The devastation caused by Hurricane Maria is still being revealed nearly a year and a half after the storm ripped through the island. Of course, anyone who has lived through a disaster like this will tell you that the island will probably never recover. Not to mention that the loss of life can never be replaced. With that being said, any community (or island) must find the courage to recover and re-establish life as it were if possible.
Under normal conditions, agencies such as FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) would provide sufficient funds to help the island start the journey toward recovery. Unfortunately, we do not live in normal conditions at the current moment under the current administration. Funding agencies are being stressed beyond reach for existing funds and when this occurs, areas like scientific research usually suffer the most.
How Did Maria Impact Science?
At the very least, the lightest impact (which actually may not be true due to PTSD), the lab members may undergo treatment to make sure that there are no residual medical issues after a storm has hit the island. Of course, if you have no laboratory staff: graduate students, undergraduate students, postdoc's, professional researchers -- then you have no lab. Meaning, all the best equipment can occupy the lab, but without scientists to run and monitor the instruments, then there is no lab.
The second critical component of any scientific laboratory are the scientific instruments and infrastructure in which these along with the supplies (beakers, tubing, cell cultures, glove boxes, etc.) needed to conduct good/sound science. This is sometimes the perceived most critical component of any scientific laboratory. Although, I would argue that the scientists which occupy any laboratory are the most critical components to any scientific instruments. I have yet to see any scientific instrument just start collecting data by itself without any scientist's intervention/initiation.
A recent article in 'The Scientist' titled "Science in Puerto Rico Still Recovering After Hurricane Maria" details some of the disastrous consequences to a scientific laboratory after a storm of a magnitude such as Hurricane Maria. The human damage alone can be irreplaceable not to mention the buildings and local municipal utility grid. And when the destruction to the infrastructure is considered, parameters such as mold and water damage can set a laboratory recovery back several months to years:
Giray’s lab is among 14 or so in the Julio Garcia Diaz biology building, which was among those severely damaged, particularly as it was already undergoing roof repairs when the storm hit. Water seeped in through the roof and windows, damaging costly research equipment, furniture, and lab materials. Toxic mold thrived in the moist, hot climate, creating hazardous conditions that made the building uninhabitable. Power outages cut off researchers’ freezers and fridges, destroying precious genetic and tissue samples for good. The damages are estimated to range from $250,000 up to $2.5 million dollars per lab in that building, says Giray, a behavioral biologist whose main focus is honeybees.
Even more important are samples which are collected outside of the laboratory or purchased for several thousand dollars which are sensitive to temperature/humidity/vibrational fluctuations:
Some of the casualties from the hurricane are less easy to restore: “Collections take much longer time and may never be replaced,” says Giray’s colleague Riccardo Papa, who lost almost all of his DNA samples documenting the diversity of butterflies across South America when his lab’s –80 °C freezer lost electricity. Papa, an evolutionary biologist, didn’t have a lab again until a week ago, and until recently has been meeting with his students and postdocs at coffee shops or places around campus to discuss research. He has been able to do some experiments and genetic analyses in another building. Repairs are still underway for the damaged insectary, in which his team raises butterflies.
Research must go on. With or without the infrastructure. Here in California, after the Northridge Earthquake in 1994, FEMA set up temporary 'mobile homes' to serve as both classrooms and temporary offices along with laboratories in certain circumstances. To hear that 'group meetings' were still being held at coffee shops is a testament to the pace of recovery. In a majority of cases after a disaster, classroom recovery comes first, then eventually research laboratories. Although, it is worth remembering that each research laboratory group is made up of students and research professors who take years (applying for individual grants/writing publications) to acquire the appropriate funding to purchase research scientific instrumentation. Therefore, to put a price on the total loss in the event of a disaster like Hurricane Maria proves extremely difficult.
The total cost to a researcher is really unknowable for years to come. Some researchers never recover and decide to shut down their laboratories after such a storm. Which leaves current graduate students without an end in sight to their degrees (M.A. and PhD). Additionally, staff (professional researchers) might quickly find themselves out of work and have to leave regions like Puerto Rico and find work elsewhere. Which means transplanting their families and children's education to a different geographical location. The cost can be severe not just to the researcher themselves.
More can be written in future articles on this theme of disasters and research laboratories. Either together or separately. The total cost to a geographical location from a disaster such as Hurricane Maria can only be estimated at the beginning (a very rough approximation). The price tag evolves over time with the disbursement of emergency funds by organizations such as FEMA along with other federal organizations or the Congress. The terrible destruction to a scientific institution is terrible to say the least. Restoring science should be a high priority among others on the island of Puerto Rico.
Our current standing in the world as a nation may be in question due to the lack of political experience which now resides in the West Wing. With that being said, no U.S. citizen should take their 'citizenship' for granted. Let me explain with a recent news article from the New York Times titled "2 American Wives of ISIS Militants Want to Return Home"
AL HAWL CAMP, Syria — She was a 20-year-old college student in Alabama who had become convinced of the righteousness of the Islamic State. So she duped her parents into thinking she was going on a college trip, and instead bought a plane ticket to Turkey with her tuition money.
After being smuggled into the caliphate, the student, Hoda Muthana, posted a photograph on Twitter showing her gloved hands holding her American passport. “Bonfire soon,” she promised.
That was more than four years ago. Now, after being married to three Islamic State fighters and witnessing executions like those she had once cheered on social media, Ms. Muthana says she is deeply sorry and wants to return home to the United States.
Now she claims as shown in the video that she was 'brain-washed' in a online by ISIS to give up her citizenship and move to Syria to join ISIS:
I have little sympathy toward someone who takes for granted their holding a 'U.S. citizenship' status. I am not saying that the United States is the best country in the world. The U.S. definitely has problems. I am speaking from the standpoint of a person who has worn the U.S. Military uniform and served overseas representing the United States of America. To serve and protect our nation will definitely give a person a different perspective. That is not to say that still after serving in the U.S. military, soldiers will not give up their U.S. citizenship -- here is an example out of Kuwait.
