Brain Drain to the World

The brain drain has begun. This article has to be one of the saddest, yet most unexpected, that I’ve read in a long, long time. It is no surprise to those who follow that the United States has been falling behind in science for quite sometime now. At first it was merely the slipping test scores and international competitions. We invented a programming competition in the 80s, and we came in first every time for the first few annual events. Last year, we finished a measly 17^th. Our math, science, literacy, geography scores are falling in comparison to the rest of the world.

The tide began to turn against us a long time ago. For me, the first real clue was when several high tech companies moved their research labs overseas. It was the first instance I had where they had not moved merely their manufacturing, as companies have been doing in the global arena for years, but pure R&D. Signifying that other countries had finally caught up to our level. China produces an enormous amount of college graduates every year. And the quality of education in Singapore, India, China, Japan, Germany, has reached the point where they can attract the top-name companies, and the research labs they possess. There once was a time when, if you wanted your child to go to the very best school in the world, s/he went to the United States.

Now, however, that is not necessarily the case. The home-grown universities are beginning to generate higher-quality educations, for a fraction of the price. And their dedication is beginning to show dividends.

And how are we keeping up with the rest of the world in science (my forte)? We slash funding for research. We deny access to stem cell lines. At the fundamental level of education in this country, K-12, when we should be inspiring children, planting in them a life-long desire to question, to learn, to progress, we want to teach them Intelligent Design. With all of the inherent problems in our education system, with all the bungles, red tape, excessive bullshit schools have to wade through, with all the inaccuracies, bad teaching, poor funding, we worry about Intelligent Design? Months, years have been spent debating a topic which was solved in the 1920s. And no other country in the world is having similar problems. It is purely an American phenomenon.

South Korea has taken up the torch to become the leader in stem cell research. They are doing things we can’t even come close to. Achievements that could have gone to the US, along with all the financial rewards (patents on medications, therapies, royalties, licensing), have slipped from our fingertips. We sit, debating on an issue which no other country seems to quarrel with. You don’t hear about stem cell debates in Europe; they realize the possibilities that lie within these multi-faceted cells. But we sit and bog ourselves down in these so-called “ethical” debates. And now we have lost two people who, "Without a doubt, are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer." Singapore is a more attractive place for the top two minds in our country rather than their homeland to continue their very important research. What a sham. It has been a long time since I have felt ashamed of what my country is doing to itself, how it is rupturing its future. Today I do.

Text of the article: Scientists Leave U.S. To Do Stem Cell Research

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7001126033

November 21, 2005 3:00 p.m. EST by Andrea Moore

Stanford, CA (AHN) - Two government biologists recruited by Stanford University have decided to work in Singapore, saying they will face fewer restrictions on stem cell research overseas.

Neal Copeland and Nancy Jenkins, geneticists for the National Cancer Institute in Frederick, Maryland. A California ballot measure approved in 2004. say they are concerned about delays in the allocation of $3 billion set aside by a

The married couple are famous for discovering a way to accelerate the identification of cancer-causing genes in mice. The hope is to advance this discovery by using embryonic stem-cell cultures to build models of different cancers. If researchers can learn which genes are mutated in cancer, they may be able to develop drugs to block mutations.

At Singapore of Molecular and Cell Biology, the couple's discoveries would first be patented and used in Singapore.

"It is a loss for Stanford and a loss for America," Irving Weissman, director of Stanford's Institute for Cancer and Stem Cell Biology and Medicine told The Associated Press. "Without a doubt, they are the best people I know to find out which genes are altered to cause cancer."

Actors and Foundations

Throughout time, there has been a rather rigid sort of social system encapsulated in any one society. With respect to your future, it has been relatively determined throughout the ages. Apprenticeships, guilds, unions, all coalesce around the fact that your future, as an individual, is pre-determined, i.e. you were born for a particular occupation, and that is your future and there is not much you can do about it. People even were sedated into the thought of occupational pre-destination. For a long time this system existed, and no one thought to challenge it.

However, the growth of society has broadened our conceptions of personal freedom in relation to our own occupation. Now there is an ability for people to mold themselves to a variety of positions in this society. Any one person can become anything they want to. This is exemplified in the “American Dream:” anyone, no matter how humble they are, can rise up and rule the world. This is a freedom, a flexibility that we strive to, that we feel we are entitled to. We are now almost as actors, as Nietzsche would say. We are able to change, morph into any role we see fit for ourselves in this society before us. We are able to experiment, adapt, and move amoeba-like into new crevasses in this society. It is a very empowering feeling, to be able to have that chameleon-like power conferred upon us, and we use it freely for our personal betterment, as befits a capitalist society.

