April 2010 marked the beginning of the construction of Nord Stream, a controversial joint project of Gazprom, BASF SE/Wintershall Holding, E.ON Ruhrgas, and N.V. Nederlandse Gasunie. When completed, the pipeline will be 1,220 km long and will run on the Baltic seabed from Vyborg, Russia to Greifswald, Germany.  The pipeline will ultimately provide 55 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas per year to meet Western Europe’s growing energy demands.

The controversy surrounding the Nord Stream pipeline has developed in two distinct directions: the region’s political security and the Baltic Sea’s environmental health. Security concerns have been raised by countries that fear the growing dependence on Russian gas imports and Gazprom’s rising influence over Europe and Baltic gas transit states. Environmental concerns have also been voiced by the governments of countries bordering the Baltic Sea. When these two seemingly disconnected sets of concerns are examined, an intriguing link between the two emerges. Analysis of the legal framework behind the development of the project shows that an appeal to internationally recognized laws and standards can best be achieved through environmental objections. There is also a consensus that environmental issues transcend national boundaries and interests. They are considered more objective than the concerns over diminishing political leverage, and their solutions can be more clearly identified. This urges countries to discuss projects that threaten the environment, cooperate on solutions to environmental challenges, and invites countries to voice environmental risks to influence projects like Nord Stream when voicing security concerns does not produce the desired effect. The planning for Nord Stream exposes the role that outside concessions and overstated environmental arguments play in deciding the fate of large energy projects like Nord Stream.

The EU views Nord Stream as a positive development toward increased energy security, given European countries’ rapidly growing energy demand, uncertainties about global fossil fuel supplies, strategic limitations on obtaining those resources, and commitment to environmental protection. However, concerns remain regarding broader European energy policy and security. Nord Stream creates a new route directly linking the Russian supplier to markets in Germany and Western Europe. However, the company supplying the resource—Russian gas giant Gazprom—remains the same. Gazprom already supplies a quarter of Europe’s gas and as Europe’s gas import volume grows, the Russian company will have increasing leverage on the European economy. Though the pipeline is a strategic step toward ensuring European energy security, it increases Europe’s dependence on Russia and stifles the EU’s aspirations for energy independence.

Countries bordering the Baltic Sea are sensitive to Russian activity in their territorial waters or their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs). The construction, operation, maintenance, and most importantly, protection of the pipeline all indicate an increased Russian presence. The Baltic States, Poland, Finland, and Sweden fear that the Russian navy will begin to actively patrol the waters to protect the pipeline, thereby increasing military activity and accentuating regional tensions.
Countries that have been key transit states for Russian gas imports into Europe face another problem. As Nord Stream begins transporting 55 bcm of gas through the Baltic, the importance of the onshore Yamal-Europe pipeline, which transits through Belarus, Poland, Germany, Ukraine, Slovakia, and Austria, is expected to diminish. Upon Nord Stream’s completion, Russia will no longer rely solely on the territorial pipelines to export its gas to the large western European market, and will therefore make fewer efforts to maintain a sound relationship with the East European transit states. This shift in the energy politics of the region has alarmed Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic States, since they expect to lose influence, access to resources, and transit fee revenues.

Aside from Nord Stream’s security implications, an array of environmental concerns regarding the construction and operation of the project have alarmed the nine countries bordering the Baltic Sea. The main fear is that the pipeline’s construction could stir the toxic materials and naval mines that were dumped into the sea after World War II, thus endangering the ecosystem.

The Latvian president has drawn attention to the fact that the sea’s circulation is poor, which would prevent toxic substances from quickly dissipating. Lithuanian environmental groups have also voiced their dislike of the project’s overall ecological impact. Sweden has raised the question that the pipeline would run too close to its marine reserve near Gotland. Finland has also been concerned that Nord Stream could interfere with important shipping routes and undersea cables and could disrupt the nature conservation area near Hogland.

Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland offer an alternative plan to bypass the environmental problem they see. They claim that less ecological disruption would occur if a pipeline were passed through their territories instead of under the Baltic Sea. They suggest that an onshore alternative to Nord Stream would provide the additional gas supply needed without the infrastructural and environmental complications that Nord Stream currently faces.
Nord Stream was required to comply with the Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context and obtain permits certifying that the pipeline’s construction and operation would not be detrimental to the environment. It was to carry out extensive Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies in order to outline plans to minimize any negative consequences.

However, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland did not wish to assist the pipeline in its initial feasibility studies and seabed surveys due to the profound security risks they perceived. Yet Estonia’s letter refusing to grant the permits cited the Baltic Sea’s vulnerable environment as the formal reason. Experts also noted that Estonia’s policy was inconsistent, since the country demanded that the pipeline follow the most environmentally safe route, but did not give the company permission to research the seabed in order to find this environmentally friendly route. This approach reflects the Baltic States’ use of environmental reasons as a legitimate, seemingly diplomatic way of blocking the project. Regardless of national politicians’ and experts’ analyses, environmental considerations became the diplomatic, international face of the country’s national interests. This demonstrates that the legal framework can be appealed to most easily when using environmental protection as a leading concern.
The Nord Stream company has invested more than €100 million since 1997 in Environmental Impact Assessments and surveys of the Baltic Sea. The reports found that the pipeline would not pose significant risks to the physical environment, biological communities, and socioeconomic activities that depend on the health and safety of the sea. The munitions on the seabed will be avoided as much as possible by rerouting the pipeline, but 50 munitions will be removed to guarantee a 50-meter-wide security corridor on either side of the pipeline.

Given these positive results, and especially given the legitimacy of the process by which the scientific data was collected, it is striking that some countries and other parties continued to oppose the project on environmental grounds. In 2009, Nord Stream was approved by Denmark, Germany, Russia, and Sweden. However, it did not receive the full approval of Finland until February 2010. The reasons for the delay cannot be speculated upon, but the facts of the negotiations and the meetings between Russian and Finnish officials during that time reveal that external factors played a key role in the permit approval process.
In 2008, Russia raised the export tariffs on its raw timber to €15 per cubic meter in an effort to discourage exports and encourage its domestic processing industry. An additional increase to €50 was postponed until 2010. In late 2009, the tax was once again postponed until 2011. Since Finland imports and processes a large portion of Russian timber, the tariff increases were expected to be highly detrimental to the Finnish economy.
Finland’s economic interests and Russia’s desire to begin Nord Stream’s construction intersected at an environmental summit in Helsinki on February 10, 2010. At the summit, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin reminded Finland that the construction of the pipeline depends on Finnish approval. In response, a Finnish journalist asked him if the timber tariffs were still scheduled to increase in 2011. As a response, Putin offered to maintain the current tax levels and to further postpone the €50 tax.
Strategist Chris Weafer notes that Russia’s postponement of the timber tariffs in 2009 and the promise to postpone them past 2011 have softened Finland’s view of the Nord Stream project and have been a major reason for Finland’s final approval of the pipeline later that month. The timber tariff negotiations and the debates over Nord Stream’s environmental impacts are very distinct. It is therefore intriguing that the issues were connected at the Helsinki summit. This link, and the fact that the postponement of the timber tariff came as a surprise to the Russian industry, which had been restructuring in expectation of the tariffs, suggests that the economic concessions may have been involved in the pipeline permit negotiations.

This presents an interesting aspect of international negotiations that is indicative of countries’ interests and the means they use to defend them. The environmental concerns were not quieted by the scientific findings or the adjustments to the pipeline’s infrastructure, but by outside concessions.
The inconsistency of Finland and the Baltic States suggests that even though the countries’ initial environmental concerns may have been sincere, their weight in the international negotiations was at times used as a tool to promote national economic and security interests. These cases highlight the power of environmental regulations and of the legislation that upholds them. Voicing environmental safety concerns is the main way of formally opposing a transboundary project, even when the project goes through all the necessary steps to ensure environmental safety. This transforms heated environmental debates into key negotiation tools, instrumental in promoting political and economic interests.

This does not mean that all countries have consistently used environmental questions as bargaining points, but it shows that it is difficult to disentangle the political motivations from the formal legal debates. As a result, negotiations over environmental threats may be overstated. This eventually weakens the legal framework of environmental regulation, since it becomes apparent that parties and countries may appeal to them to legitimize a concern that may be rooted in questions of influence and security.

The positive aspect of this is that there is a truly institutionalized process of obtaining environmental permits for large projects like Nord Stream. This ensures that companies must be responsible and work with affected countries and parties. However, the negative aspect emerges when one considers instances in which the legal mechanism has been abused to accommodate other types of national interests. This distorts the process and weakens its legitimacy. Environmental venues would best be used to solely protect the environment. When environmental threats are voiced to conceal other regional tensions, negotiations become less likely to produce meaningful solutions to international concerns.

The Nord Stream route as it affects surrounding countries’ territories and EEZs.

End Notes

[1] Nord Stream. 2010. “The Pipeline.” Accessed April 1, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/the-pipeline.html

[1] “Factbox: Russian Gas Export Pipelines, Projects.” Reuters, January 6, 2009. Accessed April 14, 2010; available at http://www.rferl.org/content/Russian_Gas_Export_Pipelines_Projects/1366873.html

[1] Fraser Cameron. 2007. “The Nord Stream Gas Pipeline Project and Its Strategic Implications: Briefing Note.” Directorate-General Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament, p. 6.

[1] Robert Larsson. 2007. “Nord Stream, Sweden and Baltic Security.” Swedish Defence Research Agency: Defence Analysis. FOI-R-2251-SE, p. 40.

[1] Ibid., p. 41.

[1]Nord Stream. 2010. “Munitions.” Accessed April 1, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/safety-environment/munitions-survey.html

[1] “Baltic leaders issue warning over subsea pipeline.” EurActiv, Novermber 7, 2005. Accessed April 19, 2010; available at http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/baltic-leaders-issue-warning-subsea-pipeline/article-146878

[1] Nord Stream. The Project and the Environment: The Natural Gas Pipeline Through the Baltic Sea. In Nord Stream, “Order Publications” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/press0/publications/order-publications.html

[1] Fraser Cameron. 2007. “The Nord Stream Gas Pipeline Project and Its Strategic Implications: Briefing Note.” Directorate-General Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament, p. 5.

[1] “Baltic, Polish leaders rejuvenate Amber Gas Pipeline proposal as alternative to controversial Nord Stream.” Global Insight, February 6, 2008. Accessed April 20, 2010; available at http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail11482.htm

[1]United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. “Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context.” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.htm

[1] Vladimir Socor. 2007. “Estonia will not allow the Nord Stream Pipeline on its seabed.” Eurasia Daily Monitor 4(179). Accessed April 6, 2010; available at http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=33032

[1] Fraser Cameron. 2007. “The Nord Stream Gas Pipeline Project and Its Strategic Implications: Briefing Note.” Directorate-General Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament, p. 5.

[1]  Nord Stream. The Project and the Environment: The Natural Gas Pipeline Through the Baltic Sea. In Nord Stream, “Order Publications” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/press0/publications/order-publications.html

[1] Ibid.

[1] Ibid.

[1] “Nord Stream gas project gets German approval.” Commodity Online, December 29, 2009. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Nord-Stream-gas-project-gets-German-approval-24259-3-1.html

[1] Anna Shiryaevskaya. 2009. “Nord Stream gets approval to build gas pipeline through Russia.” Bloomberg, December 18, 2009. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aP4jD6OLUqtM

[1] Anna Arutunyan. 2010. “Nord Stream: Further agreement in the gas pipeline for Finland and Russia.” The Moscow News, February 22, 2010. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/business/7293128/Nord-Stream-further-agreement-in-the-gas-pipeline-for-Finland-and-Russia.html

[1] Ibid.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Ibid.