I frequented a base during my military service overseas in Kuwait. On that base, there were U.S. Soldiers working for the Kuwait Air Force as civilian contractors working on the F-18 Fighter Jets on loan to Kuwait from the United States Navy. Of course, the soldiers were not wearing U.S. military uniforms nor were the F-18 Fighter Jets the same color or pattern as the U.S. military F-18 Fighter Jets. The Jets on loan were painted blue and grey camouflage paint. What struck me as unusual were the conditions and pay under which the U.S. soldiers were working under.
In order to work on the same Fighter Jet as they would if enlisted in the U.S. Navy, the following conditions were met:
1) Give up U.S. citizenship to work in Kuwait for 4 years.
2) Pay was $25,000.00 tax free per year.
3) Food and Shelter paid for by Kuwait on top of base pay.
After working with the Kuwait Air Force or Kuwait Navy on F-18 Fighter Jets on loan from the U.S. military, a person could potentially earn $100K. Of course, after the 4 year contract is up, the person would have to apply for U.S. citizenship all over again. WOW!
Would you be in favor of earning $100K at the cost of giving up your birthplace citizenship for 4 years? With no guarantee of getting U.S. citizenship back? No way.
Returning to Hoda Muthana stuck over in Syria. Unfortunately, I do not think that she should be granted U.S. citizenship very easily. Possibly on the condition that she serve prison time in Guantanamo prison (short time). That might sound extremely harsh. Although, remember, she made a video (as mentioned in the excerpt above) indicating that she was going to proudly burn her U.S. passport and join I.S.I.S. That has to weigh heavily on her ability to return to the U.S.
Why did she not just leave her husband before moving to Syria? Because she was so-called 'brain washed' online. Sorry not buying it. She could have gone to authorities and expressed concern as to her possible 'brain washing' and unwanted departure. That might have resulted in her giving up any children she had at the time. Although, that would have saved her a great amount of difficulty.
I do not pretend to have all of the correct answers. Although, I would suggest that before you give up your citizenship, think twice (maybe more) about the potential ramifications. After 9/11, the Patriot Act was created to deal with foreign powers who expressed interest in harming U.S. citizens. By joining I.S.I.S. and giving up U.S. citizenship, Hoda Muthana was basically stating that she was joining a group of people who would like to harm the U.S. -- Which is extremely dangerous and serious as a punishable offense. Therefore, she should have to pay a large price in order to drive home the point.
There are two major avenues by which to promote large scale change in societies. The first is through government action. While the second is through private sector investment. At any given moment in time, advances in technology are driven by either one. One (i.e. government) will drive change followed by the private sector once the confidence in the market has been established. Or the private sector is driving change which then encourages the government to jump on board through establishing the same bar of confidence in the market. Does this work for the transition toward renewable energy? Yes.
In the present situation, the government (i.e. Trump Administration) is unwilling to promote renewable energy -- to deal with the growing concern about climate change. Therefore, the private sector is being charged through consumer demand to transition toward a renewable, more sustainable, society. This includes the manufacturing/supply chain too. Amazon announced recently that 50% of all shipments will be made by carbon neutral sources on its blog site:
Amazon has a history of commitment to sustainability, through innovative programs such as Frustration Free Packaging, Ship in Own Container, our network of solar and wind farms, solar on our fulfillment center rooftops, investments in the circular economy with the Closed Loop Fund, and numerous other initiatives happening every day by teams across Amazon. In operations alone, we have over 200 scientists, engineers, and product designers dedicated exclusively to inventing new ways to leverage our scale for the good of customers and the planet.
Amazon has a long-term goal to power our global infrastructure using 100% renewable energy, and we are making solid progress. With improvements in electric vehicles, aviation bio fuels, reusable packaging, and renewable energy, for the first time we can now see a path to net zero carbon delivery of shipments to customers, and we are setting an ambitious goal for ourselves to reach 50% of all Amazon shipments with net zero carbon by 2030. We are calling this project "Shipment Zero” – it won’t be easy to achieve this goal, but it’s worth being focused and stubborn on this vision and we’re committed to seeing it through.
Amazon is in a perfect position to implement this change. First, Jeff Bezos has built this company up to a fortune (now worth $255 billion). Second, he started the company out of his garage -- sending off packages in bulk (at the end of every day) to customers. He has been thinking about sustainability for quite a while. Also, the public is in a position to demand change on the part of corporations through purchasing power.
Currently, the transition toward renewable (sustainable, clean) energy is being driven by the private sector. Which is a result of consumer demand. Consumers are tired of corporations choosing cost-saving measures which potentially damage the environment while boosting their shareholders bottom line. The time has come where consumers have taken control through social media to demand more environmentally friendly (sustainable) products.
Here in America, we look toward our European consumers and notice that the same corporations are making changes for the European marketplace based on consumer demand. Why should we be using unsafe/unhealthy second rate products? When our European counterparts are forcing companies to make changes? This revelation is nothing new. Look at the ingredients which McDonald's uses overseas to replace unhealthy ingredients which are still infused in Americans meals. More will be written about this later.
The point is that the private sector has the unique opportunity to lead the transition toward a future where renewable energy plays a dominant role in our society (and world). Government is slowly catching on. With the recent 3 hearings in Congress over the last month with a bipartisan admission that climate change is not only real but caused by us (humans), the change is on the horizon. The private sector should be confident in trail-blazing the pathway forward. Trust me. Consumers will remember your lead. Keep up the great work private corporations in not only taking ownership for the pollution, but transitioning toward cleaner - renewable energy.