But, there lies a failing with this sort of thinking, one upon which we as a society are perilously gaining ground. It lies in the form of being too fluid. It is a great power to be able to assume various roles, and to be able to adapt when some new opportunity or misfortune presents itself, is immeasurable (how many blacksmiths from the 15th ,16th ,17th ,18th century were able to easily change jobs if they were injured? Or just didn’t want to follow in their father’s footsteps?). But in our curiosity to become greater actors, to be better able to mold ourselves to our own personal ends, we find a problem with our general society. Our own personal gains are not by definition related to that of society. Thus as we become more ethereal workers, gravitating towards our own gratification, the larger roles of society remain unfulfilled. Then there is an issue with the very foundation of the society upon which we rely on for our substance, for the structure of our own life.

Now I do not recommend going back to pre-destined existences for everyone in our society. It is the degrees of freedom that have been introduced to this society, which enabled us to be the innovators that we are. The computer upon which I write these words was created due to the fact that people had the gumption, and the option, to leave one facility in the society and seek out another. That is a gift many previous societies lacked, and paid dearly for it. However, we must be careful we do not lose too much, move too far towards the ephemeral side of our societal beings. We stand to lose a lot. First, we lose, to some degree, our ability to perform the jobs that we are situated in. This may not manifest itself all the time in every person or every occupation, for the ability to morph allows us to fit the mold that we are required to fill to a greater degree. However, at the same time, this ability to move, the necessity to be able to change and adapt, to pursue our own personal benefit, holds us back from being as good role-fillers as we could be. When you are always concerned about what is immediately around the corner, the present suffers. And that, in its most simple version, hampers the essential roles of this society, and their ability to be productive and innovative in their furtherment of this society.

Along that thought there is a fundamental lack of foresight that we develop. In being actors, moving back and forth, experimenting with our being, changing, always becoming something new all the time, we discourage the development of people who have the courage to plan for the long-term future of a society. Again, when you are focused around the corner, who knows what path that will become in two blocks? We become a society of transients, and we lose those persons who are known to Nietzsche as “architects,” people who work to orchestrate the future of a society, or a civilization. We need these people, especially found amongst our politicians and advisors, directors, etc. because they are the ones who have the vision and the will to make our necessary sacrifices plain so that we may prosper long into the future. We need these foundations of society, like a house needs a strong, laid-out cement floor. Without it, the house of cards we build will be subject to the whims of the future, both internal and external forces that we are unable to control. Our shortsightedness will have led to the spiraling of seemingly trivial issues to forming large maelstroms of our own demise. And thus, our newborn fluidity in life, our upwards mobility and increased personal directions, have the potential to take away the planners that we so desperately need to stay focused, and help the rest of us achieve a future we know dimly of, but which will be richly rewarded in years to come.

Pursuing the Pearl

China’s economic boon in the last 10-15 years is probably the best thing that could happen to the United States. It has brought innumerable and invaluable attention to our own situation in the world, our desires, our policies, and our future. More than any other nation in the globalization movement, China has brought the powerful gaze of American society to bear upon itself. And from that introspection, we all can benefit, should the American’s take stock of what the Chinese have so kindly pointed out to us.

The booming Chinese economy has thrust many issues to the forefront of global awareness. None of those is more prominent than the consumption patterns of Western nations, especially the United States. Any environmentalist, when the subject of 1st world nation consumption is broached, will immediately recount the fact that the Untied States, despite being only 5% of the world population, consumes approximately 25% of the resources of the globe. While this can be a mere factoid at times, when one looks at the development of 3rd world nations, it becomes alarmingly prominent. The 3rd world desires one thing more than others: to have a standard of living equal to that of the first. Especially upon gaining that first taste of 1st world living, their desire increases exponentially. They want to drive a new car, watch MTV, and drink a cold Coke in their very own house. And who could blame them? The problem with this is the model that the 1st world nations, especially the United States, have set for this mode of consumption. China has begun to emulate this form of consumption, and it could have dire consequences. For one example, the per-captia household size in China is steadily decreasing, from 4.5 persons per house in 1985 to 3.5 in 2000, and on track to be 2.7 by 2015. With the dream of everyone owning their own home, even though their population growth is near zero they are projected to add 126 millions new households in the next 10 years (more than the total number of households in the United States). If you also add in the number of per capita cars that the United States has which China would like to acquire and the other accoutrements that make up a “1st work lifestyle,” the world is unable to support such a large number of people living as we do. This has caused a deal of alarm, as the two major economic powerhouses will quite possibly become competitors in the resource market.

