits. Investment in areas such as research, education and clean energy
are part of the foundations for long-term prosperity.
The good news in the United States is that both leading presidential
candidates have made this connection, especially in the energy and
climate arena. Neither the Republican candidate John McCain nor
the Democratic candidate Barack Obama is selling climate regulation
as an expensive moral obligation to the environment. Instead, both
speak of the benefits of ‘green-collar’ jobs and energy security.
There are concerns that McCain might succumb to pressure from
the far-right of his party and back away from his pledge to curb green-
house-gas emissions through a cap-and-trade programme. But he
has yet to do so. His advisers continue to advocate hybrid vehicles,
for instance, as both a cheaper and cleaner alternative to the internal
combustion engine and a way to make the United States less depend-
ent on increasingly expensive foreign oil.
Obama has gone further, integrating energy and climate pol-
icy with his plan for revitalizing the US economy. He argues that
green jobs tend to be domestic jobs, which means energy security
goes hand-in-hand with economic development. This might be
dismissed as overly optimistic, given that the transition to clean
energy won’t be cheap, but there is little doubt that new industries
will eventually rise in place of the old ones. In last week’s first presi-
dential debate, Obama also endorsed solid investments in science
and technology generally.
It’s refreshing to see that this political realignment has also taken
hold in Congress. Efficiency and conservation, frequently played
down as feel-good measures in the past, are now seen as critical
components of the energy equation.
The notion that the government can
use its purchasing power to advance
the development of clean vehicles has
been heralded as a way of increasing
energy security while addressing the
long-term threat of climate change.
Such ideas, if implemented, will
drive new investment in the years to
come. It will take time for the world’s
financial institutions to rebuild
themselves following the implosion on Wall Street. But the funda-
mental need to create a more sustainable energy infrastructure to
power the globe will be as strong as ever. Eventually the market will
respond to that opportunity.
It would be naive to assume that progress on these issues will
be easy, even with vigorous leadership. Private investment in new
technology has increased significantly in recent years — but so have
global greenhouse-gas emissions. This makes it all the more impor-
tant that Congress and the international community move quickly
to establish a solid and predictable climate regulatory framework
to carry the world beyond the Kyoto Protocol. The current market
turmoil is due in part to a continuing crisis of confidence, so a
little regulatory certainty on greenhouse gases might be welcome. It
won’t solve the financial crisis by itself, but it would help businesses,
financial institutions and funding agencies place their bets on
the future.
“The fundamental
need to create a more
sustainable energy
infrastructure to power
the globe will be as
strong as ever, and the
market will respond to
that opportunity.”
■
Life after Zerhouni
The next NIH director must juggle stagnant budgets,
unhappy grantees and investigative lawmakers.
T he imminent departure of Elias Zerhouni as director of the US
as it faced stagnating funding, ethical uproars and an explosion of
knowledge in biomedical research. It is to his credit that he leaves the
agency with far more friends than enemies, and with a well-earned
reputation as a public servant who tirelessly maintained his integrity
during the administration of President George W. Bush.
Whoever follows Zerhouni faces unenviable challenges. Stem-cell
research remains stymied by an outdated presidential policy. The
conflict-of-interest scandal continues as Senator Charles Grassley
(Republican, Iowa) has reported troubling instances of extramural
NIH researchers failing to report five- and six-figure payments from
drug companies that could benefit from their research. And with
565
A s Nature went to press, a US$700-billion rescue plan for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland,
leaves large shoes to fill. Zerhouni, who announced last week
he will quit his post by the end of October (see page 570), managed
the agency with a blend of vision, toughness and dedication even
340214332.010.png
 
www.nature.com/nature
Vol 455 | Issue no. 7213 | 2 October 2008
A question of balance
The turmoil in the financial markets could lead to severe cost-cutting by governments, but US politicians
would do well to note the benefits of continued support for clean energy and climate policies.
collapsing financial sector remained in limbo in the US Con-
gress. Some such deal may yet be passed. If it is, it still may not
be enough to stop the global economy from sliding into recession.
Faced with the prospect of fresh outlays and declining revenue, the
US government may soon be looking for ways to tighten its belt, a
situation likely to be echoed in Europe and beyond. For science and
technology, this could mean less money for basic research, education
and clean energy, and could pose fresh threats to the long-promised
climate legislation in the United States.
Those who favour cutbacks — or, in the case of climate regulations,
not moving forward — will say such activities cannot be afforded.
In some cases, they may well be right; scientists may have to gird
themselves for flat budgets into the foreseeable future, and set their
priorities accordingly. But there is a danger that the debate will be
framed entirely in terms of costs, with no consideration of the ben-
efits. Investment in areas such as research, education and clean energy
are part of the foundations for long-term prosperity.