Yes, you have read the title correct as I did a couple of weeks ago in a summary sent via email by Politico Agriculture as follows:
STUDY: COCA-COLA AIMED TO INFLUENCE CDC ON OBESITY: A report in a peer-reviewed health journal highlights emails and other efforts in which Coca-Cola tried to influence public health officials on policies.
The study was based on email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC, obtained through FOIA requests, documenting efforts by the company to gain access to agency staff, build relationships and shape policy on nutrition and artificial sweeteners, our Jesse Chase-Lubitz reports.
Highlights: The report includes details about lobbying the World Health Organization; meetings between company and agency officials to discuss research on low-calorie beverages; and a CDC official recommending a colleague for a job at Coca-Cola.
— The company said it has been transparent about its actions and that the emails "pre-date a commitment we made in 2015 to disclose our funding for well-being scientific research and partnerships publicly on our website."
— CDC said it has "extensive ethical and scientific-integrity checkpoints internally and externally" to balance its recommendations.
The news comes as a surprise to most people. Even though we (as consumers) would like to think that the government has our back in terms of nutrition (healthy products), there typically is a large amount of negotiation involved in marketing, approval, and relations in any consumer market. The full report can be accessed here -- which includes hundreds of pages of e-mails detailing negotiations between the Centers for Disease Prevention and Control and the Coca Cola Corporation.
Let me pause and just say a little more about the negotiation process between the government and corporations about bringing products to the marketplace. Another example can be taken from the pharmaceutical industry. As I note in a post with an embedded video explaining that after a pharmaceutical industry decides to take the therapeutic target discovered at a university and develop a drug to hit that target (i.e. a medicine), there are significant number of hurdles.
One of which is negotiating the process of completing all of the paperwork required by the FDA. Which includes clinical trial information along with other tests required by the FDA to ensure compliance on behalf of the corporation that the drug is ready to be released to the marketplace. This process involves a tremendous amount of communication back and forth between the FDA and the pharmaceutical corporations. The process under scrutiny can include a fine line under which these negotiations result in the approval of a medicine to the marketplace. Sometimes, the questionable negotiation will result in a medication's recall from the marketplace.
A second example is concerned with the big tobacco companies withholding scientific evidence which proved that nicotine is in fact -- addictive. Yes, nicotine is addictive. Dr. Jeffrey Wigand was a vice president of research and development at a large tobacco company. He observed obvious fraud to hide the fact that nicotine was indeed addictive and that the companies had prior knowledge of this while taking advantage of the data. Dr. Wigand eventually became the largest whistleblower in history which resulted in the enormous tobacco lawsuit (the largest in history) in 1998. Corruption is always lingering around the corner. The issue of scientific evidence and addiction of nicotine is still a point of contention -- check out the article.
Congress Gets Involved?
After the report was made available to the public, eventually Congress got a hold of it and decided to take action by sending a letter to the Inspector General which is shown below:
Dear Inspector General Levinson:
We are writing to request investigatory action following the release of a report in The Milbank Quarterly detailing communications between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and representatives from Coca-Cola.
The report, "Public Meets Private: Conversations Between Coca-Cola and the CDC," published an analysis of 295 pages of emails dated between 2011 and 2015, obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests. The emails show a troubling pattern of the company using access to high-level CDC officials to shape debates over public health policy directly involving the nutritional value of its products.
In one example, Coca-Cola used self-funded epidemiological studies on low and no calorie beverages to argue to CDC staff that "associations between diet beverages and weight...is likely the result of reverse causality." It is deeply concerning to see CDC engage with data coming from the company on a question so fundamental to its bottom line -- especially when data show that outcomes from industry-sponsored research differ significantly from independent studies.
In another exchange, a Coca-Cola executive requested and received advice from a CDC official on how to best approach the World Health Organization director-general perceived as a "threat to our business" for naming soft drink manufacturers as contributors to global obesity.
Though we recognize the role of public-private partnerships in advancing the agency's broad public health goals, this report demonstrates Coca-Cola's conflicts of interest in engaging with CDC staff on nutrition policy. CDC's Guiding Principles for Public-Private Partnerships advices staff to avoid partnerships with a representative of "any product that exacerbates morbidity or mortality when used as directed." Given that decades of peer-reviewed research has established links between soft drink consumption and negative health outcomes like obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes, it is clear that the Coca-Cola's influence is inappropriate and must be probed further.
The CDC has an essential mission. Its pursuit of evidence-based public health policy is fundamental to the safety and well-being of all Americans. As we face an unprecedented obesity epidemic, we must ensure that the public can trust the agency to promote quality and objective data -- particularly when it conflicts with powerful industry interests.
Therefore, in your capacity as Inspector General, we ask that you investigate the relationship between the CDC and Coca-Cola outlined in this report, determine whether there is a broader pattern of inappropriate industry influence at the agency, and make recommendations to address this issue.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our staff.
Sincerely,
Chellie Pingree
Member of Congress
Rosa L Delauro
Member of Congress
Letters such as the one shown above should instill a sense of honesty and sincerity from members of Congress. Many people in the United States of America do not realize that members of Congress get involved in such inquiries which is sad to say the least. Congress is charged with an enormous amount of duties which span a wide range from setting 'boxing regulations' to 'quantum computation' which greatly impact the U.S.A. -- in different ways.
Keeping the corporations which hold an enormous amount of influence in check is extremely important. At the same time, negotiations between corporations and federal agencies are extremely important in setting rules for any free market economy. Although, such a blatant transaction on behalf of Coca-Cola in trying to promote self-funded research (especially when the benefit is obvious) is extremely illegal and needs to be dealt with from a legal standpoint.
One major problem with communications between organizations (corporations) and federal agencies is the amount of information which is given to the federal agencies to support claims of consumer safety. As you can see, if a federal agency were to accept research which was funded by the corporation as evidence-based decision making policy, corruption would be without question and consumer confidence in federal agency would be diminished. The public is already very skeptical of such transactions prior to knowledge of this one. The current revelation only solidifies the public's fears already -- which is sad. Although, the action on behalf of the public by Congress is a breath of fresh air.
