Q: FROM STUDENT MEMBER ROBIN B. IN CA
Recently, a group of scientists and Nobel laureates wrote in an open
letter to the US government that scientific and medical research and
opinions were being wrongfully smothered and hindered by governmental
administrations. Has anyone felt this themselves (if you have please tell
about it), or have any opinions on the subject?

A: FROM MENTOR DEBORAH GRUBBE IN DE
There are many times that scientists and engineers need to insert
themselves into the political process. Opinions are like noses, everybody has one.
The key thing is to understand where YOUR opinions are and WHY. In my work
in advising the US Government, I have seen federal employees embrace, use
and welcome the views and opinions of external experts. While I am sure that
some folks have felt slighted from time to time, one has to look at the
subject matter at hand, and its importance to the issues of the day. You
can always complain in life that people are not listening to you. The
challenge is to be diligent in being certain that you are communicating
clearly.
*********************
A: FROM MENTOR JOAN LUSK IN RI
...when scientific consensus is ignored the whole scientific process is corrupted.
Consensus can be challenged with new evidence and new theories, but
to ignore evidence for political purposes is not right. In the long
run it will do harm - just as imposing Lysenkoism in the USSR damaged
Soviet biology and agriculture.
...
********************
A: FROM MENTOR KRISTIN TAGHON IN IL
Hi, Robin,

Many people feel that the regulations that the government mandates for research
smothers research. An example of this is the regulations for use of embryos in
research for curing diseases or genetic problems. Another would be the FDA
regulations on drugs and sometimes the delay in approving drugs for use in the
U.S.. Sometimes, even approval to continue research on a particular drug is
denied.

... Also, if the pharmaceutical industry were not strictly regulated, some people feel that the companies that make them may take liberties to make lower quality drugs. Perhaps money
received from the government would be better used elsewhere if the research has
not progressed on some drugs to show that the drug will work. The problem is,
government agencies that review the research don't have enough people to review
all the research going on in a timely manner.

I know that this has happened even in the cellular phone industry. The
standards used by companies to provide wireless service has to be approved by
the government. Because they are so far behind and do not have enough people to
review the technologies, approval for the standards are delayed and production
of the equipment that would use this new technology cannot begin. And the sale
of the technology cannot even happen in the U.S. That is why technology often
grows faster in Europe. The governments there embrace technology and are not as
strict with the regulations. This is bad for U.S. companies because they have
to sell their product in Europe, and Europe typically wants to buy from their own
companies. So, the U.S. then has to make deals to create employment in those
countries in order to sell products there. So, two problems come from this:
Technology comes slower to the U.S. and jobs go overseas.

Some feel that less government regulation or to privatize regulation is the
answer.

Thanks for your question, Robin!