[1] Nord Stream. 2009.  Nord Stream Environmental Impact Assessment: Documentation for Consultation under the Espoo Convention. p. 5.

References

Arutunyan, Anna. 2010. “Nord Stream: Further agreement in the gas pipeline for Finland and Russia.” The Moscow News, February 22, 2010. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/russianow/business/7293128/Nord-Stream-further-agreement-in-the-gas-pipeline-for-Finland-and-Russia.html

“Baltic leaders issue warning over subsea pipeline.” EurActiv, Novermber 7, 2005. Accessed April 19, 2010; available at http://www.euractiv.com/en/energy/baltic-leaders-issue-warning-subsea-pipeline/article-146878

“Baltic, Polish leaders rejuvenate Amber Gas Pipeline proposal as alternative to controversial Nord Stream.” Global Insight, February 6, 2008. Accessed April 20, 2010; available at http://www.ihsglobalinsight.com/SDA/SDADetail11482.htm

Cameron, Fraser. 2007. “The Nord Stream Gas Pipeline Project and Its Strategic Implications: Briefing Note.” Directorate-General Internal Policies, Policy Department C, Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Brussels: European Parliament.

Carraro, Carlo. 1997. International Environmental Negotiations. Brookfield: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Cohen, Ariel. 2006.  “The North European Gas Pipeline Threatens Europe’s Energy Security.” The Heritage Foundation 1980. Accessed April 11, 2010; available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2006/10/The-North-European-Gas-Pipeline-Threatens-Europes-Energy-Security

“German yes to Polish objections to Nord Stream.” Polish Market Online, March 3, 2010. Accessed April 6, 2010; available at http://polishmarket.com.pl

Geroupoulos, Kostis. 2009. “Malmstrom says Nord Stream under environmental scrutiny.” New Europe, September 20, 2009. Accessed April 7, 2010; available at http://www.neurope.eu/articles/Malmstrom-says-Nord-Stream–under-environmental-scrutiny/96300.php

Helsinki Commission: Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission. 2010. “The Helsinki Convention.” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.helcom.fi/Convention/en_GB/convention/

_______. 2010. “About HELCOM.” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.helcom.fi/helcom/en_GB/aboutus/

Illmer, Andreas. 2010. “Finland approves Nord Stream pipeline.” Deutsche Welle, February 12, 2010. Accessed April 2, 2010; available at http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5241110,00.html

Joas, Marko, Detlef Jahn and Kristine Kern. 2008. Governing a Common Sea: Environmental Policies in the Baltic Sea Region. London: Earthscan.

Johnson, Simon. 2009. “Nord Stream pipeline gets nod from Sweden, Finland.” Reuters, November 5, 2009. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5A44FK20091105

“Factbox: Russian Gas Export Pipelines, Projects.” Reuters, January 6, 2009. Accessed April 14, 2010; available at http://www.rferl.org/content/Russian_Gas_Export_Pipelines_Projects/1366873.html

Larsson, Robert. 2006. “What Does the Nord Stream Mean to the Baltic Sea Region?” Lithuanian Political Science Yearbook 1: 11-24.

_______. 2007. “Nord Stream, Sweden and Baltic Security.” Swedish Defence Research Agency: Defence Analysis. FOI-R-2251-SE.

Nord Stream. 2009.  Nord Stream Environmental Impact Assessment: Documentation for Consultation under the Espoo Convention.

_______. 2010. “Environment Impact Assessments and Permitting Process.” Accessed April 6, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/environmental-impact-assessment-permitting.html

_______. 2010. “Gas for Europe” Accessed April 10, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/the-pipeline/gas-for-europe.html

_______. 2010. “Gas and Climate.” Accessed April 10, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/safety-environment/gas-climate.html

_______. 2010. “Munitions.” Accessed April 1, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/safety-environment/munitions-survey.html

_______. 2010. “National Permitting Process.” Accessed April 6, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/environmental-impact-assessment-permitting/national-permitting-processes.html

_______. 2010. “The Pipeline.” Accessed April 1, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/the-pipeline.html

_______. The Project and the Environment: The Natural Gas Pipeline Through the Baltic Sea. In Nord Stream, “Order Publications” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.nord-stream.com/en/press0/publications/order-publications.html

“Nord Stream gas project gets German approval.” Commodity Online, December 29, 2009. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.commodityonline.com/news/Nord-Stream-gas-project-gets-German-approval-24259-3-1.html

Shaffer, Brenda. 2009. Energy Politics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Shiryaevskaya, Anna. 2009. “Nord Stream gets approval to build gas pipeline through Russia.” Bloomberg, December 18, 2009. Accessed April 4, 2010; available at http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601072&sid=aP4jD6OLUqtM

Socor, Vladimir. 2007. “Estonia will not allow the Nord Stream Pipeline on its seabed.” Eurasia Daily Monitor 4(179). Accessed April 6, 2010; available at http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=33032

_______. 2009. “Gazprom to reduce gas transit to Europe on Ukraine-Slovakia Route.” Eurasia Daily Monitor 6(21). February 2, 2009. Accessed April 10, 2010; available at http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34443

Taylor, Simon. 2009. “Why Russia’s Nord Stream is winning the pipeline race.” European Voice, January 29, 2009. Accessed April 7, 2010; available at http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/why-russia%27s-nord-stream-is-winning-the-pipeline-race/63780.aspx

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. “Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in a Transboundary Context.” Accessed April 18, 2010; available at http://www.unece.org/env/eia/eia.htm

World Wildlife Fund. 2009. WWF Baltic Ecoregion Programme Position Statement on the Nord Stream Gas Pipeline ESPOO EIA Report. Accessed April 11, 2010; available at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/final_wwf_baltic_ecoregion_position_statement_on_the_nordstream_espoo_eia_report.pdf

Marina Stefanova is a student at Georgetown University. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter and join us on Facebook.

Gene patenting is a broad term referring to the patenting of either a process that involves isolation of DNA or a chemical substance related to DNA.  This controversy first surfaced in the public arena in the spring of 2000, when the scientific world entered a ground breaking phase.  Two independent organizations announced that they had successfully mapped the human genome.  The Human Genome Project, as it is known, has redefined the capabilities of scientific research.  With such a vast array of information at scientists’ fingertips, the potential discoveries were endless.  However, shortly thereafter, private and public organizations submitted a deluge of patent requests for genes and small pieces of gene sequences [4].  Thus, a new issue of intellectual property over public health plagued the scientific and legal communities.

Early criticism of gene patenting revolved around the basic principles of obtaining patents.  A patent grants the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling the invention for a limited term of 20 years [5].  The USPTO judges a patent application on four criteria.  In order to be patentable, an invention must be useful, novel, non-obvious, and have an intended use.  In other words, the invention must be practical, original, not easily reproduced by someone trained in the relevant area [5], and the inventor must detail the creation and intended use of the invention.  Based on these conditions, physical products of nature are not patentable.  Logic implies that because scientists have only isolated something that already exists in nature, they have therefore not directly invented or produced anything.  However, patent applicants have asserted that since the DNA or genes that they wish to patent have been isolated from cDNA, complementary DNA, which does not naturally occur in nature, and rather it is a product of the laboratory, such genes are patentable.  In fact, intellectual property of genetic information dates back to the 1980 Supreme Court case Diamond v. Chakrabarty. The Supreme Court ruled that genetically engineered bacteria could be patented [4].  As a result, companies perceived lab-altered genetic material as intellectual property, in turn, the USPTO began granting patents for isolated segments of human genes and related genetic testing.

By gaining a gene patent, companies reserve the sole right to pursue research and development surrounding that specific genetic sequence.  Such monopolies of gene sequence research essentially translate into total control of gene function and disease related-research such as treatment development, and detection of malignant genes.  Thus, gene patenting extends far beyond a nucleotide code and stretches into the public health arena.

Supporters of gene patenting believe that it fuels scientific research and development.  They claim that because researchers are rewarded for their discoveries with patents, the royalty money can be used to further support their research. In addition, they assert that monopolies of certain genes prevent the waste of funds and effort [6].  Finally, because the USPTO requires a detailed explanation of the invention so that it could be made and used by others, the scientific community’s knowledge is increased.  Many say that without patents, scientists would resort to secrecy in order to ensure sole access to a new product or discovery.  With patents, however, all information is open and shared throughout the world.  The argument for gene patenting is also derived from facts about commercial patents.  Normally post-invention development costs are significantly greater than pre-invention research costs.  Based on this principle, organizations become reluctant and even unwilling to make substantial investment without protection from competition [4].  Companies therefore, tend to pursue research and development if they perceive a high probability of a profitable return.  Gene patenting provides the framework for such quasi-guaranteed successful turnout. Henceforth by eliminating the scientific competition, companies feel comfortable investing in research and development and thus gene patenting propagates scientific discovery. Patents thus protect the financial investments of companies.  In general, patents are generally considered to be very positive and many believe gene patenting to be no different.

There are however, many opponents to gene patenting. Critics say that patenting such discoveries is inappropriate because it places undue control over the commercial fruits of genome research [6].  In fact many patents actually grant companies the rights to future mutations discovered on a gene [8].  Similarly, companies often patent multiple parts of a genome sequence, such as a gene fragment, the gene, and the protein.  This patent ‘stacking’ puts financial strain upon researchers and allows patent holders to monopolize certain genes [9].  Other scientists examining the gene must then pay the patent holder for each patent, while just utilizing the one genomic sequence. This limits the research potential for scientists and thus the development of new innovations. They believe that science will advance more rapidly with an unlimited exchange of research ideas, in essence without patents.  Scientists are contrastingly swayed by the law of intellectual property which states that without exclusive rights no one will be willing to invest in research and development [4].  Gene patenting also directly affects individuals outside of the scientific field.  If scientists need to pay more to perform research, their eventual findings and inventions will cost more as well.  Thus the cost of pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, and other science discoveries will increase dramatically [9].

Gene patenting actually extends far beyond the DNA itself.  As disease genes are identified, gene tests are then developed to screen for the gene in humans who may be at risk for that disease.  Such tests are eligible and usually become patented by the gene patent holder.  Royalties must therefore be paid to patent holder each time the tests are administered.  Gene patents can make genetic testing prohibitively expensive and thus unavailable to deserving patients [4].  This argument has come to fruition with the Association for Molecular Pathology, et al. v. United State Patent and Trademark Office, et al. case.  Women, with a family history of breast and ovarian cancer, often undergo genetic testing for cancer-related mutations in the BRCA gene to determine their risk of developing those diseases.  This invaluable information helps women decide on a plan of action be it increased observation or preventive mastectomies or ovaries removal [7].  However, Myriad’s gene patents give the company the exclusive right to perform BRCA genetic testing.  Several negative consequences for patients ensue: many women cannot afford the $3,000 or more Myriad charges for the test; patients are prevented from getting second opinions on their test results, such as with Genae Girard; and patients whose tests come back with inconclusive results, do not have the option to seek additional testing elsewhere [8].  As Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU, said “The patents on the BRCA genes block women’s access to medical information necessary for making vital health care decisions, impeding their control over their own bodies.” [8] This lawsuit combines patent law, medical science, breast cancer activism and an unusual civil liberties argument in ways that have made it a landmark case. [3].