The good news in the United States is that both leading presidential
candidates have made this connection, especially in the energy and
climate arena. Neither the Republican candidate John McCain nor
the Democratic candidate Barack Obama is selling climate regulation
as an expensive moral obligation to the environment. Instead, both
speak of the benefits of ‘green-collar’ jobs and energy security.
There are concerns that McCain might succumb to pressure from
the far-right of his party and back away from his pledge to curb green-
house-gas emissions through a cap-and-trade programme. But he
has yet to do so. His advisers continue to advocate hybrid vehicles,
for instance, as both a cheaper and cleaner alternative to the internal
combustion engine and a way to make the United States less depend-
ent on increasingly expensive foreign oil.
Obama has gone further, integrating energy and climate pol-
icy with his plan for revitalizing the US economy. He argues that
green jobs tend to be domestic jobs, which means energy security
goes hand-in-hand with economic development. This might be
dismissed as overly optimistic, given that the transition to clean
energy won’t be cheap, but there is little doubt that new industries
will eventually rise in place of the old ones. In last week’s first presi-
dential debate, Obama also endorsed solid investments in science
and technology generally.
It’s refreshing to see that this political realignment has also taken
hold in Congress. Efficiency and conservation, frequently played
down as feel-good measures in the past, are now seen as critical
components of the energy equation.
The notion that the government can
use its purchasing power to advance
the development of clean vehicles has
been heralded as a way of increasing
energy security while addressing the
long-term threat of climate change.
Such ideas, if implemented, will
drive new investment in the years to
come. It will take time for the world’s
financial institutions to rebuild
themselves following the implosion on Wall Street. But the funda-
mental need to create a more sustainable energy infrastructure to
power the globe will be as strong as ever. Eventually the market will
respond to that opportunity.
It would be naive to assume that progress on these issues will
be easy, even with vigorous leadership. Private investment in new
technology has increased significantly in recent years — but so have
global greenhouse-gas emissions. This makes it all the more impor-
tant that Congress and the international community move quickly
to establish a solid and predictable climate regulatory framework
to carry the world beyond the Kyoto Protocol. The current market
turmoil is due in part to a continuing crisis of confidence, so a
little regulatory certainty on greenhouse gases might be welcome. It
won’t solve the financial crisis by itself, but it would help businesses,
financial institutions and funding agencies place their bets on
the future.
“The fundamental
need to create a more
sustainable energy
infrastructure to power
the globe will be as
strong as ever, and the
market will respond to
that opportunity.”
■
Life after Zerhouni
The next NIH director must juggle stagnant budgets,
unhappy grantees and investigative lawmakers.
T he imminent departure of Elias Zerhouni as director of the US
as it faced stagnating funding, ethical uproars and an explosion of
knowledge in biomedical research. It is to his credit that he leaves the
agency with far more friends than enemies, and with a well-earned
reputation as a public servant who tirelessly maintained his integrity
during the administration of President George W. Bush.
Whoever follows Zerhouni faces unenviable challenges. Stem-cell
research remains stymied by an outdated presidential policy. The
conflict-of-interest scandal continues as Senator Charles Grassley
(Republican, Iowa) has reported troubling instances of extramural
NIH researchers failing to report five- and six-figure payments from
drug companies that could benefit from their research. And with
565
A s Nature went to press, a US$700-billion rescue plan for the
National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland,
leaves large shoes to fill. Zerhouni, who announced last week
he will quit his post by the end of October (see page 570), managed
the agency with a blend of vision, toughness and dedication even
340214332.011.png
 
EDITORIALS
NATURE|Vol 455|2 October 2008
nothing but flat funding for the foreseeable future, NIH-supported
labs are being squeezed nationwide. A new generation of academic
scientists is being imperilled as many head for jobs in industry or
elsewhere rather than face the daunting odds of ever landing an
NIH grant.
All of this is occurring in the post-human-genome era with a
knowledge base expanding at warp speed. Improved understanding
and treatment of diseases have never been so tantalizingly close. So
what qualities should the next president seek in a new NIH director?
Three are key.
First, despite the fact that some two-thirds of the agency’s budget
is spent on basic research, the next director should be someone who
understands, and is committed to, translating discoveries to the
bedside. Zerhouni, a radiologist, did much to advance this agenda,
although it was not his idea; the agency’s mission statement makes it
clear that the NIH is devoted to “science in pursuit of fundamental
knowledge … and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy
life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability”. The agency’s next
director should not throw money willy-nilly at translational research;
accountability is vital as such work goes forward. But taxpayers who
invest US$29 billion annually in the NIH deserve to see their lives
and health improved because of it.