Anyone with Type 1 diabetes will tell you that delivering insulin via syringe gets old very quickly. Although, most patients get used to the process very quickly and as time passes do not even realize that the process might seem unusual throughout the day to a person who knows nothing about type 1 diabetes. New technologies of insulin delivery have been arriving in different forms such as inhalers, insulin pens, jet injectors, insulin pumps, etc. Each have their positive and negative aspects to the delivery of insulin.
Now, the next generation solution to delivering insulin via the oral pathway is being researched and reported in the "Director's Blog" on the National Institutes for Health website. The answer seems to be inspired by the tortoise. Yes, the tortoise shown in the picture above:
In a study published in the journal Science, a team, led by Robert Langer at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and Giovanni Traverso, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, took a new approach to the problem by developing a tiny, ingestible injection system [1]. They call their pea-sized device SOMA, short for “self-orienting millimeter-scale applicator.”
In designing SOMA, the researchers knew they had to come up with a design that would orient the injection apparatus correctly. So they looked to the African leopard tortoise. They knew that, much like a child’s “weeble-wobble” toy, this tortoise can easily right its body if tipped over due to its low center of gravity and highly curved shell. With the shape of the tortoise shell as a starting point, the researchers used computer modeling to perfect their design. The final result features a partially hollowed-out, polymer-and-steel capsule that houses a tiny, spring-loaded needle tipped with compressed, freeze-dried insulin. There is also a dissolvable sugar disk to hold the needle in place until the time is right.
Here’s how it works: once a SOMA is swallowed and reaches the stomach, it quickly orients itself in a way that its needle-side rests against the stomach wall. After the protective sugar disk dissolves in stomach acid, the spring-loaded needle tipped with insulin is released, injecting its load of insulin into the stomach wall, from which it enters the bloodstream. Meanwhile, the spent SOMA device passes on through the digestive system.
The researchers were challenged to deliver a medication consistently to the side wall of the stomach. If this method is to be used in the future, then not only insulin should be able to be delivered via injection but also other biological therapeutics -- proteins, peptides, and nucleic acids. Plus the challenge is to overcome the extremely acidic (low pH) environment along with digestive enzymes in the stomach wall through to the bloodstream - unaffected.
First though, the drug needs to be consistently delivered via injection into the stomach wall. How do you position a vial of medication inside the stomach to have the correct orientation such that the injection into the side wall of the stomach is easily accomplished? The answer lies in taking the unwavering ability of nature to have animals keep their orientation intact. By that I mean, the tortoise is able to reorient itself by turning itself over in a variety of situations. The solution is the 'self-orienting millimeter-scale applicator". A picture of the device is shown below:
Last but not least, the researchers were able to show the ability to deliver a payload (a dose) which is equivalent to that of a normal dose currently. The dose was 3 milligrams which is equivalent to the current dose given through injection to a human. One of the many novel aspects of this design is that the delivery of medication without excess chemicals which serve little or no purpose. By this I mean that normally medication is composed of the active ingredient plus a 'matrix' of chemicals which assist in the delivery of that active ingredient into the blood stream. This includes through the acidic environment along with moving that medication past the digestive enzymes in the stomach wall. Additionally, the ability to reduce unwanted side effects due to the 'matrix' chemicals is greatly appreciated.
To gain more insight into the study, feel free to read the original research which was published in the Journal 'Science' titled "An ingestible self-orienting system for oral delivery of macromolecules." The research highlighted above represents exciting solutions which make our lives easier. Innovative designs and concepts will ultimately make life better in the future. Anytime there are additional (new) avenues by which to deliver drugs which are non-invasive and easy along with being effective represent true innovative steps in research and discovery.
The pathway toward realization hopefully will be mainstreamed to deliver an alternative solution to the existing solutions thus far. Moreover, the importance of this project is proven by the efficacy along with our ability to come up novel designs which overcome interesting challenges presented to us with the biological (human) system with which we work with.
Last October, Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the realization that by 2045 California will be a net zero (carbon neutral) economy/state. That rocked the news for a while, and news circulated about the transition. Speculation as to whether that transition was even possible came from the conservative side of the state, whereas the more liberal side of the state claimed that the law was not enough to make the Paris Agreement targets.
Further criticism circulated in the news regarding Governor Brown's treatment of the fossil fuel industry. Critics charged that he was not being tough enough on them. These critics included those in favor of shutting down Aliso Canyon Gas Storage Facility located in Porter Ranch, California (the Valley). The following news from Mayor Garcetti last week in an article from the 'Los Angeles Times' titled "Los Angeles ditches plan to invest billions in fossil fuels, Mayor Eric Garcetti says" outlined the plan to achieve transition away from fossil fuels:
Los Angeles has steadily moved away from coal for electricity, divesting from the Navajo plant in Arizona three years ago and announcing plans to stop buying power from Utah’s Intermountain plant by 2025. But with coal, the most polluting fossil fuel, now nearly removed from the city’s energy mix, it’s time to start planning for a future with zero planet-warming energy sources, Garcetti said Monday — and that means no natural gas.
“It’s the right thing to do for our health. It’s the right thing to do for our Earth. It’s the right thing to do for our economy,” Garcetti said. “And now is the time to start the beginning of the end of natural gas.”
“This is the Green New Deal,” he added, referring to the sweeping climate change policies championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y) and endorsed by several contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination. “Not in concept, not in the future, but now.”
The mayor’s decision comes several months after state lawmakers passed a bill requiring California to get 100% of its electricity from climate-friendly sources by 2045, up from a previous target of 50% renewable by 2030.
