Science in Society Review Spring 2020 Edition by The Triple Helix at UChicago

SPRING 2020 | The University of Chicago

A Production of The Triple Helix

The Science in Society Review

SCIENCE POLICY

THE TRIPLE HELIX A global forum for science in society

The Triple Helix, Inc. is the world’s largest completely student-run organization dedicated to taking an interdisciplinary approach toward evaluating the true impact of historical and modern advances in science. Work with tomorrow’s leaders Our international operations unite talented undergraduates with a drive for excellence at over 25 top universities around the world. Imagine your readership Bring fresh perspectives and your own analysis to our academic journal, The Science in Society Review, which publishes International Features across all of our chapters. Reach our global audience The E-publishing division showcases the latest in scientific breakthroughs and policy developments through editorials and multimedia presentations. Catalyze change and shape the future Our new Science Policy Division will engage students, academic institutions, public leaders, and the community in discussion and debate about the most pressing and complex issues that face our world today. All of the students involved in The Triple Helix understand that the fast pace of scientific innovation only further underscores the importance of examining the ethical, economic, social, and legal implications of new ideas and technologies — only then can we completely understand how they will change our everyday lives, and perhaps even the norms of our society. Come join us!

TRIPLE HELIX CHAPTERS North America Chapters Arizona State University Brown University Carnegie Mellon University Cornell University Georgia Institute of Technology George Washington University Georgetown University The Harker School Harvard University Johns Hopkins University The Ohio State University University of California, Berkeley University of California, Davis University of California, San Diego University of Chicago Yale University Europe Chapters Cambridge University Aristotle University Asia Chapter National University of Singapore Australia Chapter University of Melbourne

TABLE OF CONTENTS When Science Relies on Politics: Federal Funding for Research

Ayushi Hegde................................................................................6

Why Science Policy Matters on the 2020 Campaign Trail

Corinne Stonebraker...................................................................11

New Levels or Old Strategies? Contextualizing Politicized Science Under President Trump Nick Ornstein................................................................................16

Censorship and Pandemics: A Case Study of COVID-19

Explorer Pan................................................................................22

Regulating Big Pharma: The Role of the FDA Donia Ballan.................................................................................27

The Future of Death

Megan Lee...................................................................................32

Can Trees Fight Crime?

Serdar Celikus.............................................................................37

The Prioritization of Convenience and CostEfficiency over Inmate Wellbeing in U.S. Prisons Alena Sprietzer...........................................................................39

The Race to Quantum Supremacy

Rohan Kumar...............................................................................45

NASAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Spacesuit Problem

Joalda Morancy..........................................................................50

About The Triple Helix Dear Reader, It is with great excitement that we bring to you the 2020 Winter Issue of The Science in Society Review. A new year has introduced new directions to consider in some of the most pressing scientific issues and newest innovations on the rise in society. Here at The Triple Helix, we understand the need to investigate these questions in an integrative manner. In this vein, our writers, aided by a strong support system of undergraduate editors and the executive board team, strive to incorporate the perspectives of multiple fields in their articles. We at The Triple Helix at UChicago continue to proudly uphold our mission of exploring the interdisciplinary nature of the sciences and how they shape our world through the work we present to you. We are honored to encourage our future leaders in their rigorous exploration of the key challenges in society today. It is our hope that the articles presented herein will stimulate and challenge you to join our dialogue. And so, I leave you with this: How do you see science in society? Edward Zhou President, The Triple Helix UChicago uchicago.president@thetriplehelix.org

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Message from the Editors Dear Reader, As we write this letter from quarantine, the looming shadow of a mass pandemic makes the idea that science and politics are out-of-sync sound odd, even absurd. Right now, politicians and medical professionals are more closely entwined than ever before, collaborating in the face of COVID-19. The coronavirus epidemic points out the necessity for scientists--medical or otherwise--to be able to collaborate with the government and within current political structures. The coronavirus pandemic reminds us that science and politics are deeply intertwined. The articles in this volume seek to untangle those knots that tie the fabric of scientific inquiry to that of politics. Our authors investigate the lifecycle of science, from the transformation of a research idea into a funding proposal, to the ways in which non-scientists use and sometimes misrepresent scientific findings. COVID-19 proves that the intersection between science and policy is as inevitable as it is tenuous. As we recover from this pandemic, let the following articles be a guide book to lowering the walls between scientists and politicians and working towards a safer, healthier future. Sincerely, Elizabeth Crowdus and Caroline Kim Editors-in-Chief, The Science in Society Review

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

When Science Relies on Politics: Federal Funding for Research Ayushi Hegde is a second-year at the University of Chicago. She is currently working towards a double major in French and Biology, a choice influenced by her passion for languages, literature and research. Outside of SISR, Ayushi is a member of SASA and Chicago Raas, a competitive team on campus that practices traditional dance from the Indian state Gujarat. She also works closely with Student Health and Counseling as a member of The Body Positive, a group that aims to promote positive body image, awareness of eating disorders and inclusivity on campus. In her free time, she loves to pet dogs, eat desserts and go on long runs. 6

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

cience—it goes without saying—is not easy. Popular culture is saturated with images of its monumental difficulty: test tubes, scribbled-on blackboards, lab-coated men looking like they’ve stuck their fingers into outlets. In part, the depiction is glamorous because we associate it with difficulty. But if you ask an investigator to name a source of frustration in their field, you’re likely to get the same, surprisingly unglamorous response. The grant-writing process tends to discourage scientists the most, an annoyance that seems almost trivial compared to the content of their work and the long hours and years of schooling demanded by it. Their frustration is understandable. Researchers depend on government and private funds for their work, with grants needed to cover reagents, equipment, and the equally drawn-out process of publishing original research. Federal agencies © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

[T]he process of securing funds becomes more uncertain with the transience of Americaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s political landscape: as specific policies change and new policymakers come into power, tides of support ebb and flow. have historically provided most of the support for basic science with corporate, university, and philanthropic contributions together making up the remaining half of investments in 2015.3 Still, the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s role in scientific funding is not uniform. Money can be granted by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, and the National Institute for Environmental Health Science, in addition to other agencies. These groups vary in their application timelines and show preference to different kinds of work depending on their own focus. Partitioning support between different fields can alleviate some of the competition involved in the process. For example, cell biologists should be less concerned about competing with social scientists and environmental policymakers for funds. However, these federal agencies still depend on Congress. Not only do legislators decide the amount of money that goes towards research in a given year, they can also dedicate or restrict funding to certain areas. Even when Congress allocates money without an explicit agenda or restrictions on spending, individual appointees and bureaucrats within the executive branch have the power to award or withhold additional grants from specific agencies.

Credit: New York Times

In 2001, President George W. Bush ordered a ban on federal funding for research that involved human embryonic stem cells. Five years later, he rejected a bill that proposed to relax the policy. Appearing at a news conference with babies born following in vitro fertilization, he maintained that his ban had allowed research "without sanctioning the practices that violate the dignity of human life." ÂŠ 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Without the necessary support for their experiments, many investigators were forced to abandon major projects—in some cases, the culmination of decades of work. The result is that government policy, which is shaped by partisanship and public perceptions about science, plays an inevitably prominent role in the process of scientific funding. Not only does this prominence inform the kind of research that will be funded in an election cycle, it means that ideas in line with national politics are more likely to gain recognition. To be sure, bias is not unique to the government’s approach. Private foundations have their own biases, preferring projects that are socially relevant, usually with practical implications in line with the group’s mission. At the same time, the process of securing funds becomes more uncertain with the transience of America’s political landscape: as specific policies change and new policymakers come into power, tides of support ebb and flow. This instability was perhaps most apparent in 2001, when President George W. Bush implemented a ban on federal funding for research involving human embryonic stem cells, citing ethical concerns.4 Although the ban was not comprehensive, it failed to cover the development of new cell cultures and included strict eligibility criteria for the kinds of projects that would receive funding. Researchers were only considered for grants if they limited their experiments to certain cell cultures, enumerated by the policy without respect to their scientific relevance. Not only were the permissible 8

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

cultures difficult to work with, the majority came from individuals of European descent. Other genetic backgrounds were shockingly underrepresented, limiting the possibility of research with relevance to minority groups; the politicized nature of funding could also skew scientists’ results. Individual researchers were forced to restructure their research in order to accommodate the new criteria. Publicly funded projects could no longer use reagents or equipment paid for by private institutions.Without the necessary support for their experiments, many investigators were forced to abandon major projects—in some cases, the culmination of decades of work. Although President Obama relaxed the ban in 2009, its dramatic consequences for researchers demonstrate the persistence of uncertainty facing researchers. The National Science Foundation reported that it accepted only 11,447 of the 49,915 proposals that it received in 2017—an acceptance rate of less than 25 percent.5 These numbers often discourage researchers.

