It would be a big mistake to take the recent U.S. Court of Claims opinion as the last word on whether vaccination can contribute to the development of regressive autism in some children. The U.S. Court of Claims special masters are hampered from considering evidence that has not yet been published in the medical literature regarding potential associations between vaccines and the development of regressive autism. There is inappropriate pharmaceutical industry influence on which vaccine studies do get published and widely cited in the medical literature. What is thought to be a scientific truth today can be proven false tomorrow. The answers will come when independent researchers, without ties to industry or government agencies concerned about protecting the status quo, can conduct appropriate scientific investigation into why many children who are healthy regress into autism after vaccination. — Barbara Loe Fisher, National Vaccine Information Center president

Actually, as this Slate piece explains, although Antarctic ice is spreading at the continent’s edges, this is misleading; the entire ice mass of Antarctica has been decreasing markedly, according to scientists. In the Arctic, meanwhile, despite a cold winter that led to slight increases in seasonal ice, the North Pole’s oldest ice mass continues to disappear at a rapid clip, according to NASA scientists.

EPA scientists have complained bitterly about Bush administration flacks who repeatedly water down language on climate change or ignore toxic chemical findings that impose costs on industry.

The survey shows that the agency is “under siege from political pressures,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.

We assume he’s including Dennis Kucinich?

Parts is parts? PETA says that growing meat without real animals is more humane and environmentally friendly.

Still, I doubt if consumers will find the idea of lab-grown Frankennuggets appetizing.
But don’t scoff, says Slate writer William Saletan, who points out that scientists are already having success growing replacement organs such as livers and hearts.
“To put it crudely,” he writes, “if you can grow a hunk of flesh for transplant, you can grow it for food.”

Are we on the verge of a Brave New World of food?

The authority announced this week that it was helping fund an eminent scholar position at Wichita State University and Via Christi’s Orthopaedic Research Institute. The authority may also choose Wichita this year for a biomaterials center for innovation. And Thornton said Wichita could play a key part in bioenergy development and health care clinical trials. Wichita’s strength, Thornton said, is the collaboration between WSU researchers and “customers” such as aviation companies and the medical community.

These are complex, substantive issues that have received too little media attention in the election cycle but that will affect America’s future far more than Colombian trade policy or the candidates’ bowling scores.

The next best chance for a science debate appears to be in early May before the Oregon primary.To learn more about the effort, check the ScienceDebate 2008 Web site.

Now it’s up to the candidates to agree to address a range of science and technology issues that are vital to the nation’s economic future.

For example, as debate organizer Shawn Otto points out, “Science and technology have driven 50 percent of our growth in GDP over the last 50 years, and yet by 2010, 90 percent of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. That’s a huge fundamental change the next president is going to have to be dealing with, and yet nobody’s talking about it.”

The book, by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery — well-known climate skeptics — discounts the role of human-generated greenhouse gases in climate change and suggests global warming is just a natural cycle of warming.

It’s fine for lawmakers to get opposing points of view, as long as they understand that the view Singer and Avery represent is decidedly in the minority among scientists and largely discredited.

They’d do better to read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s landmark report (“Summary for policymakers” online at ipcc.ch). Or read Elizabeth Kolbert’s book “Field Notes From a Catastrophe.” Or check out the RealClimate site, run by respected climate scientists who have refuted the Singer and Avery book’s assertions point by point (they called it “Unstoppable Hot Air”).

With so much hard data and consensus science out there, why would lawmakers want to hang important policy decisions on this marginal book?

Here’s hoping more support will follow to make the debate a reality.

Too often, though, science is pushed to the sidelines of presidential debates to make way for presumably weightier topics, such as whether Hillary Clinton is really likable or whether Dennis Kucinich saw a UFO.

My column today supports a bipartisan grassroots effort to hold a science and technology debate sometime during the election season.

I think it’s a great idea, and it’s fast gaining support. See the group’s Web site.

The event is a natural for Exploration Place to host, with its mission to fire children’s imaginations and inspire them to reach for the stars.

Kudos to Exploration Place for landing the NASA event. Hope it’s the first of many.