This comes at the news from Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to the Mayor's office regarding the cost associated with repairing (rebuilding) the seven water cooled (ocean cooled) natural gas power plants along with three other plants at a cost of $3.8 billion. Whereas the cost to rebuilding the three other plants with solar and energy efficiency would be $2.2 billion. The time has come to transition toward total (carbon neutral) clean energy.
The Mayor has challenged LA DWP with the task and he is right to do so. Not just to make incremental adjustments. A new leader should be bold and insist on LA DWP moving at another speed, preferably WARP speed compared to their normal GOVERNMENT speed -- which is filled with obstacles and potential funding limitations. I commend Mayor Garcetti for taking a bold action step which is in line with Germany and other nations around the world. I have written on the obvious fact that the transition toward renewable clean energy is inevitable. Plus, the capital available for investment was small a few years ago, but has been growing over time.
European nations are taking bold steps to change their dependence on dirty energy. China has liberated us with the ever dropping price of solar. Solar is dropping in price as we speak. In a few years, photovoltaics will be a dominant source of energy generation. Clean solar photovoltaic energy is on its way. Current limitations in the renewable energy sector which are screamed by the opposition are 'STORAGE'. How are we (as a nation) going to efficiently store the clean renewable energy to meet off hours demand? Batteries? More research needs to be done, but is not far off.
Both the government and the private sector are racing to meet the demands of the future transition toward renewable energy. A sustainable environment is what is being asked of our nation's residents. Now, both the private sector along with the government need to make this happen. Typically, throughout history, when the pressure is applied to an industry, change happens. In this case, a range of industries are responding to a global pressure and similar to the improvements which are made during war time, the current global investment is exciting and should yield some amazing results.
If you are a news junkie, then you are aware of the importance of 'public news radio.' The origin of which is 'National Public Radio' which was enacted by Congress decades ago:
National Public Radio (NPR, stylized as npr) is an American privately and publicly funded non-profit membership media organization based in Washington, D.C. NPR differs from other non-profit membership media organizations, such as AP, in that it was established by an act of Congress [2] and most of its member stations are owned by government entities (often public universities). It serves as a national syndicator to a network of over 1,000 public radio stations in the United States.[3]
NPR produces and distributes news and cultural programming. Individual public radio stations are not required to broadcast all NPR programs; most broadcast a mix of NPR programs, content from American Public Media, Public Radio International, Public Radio Exchange and WNYC Studios, and locally produced programs. The organisation's flagship shows are two drive-time news broadcasts, Morning Edition and the afternoon All Things Considered; both are carried by most NPR member stations, and are among the most popular radio programs in the country.[4][5] As of March 2018, the drive time programs attract an audience of 14.9 million and 14.7 million respectively.[6]
NPR manages the Public Radio Satellite System, which distributes NPR programs and other programming from independent producers and networks such as American Public Media and Public Radio International. Its content is also available on-demand online, on mobile networks, and, in many cases, as podcasts.[7]
National Public Radio has grown substantially over the years to cover a wide range of topics through various avenues including story telling, interviews, live shows, and hosting podcasts. The popularity has suffered along with other news outlets with the rise of internet radio, but has managed to diversify and adapt (with apps, etc.) to a new digital landscape to remain relevant. Like any other news junkie, I often wonder what policy makers and other news addicts like myself think of NPR. Further, where do they source their news? Politico, NPR, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Los Angeles Times -- or local newspapers.
Additionally, what do activists like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader think of public news radio. Fortunately, Ralph Nader recently wrote an opinion with a brief historical account of public news radio (shown below). So what does Activist Ralph Nader say (his personal opinions) about radio news stations such as NPR and PBS:
Recently an elderly gentleman asked me about my opinion on NPR and PBS, knowing of my vigorous support in the nineteen sixties for these alternatives to commercial radio and television stations.
Here is my response:
Congress created NPR and PBS to provide serious programming, without any advertisements, for the American people. Former media executive Fred Friendly and others worried that the commercial stations were not meeting the 1934 Communications Act requirement that they operate for the “public interest, convenience and necessity.”
In 1961, before a shocked convention of broadcasters, the new chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Newton Minow called commercial television “a vast wasteland.”
Over the decades, NPR and PBS have produced some good programming – original features (among the best coming from Boston affiliate WGBH) and interviews. NPR has the largest radio audience in the country. David Brancaccio, the bright host of Marketplace Morning Report, has a daily listening audience of 11 million.
However, over the years, without regular critiques by liberal and progressive groups, both NPR and PBS have bent to the continual right-wing antagonism in Congress that decreased public budgets. PBS started to allow advertisements (called “support for x station or x PBS network program comes from y corporation.”) These ads have become more frequent and can be as long as 15 seconds.
During the 8am to 9am hour WAMC, Albany recently aired 28 such “support from…” commercials. That is almost one “ad” every two minutes!
The omnipresence of the ads hour after hour has irritated many NPR listeners around the country. By way of comparison, a major commercial station in Hartford – WTIC – clocked 18 advertisements in that 8am hourly slot – albeit they were longer than the NPR ones.
It seems that NPR and PBS, often by their omissions and slants, bend over backward in order not to offend right-wing lobbies and corporations. They invite guests on air who ideologically oppose public broadcasting – that’s fine, but then they minimize the appearances by leading progressives.
Occasionally, I speak with the NPR and PBS Ombudsmen. The purpose of the ombudsman is to maintain proper standards and ethics as well as to consider audience complaints. A while back, an NPR Ombudsman volunteered to me that NPR was giving far more time to representatives of conservative evangelical groups than to representatives of liberal religious organizations.
Charlie Rose on PBS had many more CEOs on his program than civic leaders. During a rare appearance by me on his show with Jim Hightower and William Greider in 1998, the audience reaction was robust. The response from around the country was so pronounced that in an internal e-mail, that was inadvertently sent to my office, a Rose staffer complained that we might have been encouraging the positive response. Absurd and false, but revealing nonetheless.