Other genetic backgrounds were shockingly underrepresented, limiting the possibility of research with relevance to minority groups; the politicized nature of funding could also skew scientists’ results. The difference between a successful and failed proposal may depend on subtleties that seem to verge on arbitrary, calling into question the rigidity of the process. In the past, government agencies have © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

favored proposals with specific policy implications, either informally or in response to legislation. An example is the Dickey Amendment, which Congress passed in 1996 to withhold funds from studies that appeared to promote gun control.6 The law was undeniably influenced by partisan politics. Even Credit: bongino.com when it was relaxed Political cartoon depicting the Dickey Amendment's effect on in 2018 to exclude CDC researchers. Passed in 1996, the law withheld federal public health re- funds from studies that could be used to promote gun control. search, Republicans and Democrats disagreed on the amount to allocate to the Centers for Disease Con- The Dickey Amendment trol and the National Institutes of Health. censored academic inPerhaps more importantly, it was political by nature. The Dickey Amendment quiry for the sake of furcensored academic inquiry for the sake thering a national agenda. of furthering a national agenda. the long run. By forcing investigators to Given how government-funded research question the potential of their own ideas, has served as a barometer for past political the funding process also favors the most climates, it is difficult to imagine a system strategic proposalsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;not only those that completely without bias. Looking beyond ask the most interesting questions, but politics, however, the process of applying those that ask them in the most concise, for government funding may have other effective way. While the need to format consequences. Having to appeal to fed- applications according to the guidelines eral agencies with very narrow interests of different agencies could limit the time discourages scientists from pursuing spent developing rigorous scientific quesinterdisciplinary studies. The rigidity tions, it could also lead to new, more of the process requires that more time focused ideas that may not have surfaced is spent formatting applications, prevent- in a more streamlined process. Despite ing scientists from fully considering the the frustrations caused by these hurdles, potential value of their work.1 they can theoretically function to direct On the other hand, the scrutiny that they funds towards the best-developed proface could be constructive for the same posals. The bureaucracy involved may reasons, motivating stronger results in actually be beneficial from a scientific ÂŠ 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The bureaucracy involved may actually be beneficial from a scientific standpoint. standpoint. But is scientificity—the same ‘rigorous inquiry’ central to the University of Chicago’s intellectual mission—the problem? Some might argue that the government’s involvement in the funding process should be a cause for concern on its own. After all, science prides itself on its objectivity; the objectivity of a scientific finding becomes weak when we consider the subjectivity of the system that funds it. Remembering

Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell lines and the Dickey Amendment—policies that actively suppressed research in the interest of furthering a separate, political agenda—a more objective system may have meant the difference between free scientific expression and outright censorship. Efforts to restrict research in pursuit of a partisan agenda are both unscientific and undemocratic. Federal funding should be more than a source of frustration for researchers. In the same way that the funding process is informed by policy, scientific knowledge has the power to transform policy and impact lives. The issue becomes inherently political; the only question is how we choose to address it.

References DeFeo, Christian. “How to Write a Good Research Funding Application.” Mendeley Blog, 14 June 2017, blog.mendeley.com/2017/06/15/how-to-write-a-good-research-funding-application/. 2 “Government-Funded Science.” The Center for Accountability in Science, www.accountablescience. com/issues/funding-in-science/government-funded-science/. 3 MervisMar, Jeffrey, et al. “Data Check: U.S. Government Share of Basic Research Funding Falls below 50%.” Science, 8 Dec. 2017, www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50. 4 Murugan, Varnee. “Embryonic Stem Cell Research: a Decade of Debate from Bush to Obama.” The Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, YJBM, Sept. 2009, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC2744932/. 5 Sohn, Emily. “Secrets to Writing a Winning Grant.” Nature News, Nature Publishing Group, 20 Dec. 2019, www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03914-5. 6 Wetsman, Nicole. “After a 20-Year Drought, US Lawmakers Fund Gun Violence Research.” The Verge, The Verge, 19 Dec. 2019, www.theverge.com/2019/12/19/21028779/gun-violence-researchfunding-20-year-freeze-congress-bill-cdc-nih-dickey. 1

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Why Science Policy Matters on the 2020 Campaign Trail Corinne Stonebraker is a third year at the College, double-majoring in Biology and Neuroscience. Her academic interests lie in the intersection of science and medicine, particularly how psychiatry and neurology are being redefined by basic and translational clinical research. On campus, Corinne is a member of University of Chicago Emergency Medical Services and MEDLIFE, in addition to writing for The Triple Helix. When she's not in the Reg, Corinne likes to spend her time shopping in Wicker Park, going to dinner with friends, and hanging at home with her dog.

n the 2016 presidential election, the top issues for voters were economy, terrorism, foreign policy, healthcare, and gun policy.1 While all of these issues are still relevant to the upcoming 2020 election, there has been a marked rise in voter interest in science policy-related issues, particularly among Democrats. In a February 2020 Gallup poll, more than half of voters listed climate change as a “very important” issue to them when voting in 2020. About one-fourth listed it as an “extremely important” issue.2 However, Democrats were almost six times more likely than Republicans to list climate change as “extremely important”. With scientists hailing the increasingly prevalent wildfires as forewarnings of the devastating effect of climate change, as well as the traction gained by the Green New Deal proposed last year in Congress, climate change has established itself as an important voting issue. As many Gen Z-ers have reached voting age, young people in particular are leading the

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The climate change debate is centered around two main topics: the future of nuclear power, and the regulation of fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal. charge of climate change activism. Greta Thunberg, a seventeen-year-old Swedish environmental activist, has become the face of the international student climate strike movement, where students take time off from school to petition political leaders to take action to prevent climate change. Sentiments similar to those expressed by Thunberg and other young activists are, in part, reactionary. Europe has seen a rise in nationalism and the popularity of far-right politicians, like Marine Le Pen in France and Matteo Salvini in Italy. These politicians are coalescing against EU climate policy, voicing concern that

it limits the potential of fossil fuel-led growth. The rise of far-right nationalism in Europe has mobilized the new generation of voters, who are pushing back on these politiciansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; anti-environmental policies. A similar reactionary wave is occurring in the United States under the Trump administration, which has faced criticism for pro-fossil fuel and anti-climate change policies. The younger generations, fearful of inheriting a world ravaged by climate change, are more energized than ever about electoral politics. There are 17 million new voters in 2020, and candidatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; stances on a number of key environmental and energy issues will certainly influence who this new voter body decides to cast their ballots for.3 Among the many science policy issues, including environment, energy, space, technology, and research, climate change in particular has garnered widespread national interest due to natural disasters, dire warnings from scientists, and world-

How do Sanders, Biden, Warren, and Gabbard compare in their proposals to address climate change? Credit: United States Congress, The White House

