Society and Science
1
BOARD OF ADVISERS FROM THE EDITOR ■ 6 SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN May 2010 LESLIE C. AIELLO President, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research ROGER BINGHAM Professor, Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego G. STEVEN BURRILL CEO, Burrill & Company ARTHUR CAPLAN Emanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania SEAN CARROLL Senior Research Associate, Department of Physics, Caltech GEORGE M. CHURCH Director, Center for Computational Genetics, Harvard Medical School RITA COLWELL Distinguished Professor, University of Maryland College Park and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health DREW ENDY Professor of Bioengineering, Stanford University ED FELTEN Director, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University MICHAEL S. GAZZANIGA Director, Sage Center for the Study of Mind, University of California, Santa Barbara DAVID GROSS Frederick W. Gluck Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004) LENE VESTERGAARD HAU Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics, Harvard University DANNY HILLIS Co-chairman, Applied Minds DANIEL M. KAMMEN Director, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley VINOD KHOSLA Founder, Khosla Ventures CHRISTOF KOCH Lois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, Caltech LAWRENCE M. KRAUSS Director, Origins Initiative, Arizona State University MORTEN L. KRINGELBACH Director, Hedonia: TrygFonden Research Group, University of Oxford and University of Aarhus STEVEN KYLE Professor of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University ROBERT S. LANGER David H. Koch Institute Professor, M.I.T. LAWRENCE LESSIG Professor, Harvard Law School ERNEST J. MONIZ Cecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor. M.I.T. JOHN P. MOORE Professor of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University M. GRANGER MORGAN Professor and Head of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University MIGUEL NICOLELIS Co-director, Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University MARTIN NOWAK Director, Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University ROBERT PALAZZO Provost and Professor of Biology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute CAROLYN PORCO Leader, Cassini Imaging Science Team, and Director, CICLOPS, Space Science Institute VILAYANUR S. RAMACHANDRAN Director, Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego LISA RANDALL Professor of Physics, Harvard University MARTIN REES Professor of Cosmology and Astrophysics, University of Cambridge JOHN REGANOLD Regents Professor of Soil Science, Washington State University JEFFREY D. SACHS Director, The Earth Institute, Columbia University EUGENIE SCOTT Executive Director, National Center for Science Education TERRY SEJNOWSKI Professor and Laboratory Head of Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies MICHAEL SNYDER Professor of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine MICHAEL E. WEBBER Associate Director, Center for International Energy & Environmental Policy, University of Texas at Austin STEVEN WEINBERG Director, Theory Research Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin (Nobel Prize in Physics, 1979) GEORGE M. WHITESIDES Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University NATHAN WOLFE Director, Global Viral Forecasting Initiative R. JAMES WOOLSEY, JR. Venture Partner, VantagePoint Venture Partners ANTON ZEILINGER Professor of Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information, University of Vienna JONATHAN ZITTRAIN Professor, Harvard Law School MARIETTE DICHRISTINA editor in chief ETHAN HILL ( DiChristina); BRYAN CHRISTIE DESIGN ( illustration) Society and Science When you read hundreds of letters from readers every month, as I do, common pat- terns of argument emerge. I can’t answer every note indi- vidually, so in this column I’d like to at least respond to one type of assertion. That is the idea, whenever the letter writer doesn’t agree with an expert-informed point of view expressed in Scientific Amer- ican, that science should not mention or touch on politically sensitive areas—that science is somehow apart from social con- cerns. I say: Wrong. Science findings are not random opin- ions but the result of a rational, critical process. Science itself advances gradually through a preponderance