Rose, by the way, set the stage for PBS and NPR by interviewing his two favorite reporters again and again instead of active specialists or scholars in various fields. For example, Judy Woodruff, the ultra-cautious, exclusionary anchor of the “News Hour,” interviewed reporters on complex tax legislation instead of authentic experts such as the long-time director of the well-regarded Citizens for Tax Justice, Robert McIntyre, often invited by her predecessors.
In 2016 we convened for eight days in the largest gathering of civic leaders, doers, and thinkers of more reforms and redirections ever brought together. They made over 160 presentations in Constitution Hall (see breakingthroughpower.org). Although we advanced this remarkable Superbowl of Civic Action directly to NPR and PBS producers, their reporters never showed up. Certainly, they have not treated right-wing conventions in Washington, D.C. in that manner.
There are other practices of public broadcasting and its syndicated talk shows, that its audiences should know about to understand how much broader coverage they have been denied. One is that the amount of time devoted to music and entertainment pieces goes well beyond the intent of the legislators who created NPR and PBS (both created by the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967). Members of Congress knew that entertainment was adequately taken care of by the thousands of commercial stations.
Moreover, even commercial network radio would not use its weekday 6pm hour for music, as one NPR station does in Washington, D.C. Nor does commercial network TV news in the evening start their programs with several advertisements, as does PBS’s The NewsHourand Kai Ryssdal’s jazzy, drumbeat, breathless NPR evening show – Marketplace.
Recently, I discovered another woeful transformation. Wondering why I could not get calls back from the state-wide NPR stations in Minnesota and Wisconsin, I sent them written complaints. These stations had venerable programs that used to interview me and other civic leaders on consumer, environment, and corporate crime topics.
Minnesota Public Radio politely wrote back, regretting that they had not called me back and explained that they now adjust their programming to react or expand on ”what is in the national conversation.” Since Trump et al. command the heights (or the depths) of the news agenda, very important subjects, conditions and activities not part of this frenzied news feed are relegated to far less frequent attention.
These are just a few of the issues that should be analyzed by print journalists who cover the media full time, such as the estimable Margaret Sullivan of the Washington Post, formerly the “public editor” of The New York Times. But then, she also doesn’t return my calls.
The slide toward commercialism and amiable stupefaction will continue on PBS and NPR until enough people review public broadcast’s history, raise their expectation levels consistent with why PBS and NPR were created, and insist on adequate public funding (a truly modest amount compared to giant corporate subsidies by taxpayers). These redirections would enable public broadcasting to fulfill better its serious statutory public interest missions.
There you go. That is why important and educated activists like Michael Moore and Ralph Nader are needed greatly in society. To keep the balance of reporting in check. Of course, ask any person that listens to 'Fox News' and they will definitely tell you that NPR is extremely liberal left media which has zero value. I have heard this out of my family who is split down the middle. The conservative right feels exactly this way. So much so that any type of mention brings 'liberal left media' right out of their mouths instantly - without hesitation or volume control.
Any news is biased to some degree. To expect otherwise is completely is not logical. Although, the media landscape has changed over the years to reporting specific ways which are catering to different sides in unique ways to secure funding. Maybe a committee should be formed composed of both right and left leaning news commentators/activists to be charged with evaluating the degree to which any news organization leans either way. The committee could additionally evaluate the entire day of radio/reporting to see how much time is spent on reporting and how much time is used otherwise.
Nevertheless, having the insights of people who deeply care enough to stand up to organizations is beneficial in multiple ways. One of which is to motivate each of us to not only pay attention to reporting, but start to get more engaged with what is being sent over the airwaves throughout our nation to listeners. Which could potentially impact the direction of the country moving forward.
Later today -- members of Congress will be voting on a bill to avoid another government shutdown. I am sure that each of you are pretty tired of hearing about a government shutdown. Making pawns out of federal workers is growing old and needs to be mitigated by Congress. What are the fall outs aside from the obvious -- 0.11% of the U.S. population out of work? Some people try very hard to downplay the hostage crisis with government workers held in between. What the majority of the U.S. population does not realize is that the total effects of an extended government shutdown are very serious. Let me show you a couple of angles to view the present situation which are quite different than what is normally considered by the average person.
Government Shutdown Affects Science?
The other day I was reading the latest issue of the trade journal 'Chemical & Engineering News' which contained a guest editorial titled "A Case For Compromise" by Dr. Willie E. May. Among other disparate and dangerous aspects of a government shutdown, he made the case for three separate areas of science which were greatly devastated (and potentially have long term damage) by the shutdown:
(1) The morale of the finest scientific workforce on this planet. Government scientists are working on critically important problems, including cures for diseases, the safety of our food supply, cybersecurity, and next-generation quantum computers. The current lapse in funding has cut scientists off from their labs and the work that they have devoted their lives to, which could cause many of our best and brightest to move on to different positions. That would be a severe loss for our country.
(2) Research in the world’s best collection of universities. A marked reduction in grant processing and funding drawdowns at agencies such as the National Science Foundation have stalled progress in all scientific fields.
(3) Critical NASA space missions. Delays in work at NASA affect our knowledge of other planets, the stars, and beyond.
(4) US industrial productivity and innovation. For example, work has been brought to a halt at my former agency, NIST, including the world-renowned labs where cutting-edge research has yielded five Nobel Prizes and many other awards. In addition to lacking the results of NIST’s intramural research, US industry does not have access to NIST’s calibration services for precision instruments, 1,200 cataloged standard reference materials, reference data sets that get more than 225,000 downloads per year, and unique user facilities that are in demand 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
Dr. Willie May is the former Director of the National Institute for Standards and Technology along with the former UnderSecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology. He is currently the vice president of Research at the Morgan State University. The above excerpt outlines concisely the negative impact a government shutdown would have on science research and technology. The negative reach could be catastrophic. Why?