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

wide protests. The climate change debate is centered around two main topics: the future of nuclear power, and the regulation of fossil fuels like oil, gas, and coal. For the Democratic nomination in particular, climate change is likely to be a top issue. As of March Credit: UNclimatechange from Bonn, Germany 4th, there are cur- World leaders at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conrently four Demo- ference celebrate the Paris Accords, a global agreement on the cratic presidential reduction of climate change. Two years later, President Trump candidates—Ber- would announce his intention to withdraw the United States nie Sanders, Joe from the agreement in 2020. Biden, Elizabeth Warren, and Tulsi Gabbard. One of these for disasters like the Fukushima4 Daiichi candidates will likely face off against in- nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011. Senator cumbent President Trump in November. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is one candidate How they each plan to address nucle- who has established himself as steadfastar energy, oil and gas drilling, carbon ly anti-nuclear power. His $16 trillion emissions, and climate change as a whole climate action plan calls for completely will help determine who. Yes, only one ending all reliance on nuclear power, of these four candidates will clinch the instead investing in5renewable sources nomination at the Democratic National like wind and solar. Senator Elizabeth Convention in July. However, the way Warren (D-MA) and Representative Tulsi all of the candidates think about climate Gabbard (D-HI), like Sanders, argue that change and propose initiatives to address the toxic waste byproducts outweigh any is going to be informative for policy for years to come. Nuclear power currently supplies one-fifth of the United States’ energy, but the high cost of building reactors and disagreement over how to dispose of radioactive waste has made its future uncertain. While nuclear power produces massive amounts of electricity without carbon emissions, the byproduct waste it creates has raised concerns about pollution and the potential © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proposed achieving worldwide net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 in order to curb the already damaging effects of climate change. THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Despite an increasing prevalence of renewable energy sources, oil, natural gas, and coal provide almost 75% of all the energy consumed in the United States. benefits of the technology. While Warren has been less resolute than Sanders regarding dismantling existing reactors, she does propose “weaning ourselves off nuclear and replac[ing] it with renewables.”6 Former Vice President Joe Biden has not outlined clear plans on nuclear energy, but has said that he intends to research and evaluate it as a zero-carbon technology. It is possible that Biden may take a stance similar to that of other moderates, like former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who has proposed ceasing building new plants, but has not advocated for closing existing ones. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has proposed achieving worldwide net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 in order to curb the already damaging effects of climate change. Achieving net-zero emissions will require substantially minimizing the use of fossil fuels, as well as offsetting any unavoidable emissions by planting trees and developing technology that can utilize atmospheric carbon.7 The U.N.’s proposal has been embraced by all of the Democratic candidates, but it may be easier said than done.8 Such a goal would require spending trillions of dollars over the next 30 years—money the government may not have—as well as cooperation from Congress. Biden supports taxing carbon emissions as a means to incentivize corporations to 14

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

reduce emissions, however, such a plan may not be fully effective within the short timeframe scientists say we have to reverse climate change. Warren, Gabbard, and Sanders offer an alternative, where federal regulations on emissions would impose a “cap and trade” program, enabling companies to determine how to cooperatively meet a set emissions cap as an industry. While such a plan may be more immediately effective in curbing emissions than a carbon tax, it requires intergovernmental cooperation. President Barack Obama attempted to pass a capand-trade program through Congress in 2010 but was unsuccessful.9 Oil and gas drilling regulations are also subject to debate. Sanders, Gabbard, and Warren, echoing, their positions on carbon emissions, support strict federal regulation of fracking. However, banning fracking on private land and ending federal leases for fracking requires legislation from Congress. On the other hand, Biden advocates for limiting drilling on federal, but not private land. While this would allow for fracking to continue, all of the candidates emphasize phasing it out in favor of clean energy. Many Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have opposed Democratic candidates’ fossil fuel regulation plans, citing concern for workers in the coal, gas, and oil industries that may lose their jobs.10 Despite an increasing prevalence of renewable energy sources, oil, natural gas, and coal provide almost 75% of all the energy consumed in the United States. While coal production has been trending downward for a decade, fracking and innovations and drilling technology have driven oil and gas production to record highs, establishing the U.S. as their largest global producer.11 Although oil and © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

gas production results in huge amounts of carbon dioxide emissions and other pollution, it is a keystone in the U.S. economy, and acts as a major cash cow for the government.12 Any potential candidate opposed to expanding oil, gas, and coal production would have to address the economic ramifications of losing a major American export. President Trump is almost assuredly a shoo-in for the 2020 Republican nomination. However, the race for the Democratic nomination has proven to be, and will remain, extremely contentious. Between environmental scientists and impassioned activists, it is difficult for politicians to ignore the worldwide calls to action urging them to address the impending danger of climate change. Politicians are not scientists, but they are entrusted to

At a time when some scientists project that there are fewer than 12 years left to avoid disastrous climate change, a lack of science-forward legislation has the potential to be catastrophic.13 make informed decisions about science policy. At a time when some scientists project that there are fewer than 12 years left to avoid disastrous climate change, a lack of science-forward legislation has the potential to be catastrophic.13 Now, more than ever, a candidate’s proposed science policies will be crucial in voters’ decisions when they cast their ballots.

References McCarthy, Niall. “The Top Issues For Voters In The 2016 Presidential Election [Infographic].” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 11 July 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/07/11/the-top-issues-for-voters-in-the-2016-presidential-election-infographic/#6ff3491a23fd. 2 Hrynowski, Zach. “Several Issues Tie as Most Important in 2020 Election.” Gallup.com, Gallup, 13 Jan. 2020, news.gallup.com/poll/276932/several-issues-tie-important-2020-election.aspx. 3 Brownstein, Ronald. “Brace for a Voter-Turnout Tsunami.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 13 June 2019, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/06/2020-election-voter-turnout-could-be-record-breaking/591607/. 4 “A Voter's Guide to Nuclear Power: Compare Where All the 2020 Candidates Stand.” POLITICO, www. politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/energy-environment/nuclear-power/. 5 Green, Miranda. “Democrats Split over Nuclear Energy amid Climate Fight.” TheHill, The Hill, 4 Sept. 2019, thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/459829-dems-split-over-nuclear-energy-amid-climate-fight. 6 “Where 2020 Democrats Stand on Climate Change.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 25 Feb. 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/climate-change/. 7 “UNITED NATIONS Climate Change - Summit 2019.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/en/ climatechange/un-climate-summit-2019.shtml. 8 “A Voter's Guide to Reducing Carbon Emissions: Compare Where All the 2020 Candidates Stand.” POLITICO, www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/energy-environment/climate-change/. 9 Broder, John. “'Cap and Trade' Loses Its Standing as Energy Policy of Choice.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 26 Mar. 2010, www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html. 10 “A Voter's Guide to Reducing Carbon Emissions: Compare Where All the 2020 Candidates Stand.” POLITICO 11 “A Voter's Guide to Oil and Gas Drilling: Compare Where All the 2020 Candidates Stand.” POLITICO, www.politico.com/2020-election/candidates-views-on-the-issues/energy-environment/fossil-fuels/. 12 “A Voter's Guide to Oil and Gas Drilling: Compare Where All the 2020 Candidates Stand.” POLITICO. 13 Wagner, Gernot, and Constantine Samaras. “Do We Really Have Only 12 Years to Avoid Climate Disaster?” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Sept. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/opinion/climatechange-12-years.html. 1

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

New Levels or Old Strategies?

Contextualizing Politicized Science Under President Trump Nick Ornstein

is a third year at the University of Chicago, studying Neuroscience with a minor in Media Arts & Design. He conducts somatosensory neuroscience research at the Bensmaia Lab in addition to entertaining academic interests in human-computer interaction, media art, philosophy of mind, and artificial intelligence. Around campus, Nick co-chairs Tech Team, a student group that creates digital tools to support community organizations. He also plays synth in a psychedelectric-indie-rock band.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

n this era of buzzwords of falsehood, like “fake-news” and “alternative-facts,” it seems as though the Trump administration has a complex relationship with the truth. This holds especially for the administration’s relationship with science. Given sweeping cuts in funding to science-based regulatory agencies and large numbers of scientists being forced out of federal jobs, there seems to be room for a case that the Trump administration has politicized science.5, 13 The consensus from the media appears to be that Trump and his appointees are redefining what it means to twist science for political gain. However, this argument requires framing the actions of the Trump administration in the context of historical examples. Is the relationship between the Trump administration and policy-relevant science outside the norm in comparison with previous presidents? American presidential administrations have a history of this politicizing science, but the © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

Trump administration sets itself apart by involving purely political administrators in grant allocation decisions and by altering scientific results from government agencies after the fact. Bolsen and Druckman, scholars of political science, define the politicization of science with regards to scientific uncertainty: “politicization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainty of science to cast doubt on the existence of scientific consensus”.2 For the purposes of this article, I will build on their definition, and consider the politicization of science to be an act that either misrepresents scientific results to achieve a political goal or series of acts that intervene with a scientific process to garner politically motivated results.