How can we deny them the chance to become as great as us? To suppress the world as we extend our own legacy is shortsighted, and will not have a good ending. They look to the 1st world as the benchmark of standard of living, including consumption patterns. They could very easily point to the United States and say, "Look, you did whatever it took to grow into what you are now ... now it's our turn. You have no moral authority to tell us otherwise, so be gone." However, if the 5.8 billion other people in the world started acting like Americans, the world would fall far beyond our poor power to compensate for the destruction. Someone has to take a stand somewhere and try to divert the river from its present course. While we do not have the right to tell them not to grow, there should be some sense of duty that we need to advise them how we have destroyed our own soil, water, and air. We grew; we industrialized during a very primitive time, environmentally wise, and are only now being to see the consequences. People then did not know about greenhouse gases, CFCs, the fragility of ecosystems, the dangers that strip-mining and clear-cutting have to the greater environment (agriculture and urban life included). Even as late as the 50s companies were pouring mercury into the oceans by the tons. DDT was legal into the 70s. Now that is not to be used as an excuse for our growth while other nations lingered, nor is it an excuse for our current environmental problems. Environmental science has always lagged behind economic prosperity; it wasn't considered a viable problem/concern until now.

Now must the introspection turn inward. If we cannot forbid them to grow, but the world cannot sustain the whole planet consuming as we do now, where do we tread? Advising is a credible solution, but if the 1st world nations are to provide a positive role-model, a co-creator of solutions to problems both of our own making and others following, there are serious issues that need to be addressed. And I think that these issues have not been pushed to the forefront as ardently until China clamored upon the global stage to stand next to us. Only then, with their shadow looming over the economic, social, and environmental horizon could we awake from our complicity as the world’s head honcho that we’ve held for 50 years. Only then could we look at our reflection, magnified five times, and see what we would look like should we continue down this road. And this is a good thing, as Americans are unwilling to look at these issues when it is at their convenience. But the competition is driving these points home, and opening eyes to the fact that solutions need answering. Thank you China.

A Return to Citizenship

I was listening to the news of the memorial service of Rosa Parks last week. It was a momentous occasion, the laying to rest of a huge icon of the civil rights movement. Among the speakers at this memorial service was Rev. Al Sharpton, a man with whose views I often disagree with. I imagined some bland well-wishing for Rosa and her family, some trite tribute to the legacy she left behind, much as the words of other “dignitaries” had attempted to encompass something greater that they could not grasp a hold of. The reverend is a man I do not agree with much, yet this time my ears perked up in happy disbelief. He was issuing a challenge to the audience, a challenge to take up Rosa Park’s work and carry it onwards. Insulting at times, he called the African-American community ungrateful for the sacrifices that Rosa and others made for them in order to bring them the equal right to vote, end segregation, and start the long road to equality in this country. With vivid detail he portrayed the suffering of the civil rights protestors, and opined that Rosa would be ashamed of them now, to see how they had to be begged, entreated to vote, when once dogs and pitchforks could not stand in their way to their civil privilege. Afterwards, National Public Radio asked Sharpton about his comments. He said, “Saluting her would be a huge mistake. Rosa Parks actively pursued social justice, and never stopped challenging us and never stopped challenging the issues of justice, and I think she would have been absolutely been dishonored and displeased if she thought that all we did was make great memorials to her, and not challenge people to do what she did.”

That struck me as remarkable. Especially his words on voting, and the apathy that Americans demonstrate towards their cherished, and hard-won gift. Not just African-Americans, as he was railing against, but Americans in general, have taken the opinion that voting is a bother, a bureaucracy, something not worthy of their time. This has long been a galling attitude in America. Not just Rosa Parks, but what would George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Ben Franklin, all those great leaders in history who had the foresight to see what a great thing this representative democracy could be, and the strength to fight over all odds to see that it came to fruition, say when they saw that the best we could do is mid 40s in voter turnout? I think they’d roll over in their grave and wish they had stayed with ole’ Georgie across the pond.