of evidence to- ward a fuller understanding about how things work. And what we learn from that process is not just equivalent to statements made by any another political-interest group. It is evidence-based information that is subject to constant questioning and testing from within the scientific commu- nity. Thus, the science-informed point of view is a more authoritative and reliable source of guidance than uninformed opin- ions. We should not discount its value in informing public discourse. Certainly politics, for its part, has not left science unmolested. Citing past instances of politically motivated suppression of findings, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum a year ago that directed John P. Holdren, the White House science and tech- nology adviser, to explore ways to re- store scientific in- tegrity to govern- ment decision making. I salute the gesture, although at press time I still remain impatient for the actual delivery of that strategy. One well-known area of research gov- ernment stifled in the past is stem cells. Embryonic stem cells offer amazing po- tential for cures, because they can become any of the 220 types of cells in the human body. They could be used to replace dis- eased tissue or to develop therapies for ail- ments such as Parkinson’s disease or can- cer. Several years ago the Bush adminis- tration limited research to then existing stem cell lines, citing ethical concerns about procuring such cells by destroying early-stage—containing about 200 cells— embryos. (A quick aside: politicians seem to have less of a problem with in vitro fer- tilization techniques, in use for decades, which create thousands of frozen embryos that may be later destroyed.) The current administration later lifted those restric- tions, but the topic remains fraught. In this issue’s cover story, “Your Inner Healers,” starting on page 46, Konrad Hochedlinger, a Harvard University asso- ciate professor of stem cell and regenera- tive biology and a faculty member of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, de- scribes a solution that may work for science and politics. New tech- niques can convert any mature body cell into an embryonic state— from which any desired tissue could theoretically be grown. It is early days for this exciting advance; we don’t know yet if the repro- grammed cells can truly dupli- cate the abilities of embryonic stem cells. But we do know that science, if we al- low it to proceed, will strive to find out. ■
Transcript of Society and Science
BOA R D OF A DV ISER S
FROM THE EDITOR ■
6 SC I E NT I F IC A M E RIC A N May 2010
LESLIE C. AIELLOPresident, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research
ROGER BINGHAMProfessor, Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego
G. STEVEN BURRILLCEO, Burrill & Company
ARTHUR CAPLANEmanuel and Robert Hart Professor of Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania
SEAN CARROLLSenior Research Associate, Department of Physics, Caltech
GEORGE M. CHURCHDirector, Center for Computational Genetics, Harvard Medical School
RITA COLWELL Distinguished Professor, University of Maryland College Park and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
DREW ENDYProfessor of Bioengineering, Stanford University
ED FELTEN Director, Center for Information Technology Policy, Princeton University
MICHAEL S. GAZZANIGADirector, Sage Center for the Study of Mind, University of California, Santa Barbara
DAVID GROSS Frederick W. Gluck Professor of Theoretical Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara (Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004)
LENE VESTERGAARD HAU Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and of Applied Physics, Harvard University
DANNY HILLIS Co-chairman, Applied Minds
DANIEL M. KAMMENDirector, Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley
VINOD KHOSLAFounder, Khosla Ventures
CHRISTOF KOCHLois and Victor Troendle Professor of Cognitive and Behavioral Biology, Caltech
LAWRENCE M. KRAUSSDirector, Origins Initiative, Arizona State University
MORTEN L. KRINGELBACHDirector, Hedonia: TrygFonden Research Group, University of Oxford and University of Aarhus
STEVEN KYLEProfessor of Applied Economics and Management, Cornell University
ROBERT S. LANGERDavid H. Koch Institute Professor, M.I.T.
LAWRENCE LESSIGProfessor, Harvard Law School
ERNEST J. MONIZCecil and Ida Green Distinguished Professor. M.I.T.