“[P]oliticization occurs when an actor emphasizes the inherent uncertainty of science to cast doubt on the existence of scientific consensus”2... an act that either misrepresents scientific results to achieve a political goal or series of acts that intervene with a scientific process to garner politically motivated results.

the Reagan administration as particularly pro-industry, and cites this as the reaThe first case study to examine is the son why it “politically manipulate[d] the Reagan administration. President Rea- membership of obscure scientific advisory gan’s election at the end of the seventies committees”.10 Additionally, Mooney writes marked the beginnings of the modern of a list of scientists at the Environmenclimate science skepticism7 as argued by tal Protection Agency (EPA) who were Chris Mooney in The Republican War covertly rated by Reagan administration on Science (2005). Mooney characterizes officials as having unappealing scientific views for the Reagan agenda, describing the government scientists as undesirably liberal. Robert Proctor, in his book, Cancer Wars, also described Reagan as a key instigator of the practice of influencing government science for political purposes, emphasizing the appointments of President Trump in Mandan, North Dakota (September 2017) Credit: Myles Cullen industry players © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

connection back to the Reagan administration's political cuts to previous EPA reports. Liberal administrations have also politicized science to strengthen their own agendas. John Tierney, a writer for The City Journal argues in his 2016 article The Real President George W. Bush speaking at the Johnson Space Center in War on Science that, “the 2003. Credit: NASA Left has done far more “with little interest in—or even open than the Right to set hostility toward—environmental pro- back progress”.17 Tierney lists “the mixing tection”.14 This then led to editing-out of science and politics” as one of the most of politically-fraught topics from EPA significant “threats to science” from the reports, such as cancer-causing side ef- Left. He claims that because scientists were fects of pesticides.14 enchanted with the liberal ideal of a bigger government of expert administrators, A more recent and analogous bench- where they were to lead society, scientists, mark against which we may compare “yielded to the temptation to exaggerate the Trump administration is the Bush their expertise and moral authority.” As administration, which Mooney describes evidence, he points to Obama’s claims as having, “push[ed] the issue of science that there is scientific consensus on the politicization to the point of crisis”.10 The danger of global warming. Tierney declares Bush administration employed numerous that Obama’s claims of consensus were tactics to skew science to fit its political false, pointing to dissenting studies that purposes on the subject of the climate. In show that models may have overestimatMarch of 2004, the Union of Concerned ed the extent of warming. However, in Scientists released a comprehensive re- writing that, “no one knows how much port entitled “Scientific Integrity in Policy Making: An Investigation into the Bush administration’s Misuse of Science.” With While liberal politicizaits section on “Distorting and Suppressing Climate Change Research,” the UCS goes tion is seen as ‘liberalinto detail describing many instances of ly’ overemphasizing the attempts at politicization of science. One role of science in govstand-out event includes an attempt by ernment, conservative the Bush White House to interfere with a politicization involves September 2002 EPA report on the climate, systematic de-emphasizediting out reference to studies that showed evidence that humans are the primary ing of the influence of cause for climate change.15 Here we see a science on policy. 18

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

more warming will occur this century or a rise in the intensity of politicization whether it will be dangerous,” Tierney under Trump. First, I’ll briefly note the misses a fundamental idea of science. report from the Washington Post that the Consensus does not mean that every study political operative John Konkus, a “former agrees with a hypothesis, but rather that Trump campaign aide with little envithe majority of the community agrees ronmental policy experience,” was given that the evidence points to one conclu- singular control over EPA grants. Konkus sion. No one claims to know the extent reportedly said he would be watching out of future warming, but rather, science to deny grants containing “the double-C presents probabilistic hypotheses about word,” i.e, climate change.6 its possible range. This is implicit in the nature of predictive modeling. Importantly, The second, more well known incident we can see from Tierney that the type of occurred when Trump contradicted the politicization of science that some claim prediction of the National Oceanic and is perpetrated by liberal administrations Atmospheric Agency regarding the path is different than that associated with con- and effects of Hurricane Dorian. In the late servative ones. While liberal politicization summer of 2019, Hurricane Dorian was is seen as ‘liberally’ overemphasizing the role of science in government, conser vative politicization involves systematic de-emphasizing of the influence of science on policy. As I consider the Trump administration, comparisons are then limited in kind to recent conservative administra- Hurricane Dorian off Florida coast on September 2nd, 2019. Credit: NOAA. tions. barrelling toward the southeastern United States, and had just become a Category 5 Having reviewed the tactics of the Reagan storm. On September 1st, President Trump and Bush administrations and addressed tweeted out: “...Alabama will most likely differences with liberal administrations, be hit (much) harder than anticipated.”18 we now turn to analysis of politicization of However, government forecasters had science under Trump. Many of the Trump predicted little to no impact on Alaadministration’s actions to politicize bama. Minutes after Trump’s erroneous science are extensions of strategies that warning, the National Weather Service, occurred under previous administrations. tweeted that Alabama would “NOT see However, two notable incidents point to any impacts from #Dorian.” But President © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Trump refused to admit his mistake when addressing the state of the storm to the public, he referenced a forecast map that seemed to have been modified in black Sharpie to include Alabama in the potential range of impact for the storm. This alteration only seemed to inflame the issue, which grew into a scandal. In an effort to further cement the record in his favor, Trump instructed aides to pressure the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency to reverse their position and admit that Alabama actually was at risk. Even with strong pushback within the agency,

Even though we may never fully depoliticize science, we can improve the situation by making the application of science to policy a more scientific process in itself. Trump’s tactic of politically strong-arming top officials via his commerce secretary proved successful, and the NOAA published an unsigned statement a few days later,16 saying that Trump was right that Alabama could have seen an impact.1, 3 The science-politicizing actions of the Trump administration are similar in kind but more intense in magnitude than previous administrations. From the history of the Reagan and Bush administrations, we see that a precedent exists for the appointment of anti-regulation industry players to head regulatory agencies. The precedent also exists for partisan editing of scientific recommendations, stemming from these controversial appointments to scientific positions. However, the application of political government officials 20

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

to sign off on federal funds to research projects, as seen in the Trump administration, is unprecedented, as reported by the Washington Post. Similarly, the meddling of the Bush administration in the 2002 EPA report certainly constituted direct interference by the White House in a scientific report by a non-partisan agency. However, Trump’s strong-arming of agency officials to tweak their report to accommodate Trump’s Twitter error and Sharpie-ed map goes beyond the magnitude of the misstep by Bush in an Orwellian fashion. While many of Trump’s strategies for twisting science for political purposes harken back to older tactics, it is clear that the abuse has become more blatant and structured. One result of this review of politicized science in recent American history seems to be that politicized science is to be avoided at all costs. However, scholars in the field of Science and Technology Studies argue that the production of scientific knowledge can never be completely divorced from politics. Don Ihde points out that the either/or nature of the question of the political nature of science is not a sensible way to address the problem.8 Even though we may never fully depoliticize science, we can improve the situation by making the application of science to policy a more scientific process in itself. Even if the scientific endeavor were successful at filtering out bias via method and peer review, the political process by which science is applied to government does not follow the same design. It is more openly influenced by corporate interest and personal beliefs than the science it seeks to apply. The solution lies not in attempting to depoliticize how science is used in government, but rather making the application of science to policy © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

a more scientific process. Administrations will come and go, and some will find new strategies to politicize science as we’ve seen with Trump. We cannot rely on tradition to guide the behavior of government officials. Science-based agencies should be made independent

from partisan processes via written law. Information should flow from scientists to politicians, but not the other way around. Without such a change, partisan backflow makes politicized science an irreparable phenomenon.