It is absolutely disgusting how low Americans hold their gift, their rights, their responsibility in this country. They have the power, whether they realize it or not, to challenge any laws, change anything they desire about this country in which they live. But they squander it, they throw it away, they ignore it, and in doing so open up a deluge of problems that we can only imagine. [all those horrors that are slowly materializing before us constitute other pages, yet to be written] Democracy, true democracy, was once an ideal worth fighting for, worth laying down your life so your fellow citizens could enjoy the right to elect who they wanted to lead them, to vote up and down measures that affected them in every walk of life. Now we can’t even get them to walk 2 blocks and push a screen or punch out a chad. Disgusting. When I see the pictures of new elections in other parts of the world, like Africa, and people stand in the savanna for hours waiting to vote, even knowing they can’t read, knowing that it is probably corrupt and the results fixed weeks or months before the ballots were printed, I can’t help but get a sense of pride. THAT is the democratic ideal right there, and those are people who are devoted enough and wanting it so badly that they will go to all lengths to claim their hard-won right to vote. Americans should take note.

How does a country re-ignite the citizen’s fire that used to burn so brightly? What will it take for people to appreciate the rare and wonderful gift they have been given with over two centuries of hard-won freedoms? You could take an extreme viewpoint, and say that to appreciate it, you need to take it away. A spate living under Stalinist Russia, Hussein’s Iraq, or the Catholic Inquisition would give you a good viewpoint from which to enjoy all that we take for granted. Indeed, if we do not stand up and take notice of this lapse in our responsibility to the government that was, at one point, at our whim, we might very well find ourselves residing in one of those despotic realms. And it would be no fault other than our own. I, for one, do not want to see that come to pass in this nation.

So, on this day of mourning, which inevitably leads to introspection and questioning, let us not memorialize, not pontificate over the life of a truly remarkable woman. Instead, let her funeral be a time of renewal to the phoenix of our representative government. Let’s resolve to be better citizens.

Laying this to Rest... finally

For over a year now, ANWR has been cited as being at the top of our President's agenda. He has relentlessly pushed for the drilling in ANWR, and has been echoed by a great number of the conservative side of this nation. However, there is indisputable evidence that the goals he hopes to achieve with the drilling in ANWR are not possible given the size of the oil field that is believed to lie there. In February, 2004, Rep. Richard Pombo, R-CA, and Chairman of the US House Committee on Resources, asked the Energy Information Administration, a government organization, to form a report on the prospects of ANWR drilling. They responded with a report in March of that same year, and here are highlights of the report. If you would like to read the entire report, you can find it at http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/FTPROOT/service/sroiaf(2004)04.pdf

* "Opening the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reduce 2025 oil import dependence from 70 percent in the AEO2004 reference case to just 66 percent in the mean resource case. The high and low oil resource cases project a 2025 oil import dependency of 64 and 67 percent, respectively."
MEANING: if we open up ANWR, the best-scenario case illustrates that we will decrease our oil dependency by just 6%.

* "The opening of the ANWR 1002 Are to oil and gas development is projected to increase domestic oil production starting in 2013."
MEANING: if we start this now (2004 when the report was written) it would take 9 years to even start to see the oil emerging from these fields.

* "It is expected that the price impact of ANWR coastal plain production might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel, relative to a projected price 2025 world oil price of $27 per barrel (2002 dollars) in the AEO2004 reference case. Assuming that world oil markets continue to work as they do today, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries could countermand any potential price impact of ANWR coastal plain production by reducing its exports by an equal amountl."
MEANING: If we develop oil in ANWR, we will reduce the price of oil by 1.1 to 1.9% per barrel of oil. But that prediction is not final, as OPEC could shift production to keep prices where they are.

* "Expenditures on foreign oil and petroleum products are also projected to be lower in 2025 by $8 billion (2002 dollars) in the mean oil resource case, and by $15 and $6 billion in the high and low oil resource cases, respectively."
MEANING: By 2025, we will spend approximately $200 billion on foreign oil imports. This development would reduce that figure by 4%.

This report was generated by a federal agency under this administration. It also make references to the fact that transportation of the oil, via a pipeline, could run over budget (as the TAPS - Trans-American Pipeline System did in the 70s and 80s when developping Prudhoe bay), and the timing effect of getting the oil to market is approximate... it could be longer or shorter, depending on the actual discoveries and production process.

However, this report demonstrates the fact that it is a waste of energy to try and hold all of our hopes on this solution to the problem. The solutions that need to be sought are increased fuel economy (Carter's CAFE standards of the 70s), new fuel products (biodielsel, electric, hydrogen, etc.), and better city planning (increased usage of public transportation and walking/biking/etc.).

I suggest you write to your Congressman/woman, highlight the facts of this report, and make them aware of the importance of seeking real solutions to this problem. Drilling in ANWR will not solve our energy dilemma, and this report should be the final nail in the coffin of the drilling proposals. Please try to spread the word.