I’ve always regretted not taking more biology and chemistry classes in college. But, now, this lowly Poli Sci major knows better how scientific fact is made in America.

…[P]rior to the May 2009 study, the National Cancer Institute had also performed a preliminary study that linked formaldehyde to leukemia, but members of Congress including Sens. James Inhofe, R-Okla., and David Vitter, R-La., managed to delay the EPA from officially designating the chemical as a “known carcinogen.”

(The EPA in June, however, released a draft assessment [3] of formaldehyde that supports that designation, but it’s not yet official.)

In 2005, Koch Industries bought Georgia-Pacific, one of the world’s largest plywood manufacturers and a major formaldehyde producer. The company has donated to both Vitter and Inhofe [2].

In a letter to federal health authorities sent last December, the company’s vice-president of environmental affairs wrote that “the company ‘strongly disagrees’ with the N.I.H. panel’s conclusion that formaldehyde should be treated as a known human carcinogen,” reported The New Yorker.

I knew Theodore Lowi knew more than Einstein! But, this is classic!

The National Cancer Institute’s director, Harold Varmus, told The New Yorker that at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center…it wasn’t uncommon for donors to have large business interests, but “the one thing we wouldn’t tolerate in our board members is tobacco.”

At least, he knows his priorities.

Powered by ScribeFire.

How should a country respond to a biological invader that reaches its shores via cargo shipped as international trade?

A host of international trade agreements address the growing problem of biological invasions, including those of the World Trade Organization.

The WTO, which was formed in 1995, promotes free trade among its 153 members. It acknowledges that its members may legitimately restrict trade for reasons that include protection of human, animal or plant health from pests, diseases, toxins and other contaminants.

Trade restrictions can prevent fresh batches of invasive species from entering. They range from direct limits on the quantity of imports to regulations and standards governing how products are produced, treated and packaged in their home country.

After the fact, “control” is the “cure” for an established invasive species. Measures can include mechanical weeding, chemical spraying and trapping, depending on whether the goal is to eradicate a pest or to merely stop its spread.

“The costs for these are reflected in higher prices of imported goods paid by you and me — the consumers,” Roy says. “This is the downside of trade restrictions that has to be balanced with current and future economic and ecological damages that are prevented, as well as current and future control costs that are avoided.”

From their analysis, Roy and Olson concluded that there are times when the best route is to allow some entry of pests: when damages are low, the pests’ growth rate is low and the discount rate — the relative weight placed on present costs and benefits compared to those in the future — is high enough.

Also, trade policy doesn’t have to be too restrictive if the cost of controlling established pest populations is low enough. On the other hand, managing trade to prevent further entry may be warranted when the current established population of the species is below a stage where the growth rate of the invasion is likely to increase sharply. The same is likely to be true if the future cost of controlling an established invasion is likely to be high.

“What we’re suggesting is a more sophisticated approach to learning the cost to an economy for various scenarios, such as allowing pests to come in and then controlling them over time,” Roy says. “Different strategies would have different costs. If you can establish how the damage grows and the cost of controlling it, then we can tell you the best strategy, whether it should be controlled, eradicated completely, whether there should be some trade restrictions or prohibition of trade.”

Their study also can be seen as relevant to the control and prevention of invading diseases, such as HIV and various strains of influenza, Roy says.

I also can’t help but think of these recommendations as analogies to a more liberal immigration policy. But, I wouldn’t want to call immigrants ‘pests’. I just like it when scholars weigh pros and cons.

Powered by ScribeFire.