References Baker, Peter, et al. “Trump Pressed Top Aide to Have Weather Service ‘Clarify’ Forecast That Contradicted Trump.” The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2019. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes. com/2019/09/11/us/politics/trump-alabama-noaa.html. 2 Bolsen, Toby, and James N. Druckman. “Counteracting the Politicization of Science.” Journal of Communication, vol. 65, no. 5, 2015, pp. 745–69. Wiley Online Library, doi:10.1111/jcom.12171. 3 Carlisle, Madeleine. “SharpieGate: Documents Show NOAA’s Panic Over Trump’s Dorian Map.” Time, Feb. 1, 2020. https://time.com/5775953/trump-dorian-alabama-sharpiegate-noaa/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020. 4 Cullen, D. Myles. Photos from President Donald J. Trump’s Visit to North Dakota. 6 Sept. 2017, https:// www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/photos-president-donald-j-trumps-visit-north-dakota/. 5 Davenport, Coral. “In the Trump Administration, Science Is Unwelcome. So Is Advice.” The New York Times, 9 June 2018. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/09/climate/trump-administration-science.html. 6 Eilperin, Juliet. “EPA Now Requires Political Aide’s Sign-off For Agency Awards Grant Applications.” The Washington Post, 4 Sep. 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/epa-now-requires-political-aides-sign-off-for-agency-awards-grant-applications/2017/09/04/2fd707a0-88fd-11e7-a94f3139abce39f5_story.html 7 Gauchat, Gordon. “The Political Context of Science in the United States: Public Acceptance of Evidence-Based Policy and Science Funding.” Social Forces, vol. 94, no. 2, 2015, pp. 723–46. JSTOR. 8 Ihde, D. “How Could We Ever Believe Science Is Not Political?” Technology in Society, vol. 24, no. 1, Jan. 2002, pp. 179–89. ScienceDirect, doi:10.1016/S0160-791X(01)00053-7. 9 Meyer, Robinson. “The Case for the Politicization of Science.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic. com/science/archive/2017/04/scientists-should-just-be-political/524682/. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020. 10 Mooney, Chris. The Republican War On Science. Basic Books, 2005. 11 NASA. President George W. Bush, before the Crowd on the Mall of the Johnson Space Center during the Memorial for the Columbia Astronauts. 4 Feb. 2003. Great Images in NASA; Wikimedia Commons, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Bush_During_STS-107_Memorial_-_ GPN-2003-00091.jpg. 12 NOAA. Hurricane Dorain. https://dma.wi.gov/DMA/news/2019news/19152. Accessed 1 Mar. 2020. 13 Plumer, Brad, and Coral Davenport. “Science Under Attack: How Trump Is Sidelining Researchers and Their Work.” The New York Times, 28 Dec. 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/28/climate/ trump-administration-war-on-science.html. 14 Proctor, Robert N. Cancer Wars: How Politics Shapes What We Know and Don’t Know about Cancer. BasicBooks, 1995. 15 Revkin, Andrew C. “REPORT BY E.P.A. LEAVES OUT DATA ON CLIMATE CHANGE.” The New York Times, 19 June 2003. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/19/us/report-by-epa-leaves-out-data-on-climate-change.html. 16 Statement from NOAA | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 6 Sept. 2019, https:// www.noaa.gov/news/statement-from-noaa. 17 Tierney, John. “The Real War on Science.” City Journal, Oct. 2016, https://www.city-journal.org/ html/real-war-science-14782.html. 18 Trump, Donald J. “Trump’s Dorian Tweet.” Twitter, 1 Sept. 2019, https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1168174613827899393 1

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Censorship and Pandemics: A Case Study of COVID-19 Explorer Pan

is a first-year at the University of Chicago, majoring in astrophysics and is still figuring out other interests/potential second major. Her academic interest lies in the dynamics of black holes and galaxies. On campus, Explorer is a member of the Society of Physics Students and Ryerson Astronomical Society, and she is the movie czar of Coulter House, in addition to writing for SISR. In her free time, Explorer enjoys all kinds of movies (from sci-fi, horror, and action to romance, comedy, and animation), reading literature, and wondering when she could meet an alien.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

he coronavirus that originated in Wuhan, Hubei Province, has directly or indirectly affected the lives of all Chinese people since January of 2019, when the virus started to spread out of control across China. However, this devastating outbreak received little attention before the global news media started to widely report the issue around January 18th, 2019. The reasons for this lack of attention are twofold. From an administrative perspective, the government in Beijing had censored information about the virus, a measure probably aimed at stabilizing people’s moods. At the same time, people were all too occupied with the upcoming Spring Festival to notice a “trivial disease”: they were looking forward to travelling home, reuniting with family members, and celebrating Spring Festival on January 25th. When the outbreak worsened and the news suddenly broke out a week before the festival, the public was overwhelmed. Many cancelled flights and train tickets; few dared to visit family members for fear of contracting the coronavirus. People wondered why this © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

issue developed so quickly, and many started to realize that the perceived suddenness of this outbreak indicated the danger of the epidemic: due to the government covering up news of an outbreak and paying little attention to the true severity of this outbreak at the beginning, the virus had already spread out across the country and, possibly, around the world. On December 31st 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission finally released the very first unknown-cause-pneumonia medical report.1 However, it was later discovered that “the first unknown-cause-pneumonia” case was diagnosed by Wuhan medical workers on December 8th, three weeks earlier.2 When the new type of pneumonia first struck the medical workers, few would have thought it to be the devastating novel coronavirus. Medical workers had little knowledge of the biological qualities of this new virus during the first few weeks after December 8th, let alone its high pathogenicity, so the government was not much alarmed and no one seriously took action. After the report on De-

cember 31st, several others came in the following weeks. From December 31st to January 16th, there were approximately 45 cases in total within Wuhan, and every day after January 18th, the confirmed cases in Wuhan soared (see Table 1). Around this time, other cities within the Hubei province, where Wuhan is located, also reported coronavirus cases, and the number of infected people within Wuhan increased dramatically every day.3 The table demonstrates that the coronavirus situation only worsened after around January 18th, three weeks after the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission released the first official medical report of the unknown-cause-pneumonia case. Given this information, the following questions may be considered: what were the Chinese government’s precautions during these three weeks? Did the Chinese government and health care sectors respond in time? On January 23rd, two days before the Chinese Lunar New Year, the Chinese government put Wuhan under quarantine, banning people from traveling

Credit: Wuhan Municipal Health Commission and Hubei Provincial Health and Health Committee.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

was effective in preventing the virus from further spreading out of Wuhan, especially if we consider the vast number of Wuhan residents who were desperate to escape this seriously infected city out of fear. Overall, the policy was effective in preventing the virus from further spreading after January 23rd, but it did not affect the viCredit: Getty Images rus already carried out of WuHankou Railway Station in Wuhan, China, be- han before that time. Accordfore the quarantine. The Chinese government ing to the raw data provided by said it would cancel planes and trains leaving Wuhan Municipal Health Care Wuhan, and suspend buses, subways and ferries Commission, the virus had alwithin it. ready started to spread within Wuhan around January 18th, outside the city in trains, airplanes, and but the Chinese government had not automobiles and encouraging people to prevented Wuhan people from travelstay at home.4 The timing of this largeling by then, causing the virus to spread scale quarantine might not have been across China before quarantine took efopportune. Wuhan is a transport hub fect. It seems that the Chinese governand many people working in Wuhan ment should have forced the city into had already traveled to their homequarantine earlier than January 18th. towns throughout China before January 23rd. Thus, many people had already left the city before this policy was implemented, likely carrying the virus At the same time, people were all too occuto other provinces across China. However, this quarantine was effective in limiting the further spread of the virus. Coronavirus, like many other airborne viruses, can be transmitted to people who are within about six feet of an infected person through tiny spit droplets produced by coughing or sneezing.5 Thus, if the virus carriers travelled to other cities, they might physically contact many people along the trip, further spreading the virus to other places. Therefore, forcing a quarantine of the origin of the coronavirus 24

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

pied with the upcoming Spring Festival to notice a “trivial disease”: they were looking forward to travelling home, reuniting with family members, and celebrating Spring Festival on January 25th. One reason for the delay might have been the scale of this quarantine. Blocking down a city of 11 million people was unprecedented, and once this © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

policy was enacted, it undermined Chinese Lunar New Year festivities both for those directly and indirectly affected by the quarantine. “It’s an unbelievable undertaking,” said Dr. Howard Markel, a professor of the history of medicine at the University of Michigan, adding that he had never heard of so many people being cordoned off as a disease-prevention measure.6 However, the situation was severe enough that the importance of public health took precedence over family reunions. We will probably never know what happened during the decision making, but two things are clear: this was not a light decision to make, and every government must seriously balance the pros and cons of large decisions, causing a possible delay in their implementation. After the implementation of this quarantine, a small number of people still escaped the city. Those who escaped Wuhan were prone to severe discrimination, as they were shunned by oth-