On March 29, 2010, Judge Robert Sweet ruled against Myriad Genetics.  Stating that Myriad’s patents did not display “markedly different characteristics from what is found in nature” [11], his verdict invalidated many of those patents.  Yet despite this ruling, the United States continues to grant gene patents.  Most recently, Myriad Genetics has obtained a new gene patent for the pancreatic cancer gene, PALB2. [12]

The limiting nature of gene patenting threatens to place the United States behind other countries.  Rulings in 2004 by the European Patent Office eliminated U.S. patent jurisdiction in Europe.  Now while U.S. scientists are forced to pay fines or stop research altogether, other researchers around the world have free access to the patent information, via internet databases, and can examine them without any penalties [10].  While the future of gene patenting in the United States remains uncertain, the European Union has recently taken decisive steps limiting the propagation of gene patents.  In the European Union, the question of gene patents’ originality and inventiveness has prompted many to support a decrease in the number of gene patents [10].

In conclusion, the dilemma over issuing patents for genetic reasoning is an uncharted territory.  The unrequited question remains is genetic discovery novel or is it simply the uncovering of that which already exists in nature.  The direction that the US has taken in comparison to the European Union serves as a call to arms for scientists opposing gene patents. They cite the EU as a pioneer in unrestricted scientific communication and the recent ruling against Myriad Genetics as ignition for their cause.  Additionally, gene patenting raises a moral issue; many believe that gene patent holders, despite the USPTO’s ruling, are actually being allowed to patent a part of nature.  In contrast, many argue that without gene patents scientific progress would stagnate because companies would no longer feel confident investing in an unguaranteed endeavor [8].  Such a dichotomy within the hearts and minds of scientists creates the friction evident in the gene patenting controversy.  This division has left the world wondering which direction the United States will take in the gene patenting quandary.  The question to ask is what takes precedence intellectual property or public health?

References:

[1] Department of Health & Human Services. U.S. System of Oversight of Genetic Testing: A Response to the Chanrge of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Report of the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society. National Institute of Health. April 2008

[2] J. Mullin. Lawsuit Looks to ‘Take Down’ Patents on Human Genes. IP Law & Business. May 15, 2009.

[3] J. Schwartz. Cancer Patients Challenge the Patenting of a Gene. The New York Times. May 12, 2009.

[4] C. Dummer. Genetics and Patenting. Human Genome Project Information. 29 Aug. 2006. <http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/patents.shtml>.

[5] American Medical Association. Guidelines: Gene Patents. AMA: Helping Doctors Help Patients. 19 Feb. 2008. <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/3607.html>.

[6] “‘Owning’ Genes: The Debate Over Patents (sidebar).” Issues & Controversies On File 28 Apr. 2000. Issues & Controversies. Facts On File News Services. <http://www.2facts.com>.

[7] National Cancer Institute. BRCA1 and BRCA2: Cancer Risk and Genetic Testing. <www.cancer.gov>.

[8] American Civil Liberties Union. Gene Patents Stifle Patient Access to Medical Care and Critical Research. May 12, 2009. <www.aclu.org>.

[9]  American Medical Association. Gene patenting. AMA: Helping Doctors Help Patients. 17 Mar. 2008. <http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/2314.html>.

[10] A. Coghlan. Europe revokes controversial gene patent, New Scientist (19 May 2004).

[11] A. Kesselheim. M. Mello. Gene Patenting — Is the Pendulum Swinging Back? The New England Journal of Medicine. April 7, 2010.

[12] S. Barton. Myriad Genetics Acquires Exclusive Rights to Pancreatic Cancer Gene Patents From Johns Hopkins. Myriad Genetics Announcements. October 15, 2009.

By Timothy Buckey and Marie Smithgall of Georgetown University. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter & join us on Facebook

Energy is one of the few commodities that can single-handedly cause economies to crumble, instigate resource wars, and cripple the fragile balance of the world’s ecosystem all at once. The symbiotic relationship between consumers and current energy resources can only be sustained as a function of mutual benefit. When the consumer depletes the available resources without regards for sustainability, diminution of resources gradually intensifies to what is now known as the energy crisis. For years, sustainability experts and energy engineers have been warning the general public of the “energy crisis,” but only recently have heads started to turn. Now, the topic of energy is at the forefront of the national agenda and a global point of contention and reform.

For simplicity, it is helpful to put the crisis in a more tangible checklist of causes and indicators. Fossil fuels lead to alarming economic, social, and environmental problems. Whether one supports the science behind global warming or not, the implications of limited fossil fuel resources for our environment are undeniable. In 2007 The Science Daily pointed out that the last 11 years were 11 of the 13 hottest years in recorded history worldwide¹. NASA noted earlier this year that the first half of 2010 has been the warmest in the 131 years that NASA has been taking such statistics². Food production has markedly declined in the southern hemisphere, the polar ice caps are melting, the sea levels are rising, high-intensity storms frequencies have increased, and the coral reefs are being bleached. But beyond the controversy of global warming, lies the visible problem of pollution and physical erosion of the environment. For example, the burning of coal, which produces environmentally toxic acid rain, and the transportation of oil risks spills threaten human health and the environment.

Failing to take collective action against the widespread use of fossil fuels has hurts America’s soft power to influence global changes. Such lack of development of soft power can be traced to the economic and geopolitical basis of the energy crisis. As of 2010, the United States still depend on foreign countries for about 40% of its fossil fuels³. This oil dependence has made the U. S. vulnerable to supply cut-offs at any time – similar to the oil embargo of 1973. Reliance on foreign oil also widens the growing U.S. trade deficit, which accounts for the low financial value of exports versus imports that threatens the U.S. economic infrastructure. These two deterrents in a world of competition are resulting in a dramatic shift of wealth from Western countries to the developing world.  Perhaps, Robert Ebel of the Center for Strategic and International Studies stated most accurately: “Oil fuels military power, national treasuries, and international politics. It has been transformed into a determinant of well-being, of national security, and of international power for those who possess this vital resource, and the converse for those who do not” ⁴. To put the extent of the issue in perspective, the United States consumes nearly a million dollars of energy for every minute of the 525,600 minutes in a common year, $200,000 of which is spent on foreign oil imports⁵.

Exploring the possible engineering solutions for an alternative to fossil fuels is an exhaustive subject that requires thorough analysis and research. Eventually, each alternative energy source is labeled by its debilitating downfall: inefficiency, cost, environmental danger, et cetera. But, algae biodiesel, formed from the oil of the algal plant material is a very promising technology on the brink of eluding these pitfalls. The science behind the process is fairly straightforward: the algae is grown through dark photosynthesis and oil is extracted from the algae through a press, which will then be converted into a usable biofuel through a chemical process known as transesterification. However, the reality of proliferating and fine-tuning such a process is understandably more complex. At face value, the benefits of using algae are astounding and definitely worth the trouble. Not only does algae biodiesel not further the alarming exponential increase in global pollution, it actually reduces it by absorbing and cutting CO₂ emissions and nitrogen from waste water⁶. It efficiently produces ten times more fuel per gallon than any other biofuel and has been estimated by an assortment of different engineering companies to output at least 4,000 gallons per acre of land grown⁷. The efficiency can be valued even more when one appraises the fact that algae can be grown in any location or climate, unlike other forms of renewable energy like solar, wind, and geothermal, which depend on specific regional resources.  Clearly, both the U.S. economy as well as individual citizens can benefit from the development of algae biofuel.

So why is the U.S., the second-leading consumer of energy in the world, not a leading manufacturer of algae biofuel? Due to its competitiveness as an alternative to oil, federal algae research funding was stopped for an extended period of time. Mr. Curwin, writer for CNBC notes, “The industry…needs to get Washington on its side. Currently, algael biofuels aren’t eligible for tax breaks and subsidies going to other biofuels” ⁸. Therefore, businesses perceive that investing in algae biodiesel is risky because there are no incentives to supplement research and development. Without incentives, algae biodiesel has not been proven on a mass production scale and suffers from high production costs. However, as recently as February of this year, there have been impressive strides to overcome the obstacles that face the implementation of algae biodiesel. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has already extracted oil from algal ponds at a cost of $2 per gallon and is now on track to begin large-scale refining of the fuel for a cost of less than $3 a gallon⁹. Currently, the top eight firms in the U.S. that are working with algae have attracted over $350 million in capital over the past three years, and all of them have aggressive commercialization dates for their technologies within the next three years⁸. The strides in finalizing algae biofuel so far have been promising, but relatively gradual. Thus, maximization of algae fuel’s potential depends on incentives from the federal government and ultimately  on support from its constituents.

References

¹ World Meteorological Organization. “Top 11 Warmest Years On Record Have All Been In Last 13 Years.” ScienceDaily, 13 December 2007. Web. <http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm>.

² Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, and Ken Lo. “GISS Surface Temperature Analysis.” National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 30 Sept 2010. Web. <http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/>.

³ U.S. Energy Information Administration. “How Dependent Are We On Foreign Oil?” Annual Energy Outlook, December 2009. Web. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/foreign_oil_dependence.cfm>.

⁴Ebel, Robert E. “Economic and Security Implications of Recent Developments in World Oil Market.” Committee on Global Affairs. Washington, D.C. 24 Mar 2000.

⁵ “Safe, Strong, and Secure: Reducing America’s Oil Dependence.” National Resources Defenses Council, May 2007. Web. <http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/aoilpolicy2.asp>.

⁶ Starke, Linda, ed. “State of the World: Our Urban Future.” The World Watch Institute. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.

⁷ “Algae: The Ultimate Biofuel?” Euractive.com, 2 Apr 2010. Web.

<http://www.euractiv.com/en/science/algae-ultimate-biofuel-linksdossier-188486>.

⁸ Curwin, Trevor. “Algae Could Grow into a Biofuels Leader.” CNBC, 18 Apr 2010. Web. <http://www.cnbc.com/id/36385242/Algae_Could_Grow_Into_A_Biofuels_Leader>.

⁹ Goldenburg, Suzanne. “Algae to Solve the Pentagon’s Jet Fuel Problem.” Guardian.co.uk, 13 Feb 2010. Web. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/13/algae-solve-pentagon-fuel-problem>.

Written by Sameh Saleh of Georgetown University. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter. Join us on Facebook

Genae Girard, a 39-year-old woman living in the US, had to pay a staggering $3200 for a single genetic test for the BRCA gene associated with breast and ovarian cancer, only to find that she was unable to request a second opinion upon receiving the positive test result. After consulting with doctors, Ms Girard was advised to have her ovaries surgically removed in order to diminish the 60% risk of developing ovarian cancer indicated by the genetic test. Because Myriad Genetics, which holds a patent on the BRCA genes, is the only laboratory to provide the genetic test, Ms Girard had to undergo the life-changing surgery without knowing for certain whether it was absolutely necessary [1].

Ms Girard is only one of tens of thousands of women in this situation, left with no choice but to accept the outcome of a single indeterministic genetic test result, which in addition is subject to human errors in the test laboratory. Other companies are unable to provide an alternative method of diagnosis because the gene in question is protected under patent laws [2]. Currently 20% of human genes are “owned” by individual biotechnology companies and research labs, making it illegal for others to carry out diagnosis and therapy, and limiting research using those genes [1,3].