Imagine if a pharmaceutical company was in the midst of gathering a round of funding to move a drug forward to evaluation by the Food and Drug Administration. Part of that funding might come from the National Institutes of Health (through a specific grant). I wrote about this process briefly in a previous post about government funding pharma drug development (see videos in post). What negative impact could happen if the government shutdown occurred and tied up potential funding for the company used in the example? Quite possibly, the remaining funding from venture capitalist might fall through and disappear.
The timeline on funding is variable when the government is working normally. Insert a government shutdown to put a freeze on all operations and now all other components of that funding could be impacted which could result in research projects being canceled or put on hold. That could hold up progress in developing downstream technology in certain cases. Which is why in the statement above by Dr. Willie May -- the impact on U.S. innovation and technology is right spot on the money.
Another prolonged shutdown would be especially painful for agriculture, and it's unclear if USDA could take steps to mitigate some of the headaches that accompanied the previous closures. If agencies' work on commodity data publications (including a large backlog from December and January) is frozen, it could leave crop farmers in the dark once again as they make planting decisions for the year.
The last sentence tells all -- in that the government shutdown which occurred over Christmas and into the New Year has already had a negative impact on farmer's ability to plan for the upcoming season. And yes, that is tied into the crops which produce the food which is sold in the store. Your grocery store, the food which potentially sits on your shelves and in your refrigerator. Do I have your attention now?
Government workers need to work. It's more obvious than that. We (the American people) need government workers to work and for the government agencies to work on a day to day basis. I did not even get a chance to discuss the potential negative impacts on agencies like NASA - with hundreds of millions (if not billions) of research equipment floating in the skies above us which rely on personnel here on Earth to run, collect, and process data. Not to mention, the scientists needed to process and transmit that data back into policy or new technology to serve the U.S. population. Again, government workers need to work.
Imagine that you just joined congress, the year is 1955. The nation just experienced a landmark court case 'Brown v. Board of Education' -- 'separate but equal'. Could you predict that over the next 59 years of your service on the nation's capital, you will experience the following events: the creation of the environmental movement, the civil rights movement, the very contested court case 'Roe v. Wade' (abortion rights), destruction of the Berlin Wall, the rise of digital technology, and finally, a bipartisan public acceptance that climate change is not just real but is man-made -- WOW.
Who is John Dingell -- Briefly?
Over the past few days, there have been historical accounts all over the internet describing Senator John Dingell. One article of interest with a brief but concise historical account of John Dingell recently appeared in 'Politico' titled "You’re Living in the America John Dingell Made" -- which accurately reflects the contributions made to the nation on behalf of the 'Junkyard Dog of Congress' ( a moniker attributed to him by the 'Detroit Free Press'). His love of the nation was unparalleled and reflective in his 59 years of service in congress. There are two paragraphs out of the article which is worth reading but highlight the enormity of his contributions to the nation:
Modern America is as much a creation of John Dingell’s life work as anyone’s. If you or a parent or grandparent have relied on Medicare or Medicaid; if you’ve seethed about the lack of gun control; if you’ve cheered that segregation of public places is illegal and employment discrimination is banned; if you’re thankful for the continued existence of the U.S. auto industry; if you’ve raged about gas-guzzling cars contributing to climate change; if your health insurance is purchased on the Obamacare exchanges; if you’ve swum in lakes or rivers or oceans free from toxic pollution; if you’ve drunk a glass of or bathed your children in tap water with confidence that it’s free from contamination; then John Dingell played a role in your life.
Then followed later in the article by the second shown below:
Among the legislation he authored or led the charge in passing: the Clean Water Act of 1972, the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the Clean Air Act of 1990. He worked to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which resulted in a bruising primary fight and the burning of a cross on Dingell’s lawn for the second time in his life (his father had been an anti-Klan activist, and even as an old man, John Jr. remembered being 5 or 6 years old and looking out the front window of his family’s home to see a flaming cross). “Of all the bills I’ve played a part in helping pass into law,” he wrote in his 2018 memoir, The Dean, “that remains the one I’m most proud of.”
The reason why I chose the two paragraphs above were to show the inevitable touch of John Dingell in all of our lives (to some degree) along with his remarkable care for the environment. As stated, he authored or played a pivotal role in passing the following environmental acts: (1) Clean Water Act of 1972, (2) the Endangered Species Act of 1983, (3) the Water Quality Act of 1965, and the Clean Air Act of 1990.
I was struck to see the legislation (issues) for which he has been fighting for are still in contention to this day. Modest improvements have been made, but there has been a large struggle for change over the past few decades with regard to saving the environment and the planet for that matter. He has not always sided with environmentalists either. Although, in sum total, he has fought vigorously for the environment. Currently, we are at a cross section where change toward reducing our dependence on fossil fuels while increasing our usage of renewable energy sources is front and center stage.
Green New Deal?
Recently, a new resolution titled "Green New Deal" has been circulating in congress over the last week. First, the "Green New Deal" is arriving in congress at an unprecedented time in history. Although, the rise of environmental policy has been emerging over decades in congress with Senator John Dingell pushing forward the addition of new regulations to move the needle of progress a tiny bit further. Currently, we are living in an unprecedented time in history. I will come back to this fact shortly, but let's return to the initial reaction of the unveiling of the "Green New Deal."
"I really don't like their policy of taking away your car, of taking away your airplane rights, of 'let's hop a train to California,' of you're not allowed to own cows anymore!" Trump said at a large rally Monday night in El Paso, Texas.
"It would shut down American energy, which I don't think the people in Texas are going to be happy with," Trump said elsewhere in the speech, eliciting cheers from the audience of more than 5,000. "It would shut down a little thing called air travel. How do you take a train to Europe?"