Those who escaped Wuhan were prone to severe discrimination, as they were shunned by other members of the society for fear that they carried virus. er members of the society for fear that they carried virus. If someone went to Wuhan during January, they were immediately forced under quarantine for two weeks, which is the longest possible incubation period of the coronavirus.7 If an individual had fever or cough, they were immediately transported to the hospital, and everyone who had close contact with them would also be forced under quarantine. This measure was effective to cut off the spread of the virus. However, it is conceivable that some people hid their Wuhan travel history for fear that they could not freely go out. Furthermore, since certain

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

social media criticized these “Wuhan refugees” as self-centered and irresponsible to the society, they suffered discrimination wherever they went, making them less likely to truthfully report their travel history. China Global Television Network formerly known as CCTV News, reported that three coronavirus carriers in Hebei province were confirmed to have concealed their Wuhan travel history.8 Some Wuhan refugees' tendency to lie made the public question the quarantine’s effectiveness. As more cases are confirmed in other countries such as Thailand, the U.S., Japan, and Singapore, public health leaders and groups are summoned

from across the world to act together to fight off the disease. The Chinese government's delayed action limited the effectiveness of this quarantine, but the delay was understandable when we consider the scale of this quarantine. Also, the scale of this quarantine inevitably rendered it leaky. If people who escaped out of Wuhan and who were shunned by other members of the society concealed their travel history, the virus would still spread in other parts of China. The gravity of this issue urged both the Chinese government and the world to seriously ponder over their medical policies and immediate responses.

References Wuhan Municipal Health Committee’s briefing on the current pneumonia epidemic situation in our city. Wuhan Municipal Health Committee. 31 December, 2020 <http://wjw.wh.gov.cn/front/web/ showDetail/2019123108989>. 2 Events of New Coronavirus Pneumonia in Wuhan (December 19 – January 20, 2020). Caixin.com. 20 January, 2020:1. 3 Hubei Provincial Health and Health Committee’s Report on Pneumonia of New Coronavirus Infection. Hubei Provincial Health Committee. 22-23 January, 2020 <http://wjw.hubei.gov.cn/fbjd/tzgg/202001/ t20200122_2014328.shtml>. 4 China is Imposing Tough Measures to Contain the Wuhan Coronavirus. The Economist. 26 January, 2020. <https://www.economist.com/china/2020/01/26/china-is-imposing-tough-measures-to-contain-the-wuhan-coronavirus>. 5 How COVID-19 Spreads. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. <https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html>. 6 Levenson, Michael. Scale of China’s Wuhan Shutdown Is Believed to Be Without Precedent. The New York Times. 22 January, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/world/asia/coronavirus-quarantines-history.html>. 7 Q&A on Coronaviruses (COVID-19). World Health Organization. 23 February, 2020. < https://www. who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-coronaviruses>. 8 Concealing the Fact That He Had Been to Wuhan, 40 Family Members Were Diagnosed. CCTV News Client. 11 February, 2020. <http://www.hi.chinanews.com.cn/hnnew/2020-02-11/514280.html>. 1

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Regulating Big Pharma: The Role of the FDA Donia Ballan is a first year at the University of Chicago majoring in Biology. She is interested in the medical field and hopes to pursue a MD after graduating. On campus, Donia is a member of Supplies for Dreams, in addition to writing for SISR and Scientia. In her free time, Donia enjoys watching history documentaries and scary movies, swimming at Ratner, and attempting to bake.

very time you buy an overthe-counter drug or are assigned a prescription by your doctor, you take for granted that these medications are approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In fact, a symbol on every bottle or package indicates that the FDA approves its consumption. To be FDA-approved, each drug must go through a series of clinical trials that ensures its safety and efficacy. However, the role of Big Pharma in this process creates an inherent conflict of interest between public health and private enterprise. The price to implement and conduct clinical trials to introduce a new drug into the market has been estimated to range between $300 million and $600 million.4 For years, the National Institute of Health (NIH) funded the majority of clinical trials. However, the NIHâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget has not risen enough to allow it to continue to fund most clinical trials in the past THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

private pharmaceutical companies now fund and conduct the majority of drug trials. The massive pharmaceutical companies that benefit from drug sales are often collectively referred to as “Big Pharma.” In 2012, pharmaceutical companies paid $39 billion for trials, while NIH paid $31 billion.10 Unfortunately, Big Pharma has been shown to negatively, and even dangerously, influence clinical trials in a number of ways.

To be FDA-approved, each drug must go through a series of clinical trials that ensures its safety and efficacy. However, the role of Big Pharma in this process creates an inherent conflict of interest between One way that Big Pharma influences the public health and private results of clinical trials is through trial enterprise. design. Composed of private businesses, two decades. Unadjusted for inflation, the NIH’s budget in 2015 ($30 billion) is nominally the same as it was in 2005 ($29 billion). Once inflation is taken into account, the NIH received a budget cut of about 20%. To fill this funding gap,

Big Pharma’s primary motivation is to obtain a profit, not to ensure the safety and efficiency of a drug. The only way a drug company can make a profit is by having its drug in the market. To ensure this, it is common for drug companies to

Credit: Robert Scottbell

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

[P]rivate pharmaceutical companies now fund and conduct the majority of drug trials. hire private physicians or contract research organizations to run trials for them. As they are on the drug company’s payroll, the people running the trial have little reason to be impartial. A 2012 study published in PLoS Medicine analyzed the reasons principal investigators at 25 private-sector research organizations in the U.S. became contract researchers. Money was the primary reason cited and some said they view themselves more as businesspeople than as researchers. This financial motivation on the part of the researchers undermines the trustworthiness of the system. In fact, researchers sponsored by Big Pharma are 3.6 times more likely to publish favorable outcomes for drug trials than those sponsored by the NIH.10 Another large issue with Big Pharma’s role in the clinical trial industry is that the drug companies can selectively choose which studies to report. For example, a positive article about the arthritis drug Vioxx was published in the New England Journal of Medicine by two company researchers. It took five years to discover that the authors omitted incidents of heart complications and other severe side effects . While the FDA eventually had the drug removed from the market, it had already caused over © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

27,000 heart attacks and deaths.10 This is not a one-time incident. Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, funded a study on the drug Celebrex. They submitted their data to JAMA, which published positive findings that Celebrex, “when used for 6 months … is associated with a lower incidence” of GI complications. However, Pfizer did not report the latter six months of the study, during which patients experienced serious GI complications, negating the original conclusion. Another major issue is that the FDA does not enforce transparency in journals about research misconduct. Charles Seife, professor at the Arthur L. Carter Institute of Journalism at New York University, conducted a study analyzing publicly available documents describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites. In the study, Seife found 57 published clinical trials where the FDA inspection found significant evidence of wrongdoing. Of these 57, many had multiple violations, including inadequate or inaccurate record keeping in 61% of the trials, falsification or submission of false information in 39% of

[R]esearchers sponsored by Big Pharma are 3.6 times more likely to publish favorable outcomes for drug trials than those sponsored by the NIH.10 the trials, and a failure to protect the safety of patients in 53% of the trials.8 These 57 trials found their way into 78 publications. Only 3 of these 78 publications mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

By not formally requiring the disclosure of any adverse findings noted during FDA inspections, doctors and patients have no ability to ensure that the drugs are safe, despite being approved for treatment. One example of how this can affect people is the drug Xarelto, a blood thinner still on the market today. According to the Xarelto website, more than 40 million people worldwide have been prescribed the medication. However, it is unlikely that the millions of people using it know that out of 16 FDA inspections on clinical trials concerning Xarelto, eight showed signs of wrongdoing.8 These wrongdoings included extremely serious offenses such as falsification of data, the discarding of medical records, and unauthorized unblinding, in which researchers knew which patients got the drug and which received the placebo. While the entire study was determined to be unreliable by the FDA, it was published with no mention of any of these problems.