The underlying principles of patents are to promote openness of publically beneficial findings, and to reward investors for the capital endowed in innovating and developing a product. In return for disclosing the details of an invention and paying a maintenance fee, the patentee receives a 20-year monopoly over the patented product or process [4]. This argument has an appreciable value when considering inventions such as Tetra Pak® or SuperGlue. However, is the patenting of human genes a step too far? Do gene patents deprive the public of cost-effective health care, and what impact do they have on research in public institutions and competing companies?

The history of the British patent system as we know it today started in the 19th century, when the granting of patents became independent of the crown and turned into a regulatory matter for the state. With the passage of the Patent act in 1977, patent rights became an integrated part of British law.

It is worth noting that patents are country-specific, and the laws regulating them vary from country to country [4]. Generally, US patent laws are more liberal in the consideration of patentable matters than the European equivalent, allowing more gene patents to be approved [5]. The European Patents Office (EPO), an intergovernmental patent approval organisation, has 3 main criteria for the patentability of an invention: it has to be new, be susceptible to industrial application and involve an inventive step. In addition, the Biotech Patent Directive adopted in 1998 by the EPO contains further criteria and restrictions to clarify the patentability of biotechnological matters [6].

The association of BRCA1 with breast and ovarian cancer was discovered in 1994 by Mark Skolnick, founder of Myriad Genetics. He patented the gene and was granted a monopoly for the use of the gene in genetic testing, gene therapy, protein replacement therapy and the screening of drugs for cancer therapy [7]. In 1995, BRCA2, a related gene, was discovered and the patent rights were purchased by Myriad Genetics. The patents have allowed Myriad to, in effect, control the research and genetics testing of the BRCA genes in the US [8]. The BRCA1 and BRCA2 patents were approved by the EPO in 2001 and 2003 respectively, but cover a more restricted scope of rights than the US patents [1,9].

A law suit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) resulted in the invalidation of the BRCA gene patents in March 2010 at the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The court decision taken by Judge Sweet was based on the argument that the isolated DNA is not markedly different from the natural state and that “DNA … should be treated as the physical embodiment of … nature”. In other words, although DNA is a chemical molecule, it should not simply be treated as other chemical compounds, since it also carries information and knowledge, which is not patentable. This is the first time an American court has found it unlawful to patent genes, a decision which could lead to the invalidation of 18.5% of the current patents of human genes [5,8].

Harnessing the Cognitive Surplus

By James Scott-Brown

How do you spend your free time? If you were an average American, you would spend 20 hours a week watching television, and another 3 hours playing games [1]. Clay Shirky has written about how, after the Second World War, enormous changes in society occurred, so that “society forced onto an enormous number of its citizens the requirement to manage something they had never had to manage before–free time”, creating a vast “cognitive surplus” [2]. How can this surplus be effectively exploited? One approach is to take advantage of people’s leisure time and enjoyment of computer games to solve real problems, by creating games in which players complete tasks that computers cannot yet. This has been done for the problems of image tagging (the ESP Game/Google Image Labeler), locating objects in images (Peekaboom), collecting common-sense facts (Verbosity), predicting protein folding (Foldit) and improving the design of electronic circuits (funSAT). Alternatively, mundane but essential tasks can be modified to have useful side-effects (reCAPTCHA).

The work of Luis von Ahn is a good example of harnessing the human “cognitive surplus” using both approaches. He began by developing the CAPTCHA (Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart), which distinguishes humans from computers by asking them to complete a task, usually typing letters from a distorted image. This allows websites to prevent computer programs from automatically creating multiple accounts, sending large numbers of spam messages, or making many attempts to guess a user’s password. The initial paper describing CAPTCHA suggested that, as well as helping to distinguish between computers and humans, the tests could encourage work on improved text recognition algorithms, jokingly saying that this was ‘how lazy cryptographers do AI’; however, the time humans spent completing them was wasted [3]. A subsequent refinement, reCAPTCHA, uses the process of completing a CAPTCHA to decipher words in scanned documents that are too distorted or smudged to be recognised by a computer [4]. This is done by present- ing the user with images of two words simultaneously: an “unknown word”, and a known “control” word selected randomly from a list of more than 100,000. If a user types the control word correctly, they are assumed to be human, and their attempt at typing the unknown word is recorded. Once three people have provided the same response to the “unknown word” image, they are assumed to be correct, and their transcription is added to the list of control words. Thus, the number of transcribed words increases as reCAPTCHAs are completed. reCAPTCHA has been an enormous success: by September 2008, it was being used by more than 40,000 websites, and had transcribed over 440 million words [5].

Von Ahm has also developed a series of what he calls “Games With a Purpose” (GWAP) [6,7]. Several of them award points for agreeing with other players: in the ESP Game and popVideo, a group of players see the same image or video, and must submit keywords that could describe it; in Matchin, players are presented with a pair of images, and asked which one they prefer; in Squigl, players are shown an image and must draw an outline around a named object. Others rely on describing an object to a partner, and understanding their description: in TagTune, players describe what they hear to their partner and, based upon each other’s descriptions, guess whether they are listening to the same tune; in Verbosity one player has to describe a word by what it “is” – “is a type of”, “looks like”, “is about the same size as”, “is the opposite of” and “is a kind of” – while the other has to guess what it is [8]. By collecting human responses to questions, these games teach the computer specific facts, either about the meaning of words (Verbosity) or about particular images, videos, or pieces of music. All of them are useful in some way: tagging media with keywords allows search engines to produce more relevant results; the facts collected by Verbosity may be useful for Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Processing projects; and by rating how attractive images are, Matchin could lead to computer systems that select the prettiest images to present to users.

The main reason that these games are fun is that players must try to guess what other players are thinking. In the ESP game, for example, users are told which of their suggested tags matched those of their partner, which can influence their future suggestions. By adding this social interaction, boring tasks like tagging images or music are made fun. Additionally, users are actively encouraged to refer their friends to the site by bonus points. The competitive element extends beyond recruiting friends, as at the end of each game, players are told how many more points they need to match the day’s high-score, encouraging them to start another game. Players who receive specific numbers of points are awarded skill levels, and those with the highest scores appear on a leaderboard. During a game, continual encouragement to play on is provided by a sound playing (and, in some games, motivating text appearing) whenever a match occurs. Fixed time limits for each game maintain interest, forcing players to think quickly, so that the games are more challenging – and hence fun. One player apparently claimed that the ESP game was “like crack”: arguably, with its flashing lights and beeping noises, the game has more in common with a casino [9].

Both reCAPTCHA and the GWAP games are very easy to learn – it takes just seconds to read and understand the rules – which has surely contributed to their success. However, such simplicity is not essential, and many players have been attracted to the much more complicated game Foldit, in which players attempt to manipulate predicted proteins structure to produce more likely (i.e. lower energy) structures. Since it is not immediately obvious how to interpret or alter the protein structures, help is provided by a series of in-game tutorials. A separate wiki explains the relevant biochemistry, in-game controls and strategies [10]. Most of the top players in sheets). Players can thus produce better predictions of protein structures, which are important not only to the understanding of basic biological processes, but also to the rational design of drugs targeting specific proteins in disease.

So why do people choose to play these games? Perhaps they are enticed by invitations to “contribute to science” (Foldit) or claims that “You’re helping the world become a better place . . . you’re training computers to solve problems for humans all over the world” (GWAP) ‐ which the games do fulfill. When Foldit players were asked their motivation for playing, about 40% of answers referred to the scientific purpose of Foldit; 35% to a feeling of immersion in a task; 20% to a feeling of achievement; and the remainder to social involvement in the game [11]. Players of the more casual GWAP games are likely to be motivated less by the higher purpose of the games, and more by a sense of fun and com‐ petitiveness. Together, GWAP and Foldit have shown that people can be persuaded to perform useful tasks that cannot be automated, by presenting them in the context of a game, with rules, goals, and scores. In this way, otherwise idle minds can achieve what computers cannot.

References

1.US Bureau of Labor Statistics American Time Use Survey 2009, Tables A-2 and 11

2. Clay Shirky. Gin, Television, and Social Surplus. Talk given by Clay Shirky at the Web 2.0 conference, 2008 Apr 23. Transcript available from: http://www. herecomeseverybody.org/2008/04/looking-for-the-mouse.html

2. reCAPTCHA: Stop Spam, Read Books [Online Homepage]. http://www. google.com/recaptcha

3. Von Ahn et al. CAPTCHA: Using Hard AI Problems For Security. Proceedings of Eurocrypt 2003; 2656:294-311

4. reCAPTCHA: Stop Spam, Read Books. http://www.google.com/recaptcha

5. Von Ahn et al. reCAPTCHA: human-based character recognition via Web security measures. Science 2008; 321(5895):1465-8.

6. Gwap.com [Online Homepage]. Available from: http://gwap.com

7. Von Ahn and Dabbish. Designing Games With a Purpose. Communications of the ACM 2008; 51(8):58-67

8. This is similar to Burgener’s 20Q game, in which users train a neural network, so that it is able to distinguish between objects by asking fewer than 20 questions. 20Q.net Inc. [Online Homepage] http://20q.net

9. Thompson, Clive. For Certain Tasks, the Cortex Still Beats the CPU. Wired Magazine. Issue 15.07. Accessible from: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/ magazine/15- 07/ff_humancomp

10. Foldit wiki. [Online Homepage] http://foldit.wikia.com/wiki/FoldIt_Wiki

11. Cooper et al. “Predicting protein structures with a multiplayer online game.” Nature 466(7307):756. Supplementary Figure 3 shows the biochemical experience of players; Supplementary Figure 4 shows motivations for playing the game

12. CASP8 Results. Available from: http://fold.it/portal/node/729520

This article was originally published in The Science in Society Review at the University of Cambridge by The Triple Helix Inc. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter and join us on Facebook

NFL Head Injuries

Any football fan watching a Sunday afternoon game will most likely witness at least one slow‐motion replay of a running back lowering his head as he faces off against a safety, or a defensive end’s helmet colliding with another player’s during a tackle. Fans of professional football bear witness to repeated head trauma during every game. Later in their lives, the football players confront the effects of these hits: health problems such as vertigo and dementia. While some rely on a support network, others struggle. The stories can be tragic, from the suicide of 44‐year old Andre Waters to the 50‐year old Mike Webster, a nine‐time Pro Bowler and Hall of Famer whose mental problems led to his homelessness and premature death.

Recently, however, academic research has started to confirm these anecdotes, uncovering potential links between repetitive head trauma in football and a serious health condition, called chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE). Originally associated with boxers, CTE is a type of neurological deterioration caused by repetitive head trauma. For football players, that deterioration often stems from the multiple concussions players suffer, especially those who play in positions where helmet contact is common. The new research has attracted public interest; in the past year alone, news coverage of the issue in popular media has increased; the New York Times frequently publishes articles related to the effects of head injuries in sports, and in November 2010, Sports Illustrated published a cover story on concussions. Previously a minor issue addressed within the National

Football League and its Players’ Association, the long‐term effects of repetitive head injuries has become a contentious issue for sports fans, commentators, the U.S. government, and for the National Football League. For years, the NFL commissioned its own studies that negated the effect of head trauma. After pressure from two Congressional hearings in the past year, the NFL has tacitly changed its stance. During the 2010‐2011 season, the league has started to change its internal policies towards compensation and the treatment of ex‐NFL players suffering from CTE. The NFL’s new policies may also reflect the fact that their base of football fans are slowly coming to terms with the mounting evidence that professional football causes permanent physical harm, and considering what it means to support a sport with those consequences. In the meantime, CTE researchers are still in the process of collecting enough evidence to build a conclusive link between the disease and football.