Trump appears to have seized on a line from an informal page of FAQs about the Green New Deal, released last week by Ocasio-Cortez, one of the resolution's co-sponsors, which specifically referred to cows and airplanes.
The blowback and support for the 'Green New Deal' is reported by Politico Energy' as follows:
A GREEN NEW DAY: The Green New Deal resolution sets out aggressive goals to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions in a decade, as well as a broad set of other transformative economic changes. Michael Grunwald makes the case that even though enacting would be impossible, the resolution still has two useful purposes for Democrats.
"It's primarily a political manifesto, a messaging device designed to commit the Democratic Party to treating the climate crisis like a real crisis, pressuring its presidential candidates to support radical transformation of the fossil-fueled economy," he writes. "At the same time, the Green New Deal is a policy proposal — or at least a sketch of one, a way to launch a substantive debate over how Democrats will attack the crisis if they do regain the White House." Read more.
THE NEXT STEPS are now in the hands of House Democrats, who only this week began to reckon with climate change at the committee level. Most House Democrats were quick to laud the goals of the resolution, but soon split on whether they'd formally back the measure, as Pro's Eric Wolff, Anthony Adragna and Zack Colman report.
Enter the select panel on climate change: Members of the new House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis say they're aiming to use the resolution as a template — even though the panel doesn't have the power to move legislation. Still, they plan to build public support for aggressive policies, as Anthony reports for Pros.
"What I hope this committee does is develop a very ambitious and very comprehensive road map to decarbonize our economy," said Rep. Jared Huffman, a panel member and Green New Deal co-sponsor.
I show the above excerpts not to lead the reader into a debate over the specific wording of the "Green New Deal" or the way out of 'climate crisis' over the next few decades. What I am here to show that the fact that there is a "Green New Deal" being discussed in congress at the moment is a testament toward the current status of the nation with regard to climate change. There is a bipartisan support -- finally -- for change toward a renewable future. Further, there are public statements emerging from Republicans about the need to move toward combating climate change (along with an admission that climate change is caused by man). WOW.
Last week, there were three different hearings in congress over the need to take action to combat climate change. This is unprecedented for both parties to admit publicly that climate change is man made and needs to be dealt with immediately. Of course, no one needs to show the obvious evidence on display around the world: increased frequency of storms, fires, population extinction, landmass destruction for agriculture, etc. -- to name a few.
The fact that there were three landmark hearings last week (and one this week), is a sign that many are stepping up and voicing their support toward a renewable (sustainable) energy future. The actual plan may change, but the direction toward a more sustainable future is inevitable and has gained a large amount of support across congress - which is greatly encouraging.
If you do not listen to any appreciable length of the above testimony, be sure to listen to the opening statements from both democrats and republicans -- which are extremely encouraging. Climate change impacts everyone. The time has come to take action.
Again, the opening statements were encouraging regarding the need to act immediately along with the bipartisan support.
The third hearing has been rescheduled for this week (Feb 13th). The House, Science, Space, and Technology Committee is holding a hearing titled "The State of Climate Science and Why it Matters." Bipartisan effort shows that finally action is being taken. Not only taken, but taken seriously and publicly announcing the need to take such action seriously -- which is a marked improvement over the last few decades.
Which brings us to the end and final note. Senator John Dingell lived until the ripe age of 92. As stated above, his life was full of great adventure and change. Congressional change which will has helped and will shape our society for decades to come. Environmentalists such as Senator Dingell have paved the way forward by laying the difficult initial ground. Just because there is opposition, the following shows that we (as in the U.S.) is late to the game and implementing action:
JOHN DINGELL DIES AT 92: Former Democratic Rep. John D. Dingell Jr., the longest-serving member of Congress whose tenure stretched from Dwight Eisenhower to Barack Obama, died on Thursday at 92. ME offers condolences to his family, and is reminded of the prescience of his take on how the fight over climate change would unfold.
He warned in 2008 that Congress needed to act on climate change because combating it under the Clean Air Act could be a "glorious mess." (Pros will recall ex-EPA chief Scott Pruitt frequently cited that phrase to help justify his deregulatory agenda.) "It seems to me to be insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and complex process of regulatory action, litigation upon litigation, and a lack of any kind of speedy resolution to the concerns we have about the issue of global warming," he said at a hearing that year.
His prognostication proved correct. When cap-and-trade failed to pass Congress, the Obama administration turned to existing CAA authorities to target greenhouse gases. Now — 11 years after he said EPA would be "tarred and feathered" if it tried to tackle climate change on its own — Obama's landmark carbon rules for power plants and autos have been blocked in the courts and are being rolled back by the Trump administration. "Structuring a comprehensive climate change program is a responsibility for the Congress," Dingell said in 2008. He died just hours after congressional Democrats unveiled their Green New Deal.
As I have written before on these pages, change is inevitable considering the forward momentum of the international governments. The investment capital is present and growing to match the need. The workforce is present to match the need. Elevating skilled labor to match the renewable energy sector demand will enable previously back breaking jobs to be changed out with new jobs -- jobs which match the changing technology landscape of the future. As automation plays a greater role in our society, the skilled labor can continue to educate to do more complicated jobs. Jobs such as monitoring and troubleshooting robotic teams - as Amazon does currently.
Regardless, the need for new jobs is present and will be matched by the growing demand of the renewable energy sector. The total overhaul of infrasture in our nation (existing buildings, landscapes, etc.) will require large amounts of labor. Senator John Dingell has laid down to rest in peace. Ironically, he did so after learning that his job here on Earth had been accomplished with a bipartisan deal -- "Green New Deal" being unveiled. He will not be forgotten as his work will play a more vital role as the world moves toward a more sustainable and healthy environment for all humans to live. Thank you Senator John Dingell.
