When the politics of biology rears its head all bets are off.
As I argue in my new book The Body Politic: The Battle Over Science in America, we are in the midst of a new biopolitics in which the power of science confounds the usual left-right spectrum of public policy, one that by no means favors one side or the other. Witness Governor Rick Perry's awkward defense of his executive order on the HPV vaccine and the rush to defend his policy (if not the governor himself), by women's health advocacy groups.
Now comes the firestorm over Plan B (the so-called "morning after pill")
These days the left and the right approach politically desirable science policy in somewhat different ways. The right's approach is to use evidence when it's available (or if someone can be found who appears to qualify as an "expert"), but quite willing to default to traditional values and to be explicit in doing so. The left's approach to a desired political outcome when science is involved is to deny that there is a conflict with evidence and engage in a search for facts to support the wanted theory.
The decision to deny over-the-counter-access to Plan B is particularly awkward for an administration that early on pledged to "base our public policies on the soundest science," and to be "open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions."
Whatever its political wisdom or foolishness, the administration's Plan B decision qualifies as a theory in search of the facts. For example, in her statement overruling the Food and Drug Administration (a remarkable event in itself), DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius stated that young girls might not understand the consequences of using Plan B. Yet evidence that reached precisely the opposite conclusion was instrumental in the FDA's approval recommendation.
As to the sort of expert opinion so valued on the left, The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine all "denounced" the HHS's decision.
Cynics will ask, why should science be different? As in business, finance, sports, entertainment and all fields of human endeavor there is always politics. In general that is a good thing, since the only alternative to politics as a way to settle our differences is violence.
Nonetheless, one feature of modernity is the intuitive sense that somehow science should be different. The value of evidence and public demonstration through experimentation is a hard-won Enlightenment principle that, seen through the 200,000-year lens of human history, occurred to us just moments ago. Considering the blood, sweat and tears that took us to this point, cynicism about science and politics is cheap and lazy.
In the short run there's still a political element when policy decisions are being made, but in the long run the scientific method does make science unique. Our task is to defend the science even -- and especially -- from those who claim to be its friends.
Follow Jonathan D. Moreno on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pennprof
Arianna Huffington: Sunday Roundup
David Katz, M.D.: How About Plan 'D, For Data' For Plan B?
You name the "The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine all "denounced" the HHS's decision."
Well, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology for years, pimped hormones (HRT) for women without even questioning the research or the empirical evidence they had before them. Don't even try to tell me that there weren’t political or financial elements to that disaster.
There is nothing wrong with a little compromise (which seems to have left our vocabulary) ,reason and some common sense.
Claritin was a prescription drug (an expensive one!) for many years prior to OTC status. Imitrex, a migraine drug likely needed by more than Plan B, remains a prescription drug. There are many fairly simple and benign medicines that some would argue should be OTC and aren't, so really, what is the issue here?
It's been politicized by both sides. Anything to do with sex - even hormone drugs - sets the Right into a tizzy and, similarly to the abortion issue, they've made this about religious beliefs. Got it. The other side is offering scientific push-back about the safety of this drug and, hey, I'm with you in theory. But to both sides, calm the ef down! This ruling is not a statement in support of EITHER side. It's a cautionary step applied to MANY drugs, some of which have NO connection to sex, life, abortion or politics.
Just as Claritin took its many steps to the other side of the counter, Plan B likely will do the same. Everyone put their politics back in the pockets and relax.
I'm not sure I can agree with this point of view. Surely in many of our flawed human institutions there is this element of politics. We are constantly engaged in a subconscious battle to obtain what we want through negotiable means. However, there is a way to settle differences without politics or violence. To any reasonable person the answer is obvious: Reason.
When we allow ourselves to engage in an open discussion, observe and recognize our individual prejudices and biases, and to examine evidence without the lenses of ideology or agenda, we can come to beneficial conclusions. This is the highest level of discussion, this Reason, and sadly a level to which not many people are taught to, or even willing to, rise.
Cassie
regulating prescription drugs. An adult U.S. citizen cannot legally even buy blood pressure medication, Lipitor, or even Viagra without a prescription; meaning you could go to prison for using them otherwise. Other nations allow far more freedom. In a free society, any responsible adult should at least be allowed to operate a blood pressure monitor and decide whether to continue a previously prescribed medication. In the name of protecting us, the FDA decides for us - Lipitor and Viagra are safe - yet we're not allowed to buy them OTC. Absurd! This "protection" is killing us. Or, is it just a way of protecting profits of major drug companies? U.S. drug laws are in need of a full review.
Under the age of 18, a person is considered a minor. They can't drink, smoke or sign contracts. They can't own property without a guardian. It puzzles me as to why Plan B was made available to 17 year old minors without a prescription at all. The age of over the counter non-prescription availability should have been 18.
A parent is legally responsible for their children until they turn 18. As a parent, it is my job to know what is going on in my childrens' lives and guide them to adulthood. The government has absolutely no right to get between a parent and child unless there is ironclad evidence of abuse. From where I sit, having your sexually active daughter able to get Plan B without a prescription and do an end run around parental supervision is completely unacceptable.
Plan B may prevent ovulation or fertilization and is thus a contraceptive, but, if taken after ovulation and fertilization ,which only takes a couple of minutes, It is designed to prevent implantation of a fertilized egg in your uterus by altering its lining.
The real science here , which gets totally ignored, its that a new human life, totally distinct from the dna of the mother and father begins at fertilization, which is also know as conception. Plan B half the time, if taken after ovulation and fertilization, kills a new human life. Those are just the facts. and the science. This is truly an incovenient truth.
That went out the door during the BP spill.
The spill was fixed using custom tools developed quickly by competent engineers. The problem was caused by a series of relatively minor errors by generally competent engineers, without adequate project-wide safety oversight.
The number of people equipped to fix the problem was probably in the hundreds worldwide. What's the point of telling joe and joanna schmo what's happening in gory detail? The investigation reports are all written in an excellent, accessible style. That's where the lessons are.
If Plan B is available, kids under the age of 17 (not 18) will have running orgies of unprotected sex in the streets.
You know what's truly irresponsible? Imagining that denying that teenagers have sex makes it go away...
Guess what?? Teens still will have sex, and some will have condoms that break or boyfriends who refuse to use them, etc. They usually can read, too, by the way.
Projected income from corrupted finding: $1M
Its not that research is corrupted politically - its that you can buy a scientific result - and its cheap to boot!
Science and higher education is next bubble.