Second, the next director should be a gifted communicator who
can speak with ease to the NIH’s scientific constituency, to Congress
and to the public. Translating complex research into terms meaning-
ful to the public and to lawmakers is a crucial skill, especially as the
NIH seeks its share of an ever-more-constrained federal budget.
Third, the next director should be an able manager willing to make
and stick to tough decisions in times of ethical and financial stress.
Although the ranks of current and former directors of the agency’s
27 component institutes contain many amply qualified candidates
for the top job, it may be worth reaching outside NIH circles for a
candidate not beholden to long-time peers in Bethesda. Zerhouni,
who came from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore,
Maryland, showed that this strategy can work well.
Overall, a director should be chosen with appropriate speed.
Allowing the NIH’s top post to sit vacant for months or years —
as Bush did when he took more than two years to nominate Zerhouni
— could do serious damage to the agency at a time when bold
leadership is vital.
issue contains a Feature by Linqi Zhang of Tsinghua
University in Beijing and his colleagues on the status of HIV
in southern China (see page 609). Their conclusions are alarming:
HIV prevalence is no longer confined to high-risk groups such as
those who inject themselves with drugs, but is now seeping into
the general population. Some of the most rapid increases are among
men in same-sex relationships. Moreover, the findings confirm
what veteran outside-observers of China and those concerned
with HIV globally have long suspected: patterns of infection in
southern China are similar to those in other developing countries
— especially those experiencing large-scale migration from rural
areas to cities, which provides men and women with more oppor-
tunities for sex.
The good news, however, is that China is doing more to make
its AIDS statistics available. Traditionally, China has controlled
access to such information very tightly. After the first AIDS cases
were reported in the 1980s, for example, it took the Chinese govern-
ment more than a decade to acknowledge publicly that the epidemic
even existed. But during the SARS epidemic of 2002–03, the gov-
ernment’s secrecy drew the outrage of Chinese journalists and non-
governmental organizations alike; the resulting outcry led to a change
in official attitudes.
The work of Zhang and his colleagues illustrates just how radical
this change has been. Although the study was led by scientists inside
China, the group included a leading US-based researcher, David Ho
of the Rockefeller University in New York. The international team had
full access to data supplied by government authorities — the results of
tests from 3.2 million blood samples. And the authorities apparently
made no attempt to control or influence the authors’ opinions.
Giving outsiders access to sensitive public health information
would have been unthinkable in China even a few years ago — just
as it is in many Western countries even now. But then, China is slowly
becoming more comfortable with the idea that all of society will bene-
fit by sharing data and knowledge with
others. Some of this transparency can
be traced back to 1972 and the land-
mark meeting between US President
Richard Nixon and China’s Chairman
Mao Zedong. As noted by the histo-
rian Margaret MacMillan, author of
the 2007 book Nixon and Mao: The
Week that Changed the World , China
had a very pragmatic reason for the
rapprochement: it needed access to US technology. That opening was
greatly expanded by Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping. Deng acceler-
ated scientific contacts with the rest of the world, sent hundreds of
thousands of Chinese students to study in Western universities, and
in 1987 hosted a landmark scientific conference in Beijing between
China and the international community (see page 598).
Of course, opening up on information is not the same as success-
fully controlling the spread of infection. Much more needs to be
done if the government is to meet its self-imposed target of limiting
the total number of cases of HIV infection to 1.5 million by 2010.
Nonetheless, transparency is an essential first step. There are the
many nations — in North Africa and the Middle East, for example
— where public discussion of HIV and its causes is still not as open
as it could be.
China was once in a similar position — but it changed. There are
many good reasons why others should follow suit.
■
566
■
An end to secrecy
China’s continuing openness on HIV is a welcome
development and a model for other nations.
A s part of a special collection of articles on HIV, this week’s
“Giving outsiders
access to sensitive
public health
information would
have been unthinkable
in China even a few
years ago.”
340214332.001.png 340214332.002.png 340214332.003.png 340214332.004.png
EDITORIALS
NATURE|Vol 455|2 October 2008
nothing but flat funding for the foreseeable future, NIH-supported
labs are being squeezed nationwide. A new generation of academic
scientists is being imperilled as many head for jobs in industry or
elsewhere rather than face the daunting odds of ever landing an
NIH grant.
All of this is occurring in the post-human-genome era with a
knowledge base expanding at warp speed. Improved understanding
and treatment of diseases have never been so tantalizingly close. So
what qualities should the next president seek in a new NIH director?
Three are key.