Big Pharma’s role in funding clinical trials affects the types of drugs that are being produced. Many of the drugs undergoing clinical trials today are meant to treat chronic viral infections. There are relatively few new antibiotics being manufactured to treat short-term bacterial infections, since treatments for life-long illnesses yield much greater profit than those for shorter infections. Therefore,

By not formally requiring the disclosure of any adverse findings noted during FDA inspections, doctors and patients have no ability to ensure that the drugs are safe. Big Pharma’s role in clinical trials hinders the development of drugs that could help more people simply for the sake of profit.

Big Pharma’s influence on clinical trials has monumental consequences. The reason they are able to operate in this manner is the lack of strict regulations on clinical trials by the FDA. The need for transparency is evident in cases such as Xarelto and Vioxx. The FDA should devise stricter guidelines for clinical researchers and ensure that all misconduct is properly reported. This would ensure that doctors, patients, or anyone else who would like to know about the safety and efficacy of a medication are able to find out and would foster Big Pharma controlling the FDA. Credit: Salem News trust in the drugs that are

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Big Pharma’s role in clinical trials hinders the development of drugs that could help more people simply for the sake of profit. on the market. While many of these issues could be fixed by stricter regulations on Big Pharma, it does not seem that significant actions will be taken in the near future. One of

the reasons that may explain the relaxed rules on Big Pharma is their ability to lobby the government. From 1998 to 2014, Big Pharma spent nearly $3 billion on lobbying, drowning out the voices of consumers and interest groups that oppose them.9 Therefore, it is necessary for those informed about the issue to raise awareness about it. With enough public pressure on officials, it would be possible to implement laws designed to protect public interest from corporate greed. If the FDA does not enforce strong regulations on clinical trials, Big Pharma will continue to push unsafe drugs onto the market.

References “The Effect of Conflict of Interest on Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice Guidelines: Can We Trust the Evidence in Evidence-Based Medicine?” The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, vol. 18, no. 5, Jan. 2005, pp. 414–418., doi:10.3122/jabfm.18.5.414. 1

CBS News. “Arthritis Drug Vioxx Recalled.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 1 Oct. 2004, www.cbsnews. com/news/arthritis-drug-vioxx-recalled-30-09-2004/. 2

Daughter, DES. “Docs and Big Pharma.” Flickr, Yahoo!, 28 Nov. 2015, www.flickr.com/photos/diethylstilbestrol/22740141873. 3

English, Rebecca A, and Yeonwoo Lebovitz. “Transforming Clinical Research in the United States.” 2010, doi:10.17226/12900. 4

Lexchin, J. “Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship and Research Outcome and Quality: Systematic Review.” Bmj, vol. 326, no. 7400, 2003, pp. 1167–1170., doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167. 5

Hilzenrath, David S., and David Hilzenrath. “Drug Problems: Did Bad Blood Tests Turn a Clinical Trial into a Mistrial?” Project On Government Oversight, www.pogo.org/analysis/2016/03/drug-problems-didbad-blood-tests-turn-clinical-trial-into-mistrial/. 6

New York University. “Problem FDA Inspection Findings in Trials Seldom Reflected in Medical Literature, Journalism Study Finds.” NYU, 9 Feb. 2015, www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2015/ february/problem-fda-inspection-findings-in-trials-seldom-reflected-in-medical-literature-journalism-study-finds.html. 7

Seife, Charles. “Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration.” JAMA Internal Medicine, vol. 175, no. 4, Jan. 2015, p. 567., doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7774. 8

Sekerka, Leslie E., and Lauren Benishek. “Thick as Thieves? Big Pharma Wields Its Power with the Help of Government Regulation: Emory University School of Law: Atlanta, GA.” Emory University School of Law, law.emory.edu/ecgar/content/volume-5/issue-2/essays/thieves-pharma-power-help-government-regulation.html. 9

Whoriskey, Peter. “As Drug Industry's Influence over Research Grows, so Does the Potential for Bias.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 Nov. 2012, www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/asdrug-industrys-influence-over-research-grows-so-does-the-potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d5961264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html?utm_term=.8c554c8d6336. 10

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The Future of Death O

n November 1st, 2014, Brittany Maynard ended her life through physician-assisted suicide.1 jDiagnosed with glioblastoma multiforme, a malignant tumor affecting the brain and spine, she was given at most six months to live.

Megan Lee

is a second year double-majoring in biology and political science.

She moved from California to Oregon, one of five states that legalized “death with dignity.” Maynard had suffered from increasingly frequent and long seizures, severe head and neck pain, and stroke-like symptoms. Afraid that she would suffer unremitting pain and cognitive loss, she chose to abbreviate her own life by taking a lethal dose of secobarbital. Maynard wrote: “I think in the beginning my family members wanted a miracle; they wanted a cure for my cancer. When we all sat down and looked at the facts, there isn’t a single person that loves me that wishes me more pain and more suffering.”2 In the United States, Oregon was the first state

[A] 2013 Gallup poll showed that 70% of Americans were in favor of allowing doctors to the end patient’s lives “by some painless means.” 32

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Credit: ABC News

There are six states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Vermont and Washington—that currently have assisted suicide laws in effect, along with the District of Columbia. Montana has a court ruling that makes assisted suicide legal in the state, and two states—New Jersey, and now Maine—have approved such laws this year.

Physician-assisted suicide is an ethical dilemma that centers on the decision of whether to terminate a human life to ease physical and emotional agony. to allow doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs to terminally ill patients of a sound mind.3 Since the Death with Dignity Act was passed in 1997, 1,152 patients have chosen to receive aid-in-dying medication, of which 752 have taken the medication. Despite outcries from individuals who believe that facilitating suicide in any context devalues human life, a 2013 Gallup poll showed that 70% of Americans were in favor of allowing doctors to the end patient’s © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

lives “by some painless means.” However, only 51% only supported physician-assisted death when it was described as doctors helping patients “commit suicide”.4 Physician-assisted suicide is an ethical dilemma that centers on the decision of whether to terminate a human life to ease physical and emotional agony. Currently, those who favor physician-assisted death view the process as a peaceful and painless death, while those who oppose it believe any form of suicide ultimately results in irreparable legal and ethical ramifications.

Pro Physician-Assisted Suicide: The Easing of Pain Medical professionals increasingly seek to give patients a “good death:” not necessarily one that is completely free of suffering, but a THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

[A] “good death:” not necessarily one that is completely free of suffering, but a dying process that is as dignified as possible, in which the dying person is attendant to pain and symptom management and able to make decisions clearly.5

to commit physician-assisted suicide. It raises questions over the rationale behind Oregon's legalization of this practice but again demonstrates the issue’s complexity.

Anti Physician-Assisted Suicide: A Slippery Slope The slippery slope argument is often raised in opposition to the legalization of physician-assisted death. It claims that allowing this kind of action will cause society to be inexorably led “down the slippery slope,” enabling other actions that are morally wrong. The legalization of physician-assisted suicide in the Netherlands is an example of where the slippery slope rationale can lead us.5 In the 1980s, the Dutch government stopped prosecuting physicians who committed voluntary euthanasia on their patients. After 20 years, euthanasia was made legal in 2001. Soon, in 2004, it was decided that

dying process that is as dignified as possible, in which the dying person is attendant to pain and symptom management and able to make decisions clearly.5 Proponents of assisted suicide view death as the ultimate analgesic. The Oregon law was enacted on the basis of intolerable pain—no one should be forced to suffer from pain that is uncontrollable and unendurable. Besides fear over uncontrollable pain, people in Oregon choose physician-assisted suicide for many other reasons. According to the state's “Death with Dignity Act Annual Report” in 2014, “losing autonomy” was at the top of the list. Concern about pain was not even the second or third reason. Surpris- Lethal medication used in physician-assisted death. Credit: bcgavel.com ingly, “inadequate pain control or concern about it” was children also could be euthanized, and it ranked the sixth out of seven, above only is not stopping there. “financial concerns”.5 The report shows The slippery slope arguments follows that there are many other important the assumption that the legalized uses concerns affecting a patient’s decision of euthanasia in the Netherlands is 34

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

morally wrong. However, many defenders of a legal right to die would deny the legitimacy of those claims. Opposers of physician-assisted death also argue that physicians violate the Hippocratic Oath when administering a life-ending drug. The Hippocratic Oath states that a physician’s obligation is primum non nocere, “first, do no harm.” Some argue that physician-assisted suicide directly contradicts that oath because killing a patient—even with their consent—constitutes as harm. Supporters of physician-assisted suicide, however, interpret the Hippocratic Oath according to an individual patient’s need, rather than as a strict edict.