As of July 2009, only 51 cases of CTE have been neuropathologically confirmed, a number constrained by the fact that CTE can only be diagnosed post‐mortem. 90% of those diagnosed were former athletes, of which 11% were former football players [1]. From these confirmed cases, researchers at Boston University have demonstrated that CTE is a distinct neurodegenerative disease, although it shares many features of other degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinsons. Specifically, CTE is a tauopathy, an affliction recognizable by high levels of tau proteins and loss of volume in the brains of those affected. CTE is characterized by a progressive deterioration in mental capabilities, beginning with mild memory loss and lessened concentration, and progressing to initial symptoms of Parkinsons disease to full‐blown dementia and speech abnormalities [1].

Most ex‐football players exhibiting similar symptoms in the past have been diagnosed with either Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinsons, complicating the efforts to establish CTE as a unique disease suffered mainly by professional contact sports, like boxing and football. A study published in September 2010 presented the first pathological evidence that repetitive head trauma in sports is associated with protein markers and other pathological evidence that contributes to symptoms like memory loss and decreased brain function [2]. These symptoms, in turn, often lead to a mistaken diagnosis of ALS, or Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Studies on boxing demonstrate that risk factors for CTE include the length of a boxing career, sparring exposure, and the amount of bouts a boxer participates in: all risk factors that can easily be extrapolated to football careers [3]. While repetitive head trauma is one indicator of later functional problems, one academic paper has suggested a genetic component as well. A later study focused on athletes grouped active professional athletes by age and then categorized subgroups by APOE‐ε4 carriers; the APOE‐ε4 genotype has been studied previously for its links to Alzheimer’s disease and atherosclerosis. Those in the elder group that possessed the APOE genotype exhibited significantly poorer cognitive performance than both the elder group and the younger group without the APOE genotype, suggesting that sustained head trauma may have a greater impact on those with genetic vulnerabilities [4].

Research into the link between CTE and football careers is very recent mainly because any prior studies were primarily funded by the NFL rather than credible independent sources. But what rare independent research exists has uncovered interesting correlations. A study of college football players showed that the existence of a prior history of concussion resulted in lower cognitive function [5]. Another survey of 1,090 retired professional football players reported that symptoms consistent with CTE correlated with players’ reported concussions during their career [6]. While no study has conclusively determined that CTE is caused by repetitive head trauma and concussions, the correlative evidence has been accumulating over the past few years, slowed by the under‐reporting of concussions in sports and the difficulty of diagnosing CTE in living subjects.

These few studies on football players’ health that have been published over the past three years have generated an enormous amount of both political and public interest. Press coverage has spread from more general‐interest papers like The New York Times to sports outlets like ESPN and even men’s magazines like Esquire. Even magazines with a primary audience of football fans, like Sports Illustrated, have run cover stories questioning “the hits that are changing football” [7]. On the political front, the House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee has to date held two informational hearings on the legal issues relating to football head injuries. Despite the neutral objectives of these hearings, the NFL’s disability board structure and stance towards players’ health issues came under heavy criticism both from congressional representatives and those called to testify. Kyle Turley, a former NFL player, alleged that “the negligence of the NFL medical staff is fairly universal, [and] its effects are perpetuated and magnified by the NFL disability committees, the protection they enjoy under the collective bargaining agreement comprised of the owners and players’ union representatives which continually deny retired players disability claims wrongfully” [8]. In the same hearing, Dr. Ann McKee, co‐director of Boston University’s Center for the Study of Traumatic Encephalopathy, stated that the elevated tau levels and other indications of degeneration “are dramatically not normal‐ there is no way these pathological changes represent a variation in normal that we find under a bell shaped curve” [8]. She went on to compare the problem with the history of cigarette smoking and its health consequences, urging the panel to take preventative action with or without the support of the NFL.

Since the House hearings, the NFL appears to have addressed some of the contentious issues surrounding football players’ health, although their long‐term commitment is still very much in flux. The NFL had already established the 88 Plan in 2007, a program that awards retirees with dementia an $88,000 yearly stipend [8]. After the hearings, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell reorganized their disability and head trauma research board, dismissing doctors on the board with no specialization in the area, as well as releasing new informational literature for players that clearly state the risk players face from head injuries. Even more recently, in October 2010, the NFL expanded a rule that prohibited upward launch hits that occur when receivers had not had sufficient time to defend themselves; the new player penalties punish those hits to the head with fines and possible suspensions [9]. But with the medical link between head trauma and CTE becoming more established, the NFL faces an uncertain future. What is their obligation to former players as they retire and face health issues?

While the NFL has taken steps to dismantle its previously hostile policies towards dementia and mental health issues, a future framework to address their players’ mental health problems is unclear. A player lockout in which players’ pay and future would be indefinitely frozen is a looming threat, pending the negotiation of a collective‐bargaining agreement between team owners and the Players’ Association by the end of the league year in March 2011. The potential lockout throws every aspect of the player‐team relationship up in the air, including teams’ responsibilities towards concussed players and ex‐players with health problems. NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has promised that the impending lockout would not affect relations with the Players’ Association on health issues or payments through the 88 Plan [8]. At the same time, the NFL Players’ Association is responsible for representing players on a wide range of issues, and some players allege that the Association has compromised on granting retirees’ full health care compensation in order to gain ground on other player issues.

Workers’ compensation claims have been the main recourse for players seeking compensation for football‐related injuries. California law in particular stipulates that professional football players who have played in California are eligible to file a claim in California. Since any professional player that ever played at least one game in California is therefore eligible, most players seeking NFL compensation file claims in that state. In March 2010, Dr. Eleanor Perfetto filed the first dementia‐related claim, arguing that her husband Ralph Wenzel’s dementia directly stems from his seven years in the NFL. Workers’ compensation laws require documentation that the injury sustained was derived from playing football, and if the state rules in Dr. Perfetto’s favor, players will likely seek compensation through similar legal avenues [10].

While the House of Representatives has held two hearings on the issues surrounding head injuries in football, they have so far been unwilling to pass legislation specifically relating to the NFL. Legislation is pending, however, and expected to pass on regulations for concussion protection in youth sports, which will affect a much larger pool of athletes at risk and with a lower profile than professional players.

Meanwhile, the NFL, as a private business (in fact, a Congress‐mandated monopoly), is only subject to two venues of influence on responsibility for retirees: that of the law, and public opinion. Enforced legislation seems unlikely, but the visibility of football injuries has had an impact within the sport’s official organization. As sports reporters continue to ask questions about the serious, long‐term health effects of a sport meant for entertainment, fans become more aware that every Sunday they are perhaps witnessing “brain injury, involving potentially grave consequences, in real time” [11]. Perhaps more significantly, the news about brain injuries hits close to home for many fans with children; Representative John Conyers opened the House hearing on football injuries with a personal note that his 13‐year‐old son was playing a football game that very afternoon [8]. The decisions made at a professional level extend beyond the 10,000 retirees and 1,600 active players of the NFL to the millions in youth sports across the country

More than anything else, it could be the growing uneasiness of its fans that pushes the NFL to move from instituting more penalties during the game to creating a comprehensive framework for players’ health once they leave the game. In the meantime, research continues to accumulate and moves closer to establishing a definitive truth, as football players continue to run onto the field every Sunday.

References

This article was originally published in The Science in Society Review at The University of Chicago by The Triple Helix Inc. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter and join us on Facebook

Math Education

It always shocks me to see high school students struggling to solve simple arithmetic problems. I happened to casually glance at the algebra homework of a ninth grader one day and saw “3×7 =” written next to a graphing question. Evidently, he did not immediately know the answer and was probably looking for a calculator. I later learned that this student was almost failing the algebra course, but I also could not help but wonder how much trouble the actually failing students were having. It simply seemed inefficient to me that these students were trying tolearn high school math, which is best learned with a solid foundation of fundamental concepts,when they couldn’t remember the math they were supposed to have mastered six years ago.

The United States is one of the world’s most technologically advanced countries, yet our mathematics program, especially at the secondary level, lags behind those of other industrialized countries [1][2]. Without a solid math background from grade school, the majority of adults in the US lack basic number sense skills – according to a poll conducted by the Center for Economic and Entrepreneurial Literacy almost 80% of adults interviewed did not understand the magnitude of a trillion [3]. These people may not completely understand the true size of the US’s national debt or deficit, since for them, the figures may just seem like any big number.

Given American students’ poor performance in math compared to other countries, it is unsurprising to find that the US tried a series math reforms throughout the latter half of the 20th century. Until 1960’s, the predominant way of teaching math, often known as the “traditional” approach, emphasized memorization of basic facts and standard algorithms at the elementary level, followed by an endless array of exercises to reinforce the information. The rote memorization mindset continued through high school, and even into college; it was not uncommon to see a college calculus class that mainly focused on integration formulas and differentiation rules rather than on the fundamental meaning and purpose of derivatives and integrals [4]. Textbooks presented few problems that went beyond substituting into given algorithms, and teachers rarely explained or even mentioned the reasons and principles behind these algorithms. Consequently, math often appeared as a random collection of formulas to students. Critics have called this traditional method “parrot math” to stress that while students

eventually could reproduce most of the basic skills they were taught, they lacked any in-depth understanding of what they were learning [5].

In the 1960’s, a radical change in the curriculum occurred in the US as a response to the Sputnik crisis, which spawned the Space Race against the Soviet Union. There was a general fear that the “traditional” math curriculum was not adequate to produce engineers that were well- grounded in advanced math. The National Science Foundation thus proposed “new math”, which required students to learn abstract math concepts as early as elementary school, often before mastering basic computational skills. Set theory and abstract algebra, which were typically topics studied by advanced math undergraduates, made appearances in elementary school textbooks. Educators justified these new curriculum additions by claiming that students would grasp abstract math more easily in higher education if they were exposed to it earlier, although they did not make any explicit provisions for students who did not intend to further study science or engineering after high school [6].

Unfortunately, it was extremely difficult for students to process the abstract concepts, especially since they had very little concrete math background to build upon. For example, without a clear understanding of basic addition facts, ideas such as the Commutative Property of Addition seemed strange and unnecessary to students. According to Piaget’s theory from developmental psychology, children generally do not develop the ability to perform abstract reasoning until adolescence, so the “new math” essentially tried to teach concepts that most children were not cognitively ready to learn [7].

As in the traditional approach, students had weak math foundations because they did not completely understand the ideas of the “new math”. However, the new approach was even less effective in the long-run because abstract mathematical concepts had no common applications in the real world, whereas traditional arithmetic operations were at least used in day-to-day tasks. Furthermore, the teachers themselves often did not completely grasp what they taught since they were generally not exposed to abstract mathematics in secondary school, so explaining the concepts to elementary school children was nearly impossible. Students often came out of elementary school having a vague idea about technical advanced math terminology but without the ability to compute basic multiplication facts. Ultimately, the experiment was a failure, and most schools almost immediately switched back to the traditional approach in the 1970’s [6].