JOHN P. MOOREProfessor of Microbiology and Immunology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University
M. GRANGER MORGANProfessor and Head of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University
MIGUEL NICOLELISCo-director, Center for Neuroengineering, Duke University
MARTIN NOWAKDirector, Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, Harvard University
ROBERT PALAZZOProvost and Professor of Biology, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
CAROLYN PORCOLeader, Cassini Imaging Science Team, and Director, CICLOPS, Space Science Institute
VILAYANUR S. RAMACHANDRAN Director, Center for Brain and Cognition, University of California, San Diego
LISA RANDALLProfessor of Physics, Harvard University
MARTIN REESProfessor of Cosmology and Astrophysics, University of Cambridge
JOHN REGANOLDRegents Professor of Soil Science, Washington State University
JEFFREY D. SACHSDirector, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
EUGENIE SCOTTExecutive Director, National Center for Science Education
TERRY SEJNOWSKIProfessor and Laboratory Head of Computational Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies
MICHAEL SNYDERProfessor of Genetics, Stanford University School of Medicine
MICHAEL E. WEBBERAssociate Director, Center for International Energy & Environmental Policy, University of Texas at Austin
STEVEN WEINBERGDirector, Theory Research Group, Department of Physics, University of Texas at Austin (Nobel Prize in Physics, 1979)
GEORGE M. WHITESIDESProfessor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology, Harvard University
NATHAN WOLFEDirector, Global Viral Forecasting Initiative
R. JAMES WOOLSEY, JR. Venture Partner, VantagePoint Venture Partners
ANTON ZEILINGERProfessor of Quantum Optics, Quantum Nanophysics, Quantum Information, University of Vienna
JONATHAN ZITTRAINProfessor, Harvard Law School
MARIETTE DICHRISTINA editor in chief ET
HA
N H
ILL
(DiC
hris
tina)
; BRY
AN
CH
RIST
IE D
ESIG
N (i
llust
ratio
n)
Society and Science
When you read hundreds of letters from readers every month, as I do, common pat-terns of argument emerge. I can’t answer every note indi-
vidually, so in this column I’d like to at least respond to one type of assertion. That is the idea, whenever the letter writer doesn’t agree with an expert-informed point of view expressed in Scienti� c Amer-ican, that science should not mention or touch on politically sensitive areas—that science is somehow apart from social con-cerns. I say: Wrong.
Science � ndings are not random opin-ions but the result of a rational, critical process. Science itself advances gradually through a preponderance of evidence to-ward a fuller understanding about how things work. And what we learn from that process is not just equivalent to statements made by any another political-interest group. It is evidence-based information that is subject to constant questioning and testing from within the scienti� c commu-nity. Thus, the science-informed point of view is a more authoritative and reliable source of guidance than uninformed opin-ions. We should not discount its value in informing public discourse.
Certainly politics, for its part, has not left science unmolested. Citing past instances of politically motivated suppression of findings, President Barack Obama signed a memorandum a year ago that directed John P. Holdren, the White House science and tech -nol ogy adviser, to explore ways to re-store scienti� c in-tegrity to govern-ment decision
mak ing. I salute the gesture, although at press time I still remain im patient for the actual delivery of that strategy.
One well-known area of research gov-ernment sti� ed in the past is stem cells. Embryonic stem cells offer amazing po-tential for cures, because they can become any of the 220 types of cells in the human body. They could be used to replace dis-eased tissue or to develop therapies for ail-ments such as Parkinson’s disease or can-cer. Several years ago the Bush adminis-tration limited research to then existing stem cell lines, citing ethical concerns about procuring such cells by destroying early-stage—containing about 200 cells—
embryos. (A quick aside: politicians seem to have less of a problem with in vitro fer-tilization techniques, in use for decades, which create thousands of frozen embryos that may be later destroyed.) The current administration later lifted those restric-tions, but the topic remains fraught.
In this issue’s cover story, “Your Inner Healers,” starting on page 46, Konrad Hochedlinger, a Harvard University asso-ciate professor of stem cell and regenera-
tive biology and a faculty member of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, de-scribes a solution that may work for science and politics. New tech-niques can convert any mature body cell into an embryonic state—
from which any desired tissue could theoretically be grown. It is early days for this exciting advance; we don’t know yet if the repro-grammed cells can truly dupli-cate the abilities of embryonic
stem cells. But we do know that science, if we al-low it to proceed, will strive to � nd out. ■
sad0510FrEd3p.indd 6 3/24/10 4:46:59 PM