First, despite the fact that some two-thirds of the agency’s budget
is spent on basic research, the next director should be someone who
understands, and is committed to, translating discoveries to the
bedside. Zerhouni, a radiologist, did much to advance this agenda,
although it was not his idea; the agency’s mission statement makes it
clear that the NIH is devoted to “science in pursuit of fundamental
knowledge … and the application of that knowledge to extend healthy
life and reduce the burdens of illness and disability”. The agency’s next
director should not throw money willy-nilly at translational research;
accountability is vital as such work goes forward. But taxpayers who
invest US$29 billion annually in the NIH deserve to see their lives
and health improved because of it.
Second, the next director should be a gifted communicator who
can speak with ease to the NIH’s scientific constituency, to Congress
and to the public. Translating complex research into terms meaning-
ful to the public and to lawmakers is a crucial skill, especially as the
NIH seeks its share of an ever-more-constrained federal budget.
Third, the next director should be an able manager willing to make
and stick to tough decisions in times of ethical and financial stress.
Although the ranks of current and former directors of the agency’s
27 component institutes contain many amply qualified candidates
for the top job, it may be worth reaching outside NIH circles for a
candidate not beholden to long-time peers in Bethesda. Zerhouni,
who came from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore,
Maryland, showed that this strategy can work well.
Overall, a director should be chosen with appropriate speed.
Allowing the NIH’s top post to sit vacant for months or years —
as Bush did when he took more than two years to nominate Zerhouni
— could do serious damage to the agency at a time when bold
leadership is vital.
issue contains a Feature by Linqi Zhang of Tsinghua
University in Beijing and his colleagues on the status of HIV
in southern China (see page 609). Their conclusions are alarming:
HIV prevalence is no longer confined to high-risk groups such as
those who inject themselves with drugs, but is now seeping into
the general population. Some of the most rapid increases are among
men in same-sex relationships. Moreover, the findings confirm
what veteran outside-observers of China and those concerned
with HIV globally have long suspected: patterns of infection in
southern China are similar to those in other developing countries
— especially those experiencing large-scale migration from rural
areas to cities, which provides men and women with more oppor-
tunities for sex.
The good news, however, is that China is doing more to make
its AIDS statistics available. Traditionally, China has controlled
access to such information very tightly. After the first AIDS cases
were reported in the 1980s, for example, it took the Chinese govern-
ment more than a decade to acknowledge publicly that the epidemic
even existed. But during the SARS epidemic of 2002–03, the gov-
ernment’s secrecy drew the outrage of Chinese journalists and non-
governmental organizations alike; the resulting outcry led to a change
in official attitudes.
The work of Zhang and his colleagues illustrates just how radical
this change has been. Although the study was led by scientists inside
China, the group included a leading US-based researcher, David Ho
of the Rockefeller University in New York. The international team had
full access to data supplied by government authorities — the results of
tests from 3.2 million blood samples. And the authorities apparently
made no attempt to control or influence the authors’ opinions.
Giving outsiders access to sensitive public health information
would have been unthinkable in China even a few years ago — just
as it is in many Western countries even now. But then, China is slowly
becoming more comfortable with the idea that all of society will bene-
fit by sharing data and knowledge with
others. Some of this transparency can
be traced back to 1972 and the land-
mark meeting between US President
Richard Nixon and China’s Chairman
Mao Zedong. As noted by the histo-
rian Margaret MacMillan, author of
the 2007 book Nixon and Mao: The
Week that Changed the World , China
had a very pragmatic reason for the
rapprochement: it needed access to US technology. That opening was
greatly expanded by Mao’s successor, Deng Xiaoping. Deng acceler-
ated scientific contacts with the rest of the world, sent hundreds of
thousands of Chinese students to study in Western universities, and
in 1987 hosted a landmark scientific conference in Beijing between
China and the international community (see page 598).
Of course, opening up on information is not the same as success-
fully controlling the spread of infection. Much more needs to be
done if the government is to meet its self-imposed target of limiting
the total number of cases of HIV infection to 1.5 million by 2010.
Nonetheless, transparency is an essential first step. There are the
many nations — in North Africa and the Middle East, for example
— where public discussion of HIV and its causes is still not as open
as it could be.
China was once in a similar position — but it changed. There are
many good reasons why others should follow suit.
■
566
■
An end to secrecy
China’s continuing openness on HIV is a welcome
development and a model for other nations.
A s part of a special collection of articles on HIV, this week’s
“Giving outsiders
access to sensitive
public health
information would
have been unthinkable
in China even a few
years ago.”
340214332.005.png 340214332.006.png 340214332.007.png 340214332.008.png

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika:

Zgłoś jeśli naruszono regulamin