The traditional approach continued to be the method of choice in schools across the US for another twenty years, and before long, arguments about students’ shallow understanding of math formulas again emerged. A new movement came into focus in the late 1980’s when the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) introduced a different set of standards that emphasized mathematical inquiry over routine calculations. Memorization of algorithms was nearly eliminated, calculators were encouraged, and students were asked to “discover” their own methods of doing basic operations. This “constructivist” proposal gave rise to many new textbooks in the 1990’s, and it became popular as several large school districts adopted these new curriculum reforms [8].

Unfortunately, students and teachers were shortly faced with a new problem. To make the curriculum seem more modern, many programs encouraged heavy calculator use and did not require students to memorize basic facts. However, without adequate practice in these essential

computational skills, students began to have trouble with even basic arithmetic, and were rarely able to do even slightly complicated problems without technology. Also, without a methodical way to add fractions, multiply two-digit numbers together, convert between percents and decimals, or carry out other similar operations, students usually ended elementary school mathematics unable to perform these essential operations. Visualizing two fractions being added, for example, was preferred over more algorithmic approaches but only works practically for simple cases; with a problem like 2/13 + 5/16, intuition quickly breaks down and one must use more general methods [9]. While calculators have made tedious arithmetic unnecessary, basic computations show up frequently in numerous subjects that students may pursue later on, and in any case, it would be highly inconvenient for people to rely on a calculator for calculations that could be quickly done mentally with adequate practice.

Furthermore, perhaps as an attempt to avoid traditional methods, books commonly used variants of the standard algorithms for operations such as multiplication, division, and fraction addition. Besides being usually longer and more time-consuming, these “new” algorithms also misunderstood the NCTM reform’s main objective: the goal was to help students understand math by finding alternatives to the traditional approach, not to replace existing algorithms. Incorporating an antiquated, inefficient “lattice” system for multiplying instead of the standard algorithm, for example, neither sped up the computation nor helped the student understand multiplication [10].

With all these unsuccessful changes in math programs over the past 50 years, it is not surprising that American students are behind their international counterparts in mathematics. But we rarely think about why students from other countries can learn math more thoroughly. A

lengthy study done by Ginsberg and colleagues followed the math education system in Singapore, which uses a system that would be undoubtedly classified as “traditional”, yet is consistently ranked at the top among other countries by several international tests [11]. An internationally recognized program, “Singapore Math”, is based on the Singapore curriculum and has also found much success by the schools that have tried it [12]. By investigating the principles behind the Singapore math curriculum, the authors found numerous flaws in our own math education system that makes our methods weaker, even though they are based on the same “traditional” approach as those of Singapore’s system [11].

The first problem in our math curriculum is its lack of specific and unified standards. Each state is free to make its own curricula, and the NCTM guidelines are vague at best; they define objectives for a range of grade levels, and therefore different states vary greatly in suggesting when basic concepts are introduced. The inconsistent structure hinders textbook companies’ efforts of developing effective programs. It also becomes harder to determine the quality of new programs because the states have distinct assessment methods that influence the results of pilot- program studies. Singapore’s curriculum, on the other hand, is easy to describe because it is nationalized and unified. It is therefore much easier to produce learning materials that work for all schools and to evaluate the effectiveness of the overall curriculum [11]. While a completely standardized system is less feasible in the US because of its large size and diversity, there should be more specific national standards that prevent states from producing greatly differing curricula.

The second issue with American math education lies with the textbooks’ contents. Most basic math textbooks have exercises that require little thought from the student, such as one-step formula plug-ins. Students thus cannot readily apply the principles they learn to more

complicated multi-step problems because they are not usually exposed to anything beyond their textbooks’ rather simple exercises [4]. Singapore’s textbooks, on the other hand, have basic drills as well, but move on to more challenging problems that apply the newly-learned concepts. By thinking through more involved questions, students master the basic procedure while developing their problem solving skills [11].

A related problem is that American curricula try to cover too many concepts in a single year. Partially, this is the result of the textbook publishers’ attempts to satisfy as many standards and teacher demands as possible, which ultimately stems from the lack of curriculum centralization. While Singapore’s standards only require about 15 topics per grade level, some state curricula contain over 50 topics to be covered in a school year [12]. Chapters and lessons therefore tend to be shorter and less in-depth. Although exposure to a diverse range of topics can arguably be beneficial, such a wide array of topics prevents deep comprehension of any specific topic. Therefore there is no time to develop the problem solving skills needed to tackle more complicated problems [11]. Middle and high school curricula tend to be similar in terms of their lack of depth. For example, Lockhart describes precalculus as a “senseless bouillabaisse of disconnected topics”, many of which are glossed over because they are not introduced in a meaningful context [4].

Another serious weakness is the lack of qualified teachers who teach grade school math. Singapore’s teachers must be certified through stringent exams before they even enter an education program, where they are paid a salary that is comparable to that of actual teachers. In contrast, prospective US teachers have the lowest math SAT scores on average out of all college majors. It is difficult to expect that the very individuals who did not thoroughly master math in

school would be able to produce competent math students. Singapore teachers also undergo a rigorous professional development program in addition to extensive annual training in new skills. Meanwhile, US teachers only attend short workshops, despite the fact that these workshops are “widely admitted to be ineffective for changing practice”, and teachers are not required to pass very stringent exams. In fact, the exam for certifying 6th grade teachers is easier than the exams given to Singapore sixth graders [11].

Tailoring the curriculum to students of different abilities, commonly called “tracking”, is also important to ensure that all students master the material, not just the most able ones. A study showed that programs that offered more comprehensive tracking systems scored higher on math achievement tests, even after adjusting for student backgrounds [13]. Singapore addresses this problem by providing a complete alternative program for struggling students that focuses more on repetition and is taught by well-qualified teachers. By contrast, while the US provides resources for less able students, most special programs for slower math students in the US follow no real framework; students who fall behind are generally put into unofficial “extra-help” classes that are taught by aides who often have not earned a college degree. If all citizens are to have good basic math skills, then the needs of all students must be addressed and equal attention should be given to those who require more time or a different approach to grasp the material [11].

The solution to the problematic American curriculum is not as simple as just converting to the Singaporean model. Students that have already used American textbooks for a long time may not have all the skills necessary to progress to the next level in the Singapore curriculum, since the order and depth of topics are likely to differ. Also, since each level of the Singapore

curriculum assumes knowledge of concepts taught in previous levels, any conceptual holes in American students’ knowledge would prevent thorough understanding of the new topics introduced [11]. Finally, a sudden transition to more complicated and problem-solving based questions could initially be extremely difficult to students who are more accustomed to the American textbook exercises. A gradual change would be more appropriate, but then choosing the ideal resources to facilitate this change becomes a difficult task.

Newly implementing the program for first-grade students is not much more straightforward. Although students may yet not be accustomed to the “American way” like older students are, there are still other differences that prevent a smooth transition. As similar as the resources may be, the quality teachers will still differ between the two countries. The Singapore program presumes training in important methods used throughout the program, which in turn presumes a level of mathematical competence that may be higher than that of many US teachers. A lengthy professional program to train teachers in the US is conceivable but would be extremely expensive and require a large commitment that teachers’ unions may resist [11]. Furthermore, the amount of time spent on math and science in school is vastly different between the two countries. Not only is the average school day in Asian countries longer, but also the proportion of time spent on math in school is also much greater in Asian schools. Unless more drastic reforms like lengthening the school day are considered, schools that plan to adopt a Singaporean math program must find ways to accommodate the greater required time commitment without significantly affecting the normal structure of the school day [14].

American schools may not be able to effectively adopt a close duplicate of the Singapore program, but they can certainly implement elements that make the Singapore curriculum

successful. Greater unification of standards across states would allow national textbook companies to provide more focus in their textbooks, as well as make reforms much simpler to carry out and assess. A more comprehensive track can be produced for students with greater trouble, and ideally, such classes are taught by qualified teachers. While the abilities of American teachers will not suddenly change, more substantial professional development programs rather than short, occasional workshops can improve how well they teach the new material. Furthermore, standards for future teachers should increase to ensure that the new generation of teachers are mathematically confident themselves before they try to present their knowledge of math to their students. While we do not need a population of scientists and mathematicians, all people should be able to know enough mathematics to understand how numbers are used in everyday life, such as for basic tax accounting or recipes. With these reforms in mind, we can envision a society in which statistics mean more to everyone than just vague numbers to spice up an article. Perhaps then, young students will master their multiplication tables sooner, so that rather than being stuck on basic facts, they can begin to build the critical thinking skills necessary to become mathematically literate citizens.

This article was originally published in The Science in Society Review at Yale University by The Triple Helix Inc. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter and join us on Facebook

Biological Basis of Beauty

By Thomas Gizbert

Poet and philosophical essayist Kahlil Gibran wrote in the early 20th century, “Beauty is not in the face; beauty is a light in the heart” [1]. However, a number of recent studies are building a scientific case against this statement, claiming that beauty resides not in the heart, but in the evolution of elements of the face and brain.

The emerging discipline of evolutionary psychology is based on the idea that not only have our physical traits been shaped by our adaptation to our ancestral environment, but our behaviour and preferences have likewise been shaped by natural selection [2]. This has led to many studies investigating the evolutionary reasons for the human concept of beauty, and their results are often surprising. Mostly, these studies examine whether a particular trait – for example symmetry, colour, and facial hair– is correlated with perceived attractiveness, and in doing so they focus on the biological and evolutionary reasons why some faces are commonly judged to be more attractive than others. They show that despite the old adage “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, there are a number of traits which are generally and cross-culturally perceived as more attractive than others. However, this approach has come under much criticism – not only methodologically, but also from those who argue that attractiveness should be studied as a cultural concept only, or those who argue that it should not be studied at all [3].

Studies of human beauty are not new: Pythagoras put forward a theory that physical beauty derived from the subject’s proportions and the golden ratio in the sixth century BC, and fields as diverse as art, sociology, and cosmetic surgery have also addressed the subject [1]. However, the evolutionary psychological approach is unique, in that it proposes a scientific basis couched in evolutionary logic for why we perceive certain markers to be more attractive than others. Its practitioners argue that the features that men and women find attractive are biological signals of a good-quality mate.

One of the predictions that evolutionary psychologists make regarding mate choice regards age preference. Due to the fact that women’s reproductive fitness is more influenced by age, men will be pickier about their partners’ ages, tending to go for younger – or younger-looking – women. In a 2002 study, de Sousa Campos et al. showed that the number of responses to women’s personal ads decreased with the advertiser’s age, while responses to men’s increased [4]. D. Jones, in his 1995 study ‘Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny’, returned similar results, showing that men prefer women who possess youthful features, including large eyes, small noses, and full lips. More surprisingly, a collection of photographs of models’ faces were analysed for eye width, nose length, and lip height, and on the basis of these measurements were calculated to have similar facial dimensions to girls aged between 6.8 and 7.4 years. Jones states that “a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or ‘supernormal’ degree” [5].

Facial markers which indicate hormone levels often affect how attractive a face is perceived to be. Law Smith et al. (2006) found that women with greater oestrogen levels are generally considered to be more feminine, attractive, and healthy, with fuller lips and smaller lower jaws. As high levels of oestrogen correlate with high fertility in women, this might mean that – as with youth – these features are attractive because they are indications of a good mate in biological and evolutionary terms. An interesting note is that women who wear makeup are similarly seen to be more feminine, attractive, and healthy; perhaps this means that makeup mimics high levels of oestrogen. Law Smith et al. write that “The use of make-up may compensate for or mask cues indicating low hormone levels, making perceivers unable to form attributions based on natural hormonal cues” [6].

