CASUALTIES OF THE WAR AGAINST REASON:

Don't play politics with lifesaving DDT (CHRISTOPHER LINGLE, 8/06/07, The Japan Times)

[A] special commission named by the U.S. National Academy of Science issued a report in September 1971 stating that "toxicity studies on DDT have provided no indication that the insecticide is unsafe for humans when used in accordance with commonly recognized practice." Nonetheless, DDT was banned in the U.S. by 1972 and, soon thereafter, in much of the world.

DDT can reduce the human costs of malaria as measured by the effects of deaths and ill health. Africa Fighting Malaria, a group in South Africa, estimates that not using DDT costs hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of lives a year in southern Africa.

Even the claims that DDT lingers in soil for long periods affirms its effectiveness in malaria control. It can repel mosquitoes for long periods after small doses are sprayed on the inside walls of dwellings.

Besides saving lives, using DDT can offset much of the economic damage of malaria. Since the development of projects in tropical areas may be thwarted by threats of malaria, Harvard's Institute for International Development estimates that African countries could be losing up to 1 percent of their domestic economic growth.

Under planned U.N. strictures, DDT would be banned for agricultural uses while resumption of use for malaria control would be allowed. However, there would also be stringent reporting rules. Even simple compliance might pose an unmanageable burden upon health-care professionals in underdeveloped countries. Similarly, these countries may shun DDT rather than risk losing access to some of the nearly $150 million in annual funds from industrialized countries as a condition for enforcing DDT bans.

It is bad enough that so many leaders in the developing world are unwilling to steer their economies in a way that would let their citizens benefit from globalization. The rest of the world should not add to their misery by forcing them to forgo using a cheap and effective means for improving public health.

Safety and science are not the issues with DDT. In the end, too many decisions by governments concerning the use of alleged toxic substances are political and motivated by ideology.

Objections presented by many environmentalists are part of a wider opposition to technology and economic growth.

Science vs. politics gets down and dirty (Dan Vergano, 8/05/07, USA TODAY)

From President Bush's televised address on Aug. 9, 2001, when he announced his intention to restrict federal spending on research on embryonic stem cells, conflicts with scientists have been a hallmark of his administration. The debates have included sex education, space exploration, contraception and global warming.

"The science community now recognizes that this administration completely puts its political cart before the scientific horse," says Science magazine editor in chief Donald Kennedy, a former Food and Drug Administration chief. "We've seen it with one issue after another."

But White House science adviser John Marburger says one reason science has emerged as such a hot issue is that the research-is-right banner is an easy one to wave.

"Science has become very powerful as a symbol and everyone who has a case to make, or argument to win, tries to recruit science on their side," Marburger says. "Issues that might not have been labeled as 'science-related' controversies in the past are now called science-related."

Science policy professor Daniel Sarewitz of Arizona State University in Tempe says: "I think the opportunity to use science as a political tool against Bush has been irresistible — but it is very dangerous for science, and for politics. You can expect to see similar accusations of the political use of science in the next regime."

Science is just politics by other means.

Posted by Orrin Judd at August 5, 2007 10:24 PM