Just as a high level of oestrogen is correlated with attractiveness in women, high levels of testosterone, the male sex hormone, are linked to attractiveness in men–but not in the same way. Johnston et al. (2001) suggested that while women do prefer male faces which have markers of masculinity – a broader jaw, a pronounced brow, and jutting cheekbones – and that these characteristics are also associated with good health in males, too much masculinisation leads to increased perception of dominance, unfriendliness, and other negative traits.

Furthermore, women prefer different levels of masculinisation depending on where they are in their menstrual cycle; a more masculine face is preferred when conception risk is high. The fact that the beholder’s concept of beauty changes as a result of biological mechanisms emphasises the idea that beauty is itself a psychological construct. The researchers write “When viewed from this perspective, male facial beauty may be an evaluative feeling evoked by attributes that were more important in a hunter-gatherer era than today’s environment” [7]. Indeed, men who women rate higher for attractiveness tend to have above-average semen quality (that is, sperm count, morphology, and mobility), lending weight to the hypothesis that attractive features are those which advertise a good choice of mate in genetic and biological terms, in both males and females [8].

Not only does the face provide information about the ability of a potential mate to reproduce, but also it can pro-

young men with attractive faces have skin that looks healthier; in this study, subjects rated photos of men’s faces for attractiveness, and photos of a small area of cheek skin for perceived skin health. The two correlated strongly, suggesting that attractiveness is partially affected by skin colour and texture [9].

Another measure of health is facial symmetry. Evolutionary psychologists point out that bilateral symmetry is difficult to maintain, and stresses during development – such as illness or malnutrition – can cause asymmetrical growth, making symmetry a good marker for overall health. And indeed members of both sexes perceive symmetrical faces to be more attractive than asymmetrical ones [3]. Thornhill et al. (1995) found that an increase in levels of symmetry in males is also correlated with an increased incidence of female orgasm in their sexual partners. Furthermore, symmetrical men are quicker to copulate in romantic relationships. The authors of the study write: “Our findings suggest that human female orgasm is designed to retain sperm of men of high developmental stability, and perhaps the sperm of men who are facially attractive and large in body size” [10].

These new revelations about the adaptive purposes of certain facial features have led some to theorise that sexual selection is among the evolutionary pressures which have led humans to look and act the way they do: humans have their distinctive features for the same reason that peacocks have their large tails. Biologist R. A. Fisher termed this pattern of selection ‘the runaway effect’. In this model, a certain trait ceases to be selected for due to any benefits it might incur for the bearer, and instead it is selected for simply because the selection is self- reinforcing. For example, any rebellious peahen which showed a preference for shorter tail length would not be able to pass on this preference, as any male offspring she had would have shorter tails, and thus be less successful at mating. This causes males to be saddled with longer and longer tails, until the costs of growing the tail any more outweigh the benefits [2].

An example of this type of selection in humans might be in neoteny – the retention of child-like or baby-like features. Foetal and baby chimpanzees, for instance, have much shorter faces, are less hairy, and generally look more like humans. This has led some to theorise that human appearance is a result of intense sexual selection for neoteny – that we have evolved to look like baby chimpanzees – perhaps due to the greater fitness advantage held by women who have younger-looking features [11].

Despite all of the advances made in the field of evolutionary psychology of mate choice and facial attractive- ness, there remain some who resist the idea that this area of study can shed light on the human aesthetic. David Perrett, a psychologist at the University of St. Andrews, writes that “Once I began working on what makes faces attractive, the reactions my work received from fellow academics and others really surprised me: some people argued that human beauty should not be studied; most questioned whether it could be studied at all” [1]. Apart from criticisms of Darwinian theory and evolutionary psychology in particular, criticisms of the very concept of beauty abound. Naomi Wolf’s book The Beauty Myth, for example, argues that the concept of beauty and attractiveness has been perpetuated in order to keep women in their place, while social anthropologists and other social scientists tend to emphasise the interpersonal interaction aspect to attractiveness, while minimising any objective element to it [12]. In philosophy, as in other arts disciplines, the maxim seems to stay “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” [1].

The question thus arises of why the evolution of facial attractiveness is worth studying. One answer deals itself with the cultural effects of beauty: Viren Swami and Adrian Furnham write in The Psychology of Physical Attraction that “understanding beauty from a scientific point of view will enable us better to deal with some of the effects of beauty, especially where the excessive pursuit of beauty becomes detrimental, damaging, even pathological” [1]. In a society in which women look up to airbrushed supermodels as archetypes of physical attractiveness and cosmetic surgery provides the means to alter one’s appearance to order, understanding the psychology of beauty seems more important than ever before. David Perrett gives another answer: that it would be beneficial to move beauty from the exclusive domain of philosophy, poetry, and art and towards psychology and science. He states that “it is the evolving human mind which perceives and prefers… perhaps one day we will learn that what we find attractive in nature and art reflects, in part, what we are attracted to in humans” [3].

It seems that this expanding field will not stop growing in the foreseeable future. As more traits – not just facial, but in body and behaviour – are found to correlate with attractiveness, our picture of the biological basis of beauty will become more filled out, perhaps to the point where it can compete with the widely-held cultural view of individual, subjective aesthetics. This exciting new discipline is pushing the boundaries of what science can and cannot tell us about the way we see the world around us, telling us that beauty is not in the eye, but in the specific adapted cognitive modules of the beholder.

References

1. Swami V, Furnham A. The Psychology of Physical Attraction. London: Routledge; 2008.

2. Cartwright J. Evolution and Human Behaviour. 2nd ed. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008.

3. Perrett D. In Your Face: The New Science of Human Attraction. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan; 2010.

4. de Sousa Campos L, Otta E, de Oliveira Siqueira. Sex differences in mate selection strategies: Content analyses and responses to personal advertisements in Brazil. Evolution and Human Behavior 2002 Sept;23(5):395-406.

5. Jones D. Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny: Cross-cultural Evidence and Implications. Current Anthropology 1995 Dec;36(5):723-748.

6. Law Smith MJ, Perrett DI, Jones BC, Cornwell RE, Moore FR, Feinberg DR, Boothroyd LG, Durrani SJ, Stirrat MR, Whiten S, Pitman RM, Hillier SG. Facial appearance is a cue to oestrogen levels in women. Proc Biol Sci 2006 Jan 22;273(1583):135–140.

7. Johnston VS, Hagel R, Franklin M, Fink B, Grammer K. Male facial attractiveness: evidence for hormone-mediated adaptive design. Evolution and Human Behavior 2001 July;22(4):251- 267.

8. Soler C, Núñez M, Gutiérrez R, Núñez J, Medina P, Sancho M, Álvarez J, Núñez A. Facial attractiveness in men provides clues to semen quality. Evolution and Human Behavior 2003 May;24(3):199-207.

9. Jones BC, Little AC, Burt DM, Perrett DI. When facial attractiveness is only skin deep. Perception 2004;33(5):569-76.

10. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW, Comer R. Human female orgasm and mate fluctuating asymmetry. Animal Behaviour 1995;50(6):1601-1615.

11. Barrett D. Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose. New York: W. W. Norton & Company; 2010.

12. Wolf N. The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. New York: HarperCollins Publishers; 2002.

13. Johnston VS, Franklin M. Is Beauty in the Eye of the Beholder? Ethology and Sociobiology 1993 May 5;14:183-199.

This article was originally published in The Science in Society Review at University of Cambridge by The Triple Helix Inc. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter and join us on Facebook

Doctor and Patients Interacting on the Internet

Introduction

The advent of the “information technology age” has led to a rapid change in the doctor‐patient dynamic. Before the Internet became host to a plethora of medical information and advice, the doctor‐patient relationship was confined primarily to office consultations. In that setting, doctors advised patients on the best course of medical action, and the patients weighed their options before proceeding. Now, the modern patient has the ability to access extensive information on nearly every medical condition. Today, the patient arrives armed with information about potential diagnoses and courses of treatment. This inversion of roles presents a number of ramifications for the routine practice of medicine. Patients are in a position to lobby their doctors about treatment, and treat medical advice with skepticism and concern.[1] However, despite the fact that access to a wealth of online resources has the potential to alter the doctor‐patient dynamic, it has not necessarily replaced healthcare providers as the essential medium of care.[2] The full scope of this new doctor‐patient relationship involves access to information, the quality of the information accessed, and how that information is interpreted by patients.

Use of the Internet for Medical Research

In a study published by the Journal of Medical Internet Research in 2003, 85% of American physicians surveyed indicated that a patient had researched medical information online and brought that information to a visit.[3] This high percentage is mitigated by the fact that the same physicians reported that less than one‐fifth of their patients had come to an appointment with Internet research.[4] This suggests that only a small number of patients were presenting research found online to their physicians. In that same year, however, a poll published in the Journal of Patient Education and Counseling reported that 80% of American adults who used the Internet had researched health information, and the share of adult Internet users searching for medical information had been rapidly increasing since the proliferation of the Internet.[5] At the beginning of the decade, a study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine in 2002 indicated that patients who had accessed medical information on the Internet were better educated and had a higher socioeconomic status.[6] Yet by the end of the decade, a study published in the Journal of Health Communication in 2008 noted that while sociodemographic factors contributed to some of the variance in whether or not a physician was contacted after turning to the Internet for research, Internet research was positively linked to physician visits, even when sociodemographic factors were controlled.[7] Regardless, it is clear that Americans are increasingly turning to the internet to fill gaps in their own knowledge about medical conditions.

Effects of Online Research

The early evidence of this shift in patient‐centered information resulted in a number of theories on how the change would affect the doctor‐patient relationship. The multitude of medical information online allowed for potential positive effects for the patient; the access to knowledge had the potential to democratize the healthcare process. Patients would theoretically have the ability to play a larger role in medical decision‐making, while the clinician would serve as an informed guide.[8] This drive to the Internet for information may have been fueled by an already strained doctor‐patient relationship. As the time doctors spent with their patients declined, the power of the Internet grew, and patients began to use the Internet out of frustration.[9] The benefits of the Internet do not end with access to information, as support groups for individual disease have grown in popularity, and a number of studies suggest that patients who participate in these groups “gained satisfaction” with their medical experience.[10]

Furthermore, a Harris Interactive poll conducted in 2001 indicated that patients who have done research are more likely to have more educated interactions with their physicians, where they ask more detailed questions regarding their conditions and proper treatment.[11] A British study published in BMC Family Practice in 2007 confirmed this poll, as patients reported feeling that they had used the limited time they had with their physician more effectively when equipped with the proper information before making a visit.[12] As medical information has become widely accessible online, its use has grown to be second‐nature for patients, who can research their symptoms and ailments to complement the information they receive from medical professionals. Ultimately, this research positively reinforces interactions with physicians, as patients are not relying on online information, but rather using it to augment the traditional clinical experience.

Potential Negative Aspects of Medical Information Online

The resistance to the use of online medical information is often rooted in questions about the quality of the available information. Physicians have indicated that only a small percentage of the information that patients bring is either “very relevant” or “very accurate” to their condition, yet the same physicians report that in the majority of cases, this information has little effect on the outcome or quality of care.[13] Although there are authoritative websites, the medical information available online is often unscientific and self‐published, by other patients reporting their personal experiences, rather than by clinicians submitting a peer‐reviewed report of an ailment. A substantial concern about online medical information is that it will dissuade patients from pursuing medical care because they feel as if they have sufficient information for self‐treatment or do not need to seek treatment; however, patients appear to turn to their physicians to evaluate the information they find online.[14]

Another significant and potentially negative effect of online medical information relates to the historical nature of the doctor‐patient relationship. The use of online medical information by a patient in a clinical setting can be interpreted as a challenge to the authority of the doctor. This challenge is exacerbated when patients decide to follow a course of treatment based on their own research that is contrary to the advice of their

physician. Historically, patients have abided by the advice of physicians without the resources to question this information. Unfortunately, physicians are often unfamiliar with the medical resources their patients use, and physicians retain a higher degree of skepticism about online data than their patients.[15] The potential for this antagonistic relationship becoming the standard dynamic, however, is slim. With the excess of information online, doctors can become “partners” to their patients rather than authoritarian guides, but still retain their clinical authority during this transition.[16]

Conclusion

Doctors, especially primary care physicians, have the opportunity to take an active role in how their patients use the Internet. If clinicians accept that their patients are likely to use online resources, they can assist their patients by providing a list of websites that have been noted for scientific accuracy and peer review. Patients may read extensively about treatments on the Internet, but they are still required to visit a physician to receive any of those treatments. Recently, a number of medical websites have contracted physicians to write articles and give advice on content. Although physicians must take great care when providing advice online, an appropriate intersection between in‐office care and virtual advice contributes to better patient well‐being. If doctors do not focus on authority structures but instead anticipate the incorporation of online information into their practice, the dynamic between doctor and patient may successfully be transformed into a partnership.

1. Akerkar, SM, and LS Bichille. “Doctor Patient Relationship.” Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 50.2 (2004): 120‐122. Print.

2. Lee, Chul‐Joo. “Does the Internet Displace Health Professionals?” Journal of Health Communication 13.5 (2008): 450‐464

3. Murray, Elizabeth. “The Impact of Health Information on the Internet on Healthcare and the Physician‐Patient Relationship.” Journal of Medical Internet Research.

4. Ibid.

5. McMullan, Miriam. “Patients Using the Internet to Obtain Health Information.” Patient Education and Counseling 63 (2006): 24‐28. Print.

6. Diaz, Joseph. “Patients’ Use of the Internet for Medical Information.” Journal of

General Internal Medicine 17.3 (2002): 180‐185. Print.

7. Lee, Chul‐Joo. “Does the Internet Displace Health Professionals?”

8. Chin, JJ. “Doctor‐Patient Relationship: From Medical Paternalism to Enhanced Autonomy.” Singapore Med 43.3 (2002): 152‐155. Print.

9. Anderson, James, Michelle Rainey, and Gunther Eysenbach. “The Impact of CyberHealthcare on the Doctor‐Patient Relationship.” Journal of Medical Systems 27.1 (2003) Print.

10. Akerkar, SM and LS Bichille. “Doctor Patient Relationship.”

11. Ibid.

12. Stevenson, Fiona. “Information from the Internet and the Doctor‐Patient Relationship.” BMC Family Practice 8.47 (2007). Print.

13. Murray, Elizabeth. “The Impact of Health Information on the Internet on Healthcare and the Physician‐Patient Relationship.”

14. Lee, Chul‐Joo. “Does the Internet Displace Health Professionals?”

15. Diaz, Joseph. “Patients’ Use of the Internet for Medical Information.”

16 . Anderson, James et. al. “The Impact of CyberHealthcare on the Doctor‐Patient Relationship.” 17Ibid.

This article was originally published in The Science in Society Review at Harvard University by The Triple Helix Inc. Follow The Triple Helix Online on Twitter. Join us on Facebook

Many people in the United States choose nonstick cookware due to its unique characteristics that make cleaning and cooking convenient. However, using a surface that is potentially carcinogenic and disease-causing even if it only occurs in a small percentage of the population, is not safe. It is the responsibility of executive agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration to monitor these products for the overall safety of the consumers. The EPA has taken some action in this matter by requiring companies to phase out long chain perfluorinated chemicals by the year 2015 (“Long”). However, these products are still in effect today and blood serum concentrations are still increasing. The long term effects of these chemicals have yet to be seen but based on the preliminary risks, I believe that the EPA should be taking a stronger stance on this matter in dealing with companies such as DuPont and 3M.

With consumers being exposed to such high risk chemicals on a daily basis, it is necessary for agencies such as the EPA to formulate a plan of action to educate the public concerning the risks of exposure to such chemicals and provide a means to file for health related compensation from the companies at fault. When the increase in PFOAs and PTFEs in the water supplies and blood serum was first noticed, there was an unusually high concentration surrounding certain areas including the 3M plant in Minnesota and the Dupont plant in Virginia (“Long”).  This is what initially indicated that the products in these plants may pose some risk to those involved in the manufacturing and the consumers as well. These chemical manufacturing companies that deal with consumer products need to be well regulated. These problems should be determined and dealt with far before they are able to affect the consumers.

It is understandable that these findings have not been strongly dealt with properly by the companies. It is natural that the companies involved will want to preserve their profit margin. The EPA, on the other hand, does not have an overwhelming reason why they are not taking actions such as requiring companies that use PFOA and PTFE in their products to post on warning stating the risks. The purpose of the government is to protect its citizens. Allowing the corporate world to quietly phase out their potentially dangerous products while putting consumers at risk does not fall under providing for the welfare of the people.

References:

“Long-Chain Perfluorinated Chemicals (PFCs) Action Plan Summary | Existing Chemicals | OPPT | US EPA.” US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 10 Feb. 2011. <http://www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/pfcs.html>.

Melzer, David. “Association between Serum Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Thyroid Disease in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.” Environmental Health Perspectives 118.5 (2010): 686-92. Health Source: Consumer Edition. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.

Steenland, Kyle. “Epidemiologic Evidence on the Health Effects of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA).” Environmental Health Perspectives 118.8 (2010). Health Source: Consumer Edition. Web. 10 Feb. 2011.

Written by The Triple Helix at Ohio State University

One way to observe the public’s anxiety about the Muslim Brotherhood is by means of a recent addition to Google’s search service, known as autocomplete. This once-experimental feature attempts to guess what a person is typing, displaying suggestions directly under the search box. Guesses are based entirely on the popularity of search terms typed by previous Google users. Autocomplete objectively captures the broad political thoughts and mood of an enormous amount of people. Type in Muslim brotherhood and a very telling list of predictions appear—a sequence that includes “terrorism, Iran, and Al-Qaeda,” none of which have positive connotations in the West. These “guess” items indicate the spoken and unspoken fears transmitted by the media to the mass public. It seems that anything containing the words Muslim or Islam in the post-9/11 era is subject to immediate scrutiny for connections to the more negative aspects of Islam and the Middle East. Yet, the Brotherhood’s background is an exemplar of religious moderation.

Formed in 1928 as a resistance movement to British occupation in Egypt, the organization slowly transitioned into a religiously oriented political party. Principle to its beliefs is the idea of the umma, meaning ‘community,’ being the source of sulta, translated as ‘political authority’ (Leinken).  As can be seen, this moderate vocation is a synonym for democracy. Even on issues such as homosexuality, sexual liberty, and drug use, the Brotherhood has indicated that it will respect the authority of the Egyptian people over the authority of religion (Hill). Indeed, it actively supports charitable actions, political involvement, and extensive education programs to combat religiously inspired violence and extremism. Such beliefs are a far cry from the “religious extremist” label that the contemporary Western media invariably pins on all Islamists.

Rumors of extremism in such groups are, for the most part, falsely created, often by the ruling autocratic regimes themselves. According to Lionel Beehner, a Fellow at the Truman National Security Project, threats of extremism are “used by autocrats to safeguard their positions.” For dictators, two principle purposes are served by exaggerating the threats of radical Islam. First, their regimes often acquire additional foreign aid from the United States, enabling them to ramp up their military and internal policing powers (Lionel). Second, autocrats exaggerate or falsely create internal threats to delegitimize opposition groups and, thereby, consolidate their domestic political power. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is a prime example of this unfortunate dynamic.

After the assassination of his predecessor at the hands of radical Islamists, Egyptian leader Mubarak, in need of support from some religious groups to combat extremism in his country, attempted to form an alliance with the Brotherhood because of its moderate stances. The Brotherhood’s growing political power eventually led to its undoing, however. After gaining more seats in the Egyptian parliament than all other opposition groups combined, the group proceeded to criticize government actions as un-Islamic. Using the rise of Islamic militant group activity in the early 1990’s as a pretext, Mubarak called the Brotherhood an organization of fanatics, banned it from fielding candidates, and executed many of its leading members (Stilt). Despite the false label and the transparently self-serving political motives that generated it, the organization is still commonly associated with radicalism.

Unfortunately, the United States, desperate for allies in the Middle East, is shooting itself in the foot by failing to recognize nuances in Islamism. Literally, Islamism is defined as “an Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism” (Islamism). This broad definition allows for beliefs that often complement, rather than contradict, US interests. In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood, America is losing a possible strategic ally—one that represents at its core the antithesis of the extremism that the US is fighting. Indeed, Al Qaeda’s Ayman Zawahiri himself once exclaimed that the Brotherhood “lures thousands of young Muslim men into lines for elections…instead of into the lines of jihad” (Leiken). The Brotherhood espouses the liberal values of an open, civil, and democratic society. How else can one explain the group’s support for the secular politician, Mohamed El-Baradei?

America policies cannot succeed in the Middle East unless they engage powerful Islamic influences in the area; and, though often forgotten, both governments created by the United States in the region are Islamic republics. It is, therefore, imperative that the American people, the US government, and the Western media start to distinguish the Brotherhood and, more generally, moderate Islam, from radical Islam. The Muslim Brotherhood—enemy of our enemy—is, after all, our natural friend.

References:

Autocomplete : Features – Web Search Help.” Google. Web. 04 Feb. 2011.

Beehner, Lionel. “In Egypt, ‘Islamist’ fears overblown.” USA Today n.d.: Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 6 Feb. 2011.

Google. Web. 06 Feb. 2011.

Hill, Evan. “The Muslim Brotherhood in Flux – In Depth – Al Jazeera English.” AJE – Al Jazeera English. 21 Nov. 2010. Web. 06 Feb. 2011.

“Islamism – Definition of Islamism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.” Dictionary, Encyclopedia and Thesaurus – The Free Dictionary. Web. 07 Feb. 2011.

Leiken, Robert S., and Steven Brooke. “The Moderate Muslim Brotherhood.” Foreign Affairs 86.2 (2007): 107-121. Academic Search Alumni Edition. EBSCO. Web. 6 Feb. 2011.

Masoud, Tarek. “What Is Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood? : NPR.” Interview by Steve Inskeep.NPR : National Public Radio : News & Analysis, World, US, Music & Arts : NPR. National Public Radio, 1 Feb. 2011. Web. 06 Feb. 2011.

Stilt, Kristen. “Islam Is the Solution: Constitutional Visions of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood | Africa North Africa from AllBusiness.com.” Small Business Advice and Resources from AllBusiness.com. Texas International Law Journal, 1 Oct. 2010. Web. 06 Feb. 2011

Written by The Triple Helix at Ohio State University