An Unresolved Debate Calls to legalize physician-assisted suicide have increased and public interest in the subject has grown in recent years despite ethical arguments. Some have advocated strongly, on the basis of autonomy, that

[C]linicians struggle with finding a balance between the terminally ill patients’ autonomy and the physician's commitment to do no harm. physician-assisted suicide should be a legal option to end of one’s life. Others have strictly opposed physician-assisted suicide as it is morally wrong, contradicting religious and secular traditions against taking human life. The prescription of lethal medication still remains highly controversial, as clinicians struggle with finding a balance between the terminally ill patients’ autonomy and the physician's commitment to do no harm. Physicians must decide where they stand on the issue, and those in states where assisted suicide is legal must decide how to care for patients who may want to exercise the option.

References Shoichet, Catherine. “Brittany Maynard, Advocate for 'Death with Dignity,' Dies.” CNN. 3 November 2014, https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/02/health/oregon-brittany-maynard/index.html. Accessed 5 March 2020. 1

Dubois, Steven. “Terminally Ill Brittany Maynard Takes Her Own Life at Age 29.” KOMO News. 3 November, 2014. https://komonews.com/news/local/terminally-ill-brittany-maynard-takes-her-ownlife-at-age-29. Accessed 5 March 2020. 2

Cook, Lindsey. “Here's Who Uses Oregon's Death With Dignity Act.” US News. 16 October, 2016. https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/10/16/heres-who-uses-oregons-death-withdignity-act. Accessed 5 March 2020. 3

Saad, Lydia. “U.S. Support for Euthanasia Hinges on How It's Described.” Gallup. 29 May, 2013. https://news.gallup.com/poll/162815/support-euthanasia-hinges-described.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2020. 4

Sulmasy, Daniel. “Non-Faith-Based Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia.” NCBI. August 2016. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102187/. Accessed 5 March 2020. 5

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Can Trees Fight Crime? T Serdar Celikus

is a first-year at the University of Chicago and has no idea about what he is majoring in. He is interested in how the act of knowing changes -for the better or worse- people and the environments, and the role of methods implemented in the acquisition of knowledge, like science, philosophy, and SparksNotes.

he sun is shining in the sky, and you feel a mild breeze sweeping over your body. The temperature is just perfect. You don’t sweat, nor are you cold. “This is where I ought to be,” you say to yourself. Hearing children’s laughter coming from a distance, you smile and think, “I could stay here forever.” For a moment, you are distracted by the sight of your loved ones passing by. Through an exchange of nodding gestures you tell each other, “All is well.” On top of the ladder, you are picking apples from a tree, one sweet and shiny red apple after another. Bizarre. Each fits in your hand perfectly. After many successive everything-in-its-right-place moments, you start to wonder. You start to wonder if it is all designed: apples were put on the tree, you were made to pick them, children made to laugh, the ladder! Oh gosh, the ladder! Look down, there is no ladder! You fall, waiting for the crash, and you wake up to a new day.

Cognitive neuropsychologist Antii Revonsuo has proposed the new paradigm of “World-simulation,” which suggests that dreams simulate the world rather than experiences.3 36

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Was it all designed? Researchers have long disputed the function of dreams: while the “Threat Simulation Theory” poses dreams as an evolutionary defense mechanism against threatening events that might take place in waking life, the “Social Simulation Theory” considers dreams rehearsals for waking social perceptions and interactions. The idea of dreams as simulation-generators underlies many theories, but the question of what dreams simulate remains up for debate. Cognitive neuropsychologist Antii Revonsuo has proposed the new paradigm of “World-simulation,” which suggests that dreams simulate the world rather than experiences.3 Our brains do not write a story for us and make us live through it, rather they design the world in which we have the experience, and we are set free in that world to have the experience. When we need an experience, whether to prepare for threats or social life, our brains create a world in which we are expected to have that experience. Those shiny apples on the tree were, in fact, designed, but your experience was born out of it. The method of our brains may be adapted when we are after creating experiences, but it can also help us when we want to prevent experiences.

12:30? The alarm clock must have been broken. Now you are late, unusually late, and the rest of the day will be torturous. Flash forward, you come back home late, feeling mad at the deviant alarm clock. Preventing this experience by designing a world in which this experience does not take place seems easy: fix the clock. But what if the clock keeps getting broken, as it is the case with the clocks inside of our heads? This is called crime. So far, we haven't been able to prevent crime effectively: “Crime permeates our social fabric. It always has because we are all deviant and deviance is an underpinning of criminality. Whether you believe people are born criminals or socialized to become so, a constant among the tremor of our tumultuous society exists the fear of victimization by the criminal element. Even more disturbing exists the idea that any one of us—at any time—can cross the line and become ‘criminal.’1 Meanwhile, the justice system locks criminals away with the view that you are either a criminal or not. Discentive power of incarceration is great; nobody

You wake up, “what a dream!” you say to yourself and check the clock. You still have half an hour, good. After a slowpaced breakfast, you grab your phone. © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Our brains do not write a story for us and make us live through it, rather they design the world in which we have the experience, and we are set free in that world to have the experience. wants to go to jail, but the fundamental inconsistency with incarceration as a preventive measure is revealed once someone “crosses the line” in a split-second decision. Robert Sapolsky, a neurobiologist working on human behavior, argues that a “single split-second decision can be years in the making,” as shown by “the biological proof that our decisions and actions are influenced by a combination of our DNA, brain, hormones, nervous system, how we grew up, and what happened while we were still growing in our mother's uterus”.4 The collection of factors that cause crime will not simply cease to exist during a criminal’s sentence. Similarly, we cannot prevent crime with incarceration alone.

better understanding and quantification of the relationships between the brain and the environment, [ENL] hopes that [their] research will influence the designing of physical environments in ways that will optimize human mental health, physical health, and overall well-being.” One study inspects the relationship between crime and greenspaces on the heels of previous studies that proved a negative association between neighborhood green spaces and criminal activity. Using cell phone mobility data, Kathryn E. Schertz outlines two different mechanisms that together account for this relationship. On the psychological level, urban greenspaces contribute to individuals’ ability to pay attention to their surroundings and exhibit self-control. In addition to lowering crime rates, this results in better school and work performance for residents. Secondly, on the sociological level, urban greenspaces regulate crime by increasing street activity, which in turn results in effective guardianship and increased collaboration by local residents. The positive outcome is twofold again: lower crime rates and greater social capital for the area.2

Preventing crime with incarceration is as effective as if you stormed into your room, grabbed your alarm clock, and with the most judgemental and punitive voice of yours, explained how its actions ruined your day. To teach it a lesson, you put it in a drawer for a week. When its sentence is over you take the clock out and set the alarm, confident that the clock will work tomorrow morning. If our brains shape our experiences in our dreams by designing the world around us accordingly, why not do the same in waking life?

[A] “single split-second decision can be years in the making,” as shown by “the biological proof that our decisions and actions are influenced by a combination of our DNA, brain, hormones, nervous system, how we grew up, and what happened while we were Research from The University of Chicago Environmental Neuroscience Lab (ENL) still growing in our moth4 helps us better understand how: “With a er's uterus”. 38

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Dream science teaches us how to create experiences. Our brains create experiences by simulating the right environments. This should guide us in waking life while trying to prevent crime because incarceration only alleviates the symptoms. In order to prevent crime, we need the appropriate

environments. Neuroscience answers the question of what kind of environments are appropriate: green. Remember your dream and ask yourself the question, “Can anyone perpetuate a crime in a scene like your dream?”

References Kinnaird, Brian A. The Criminal Justice System is Broken and Can't Be Fixed. Psychology Today. 2018

Schertz, Kathryn E. & Saxon, James & Cardenas-Iniguez, Carlos & Bettencourt, Luis M.A. & G. Berman, Marc. Neighborhood street activity and greenspace usage uniquely contribute to predicting crime. Prepublication. 2

Revonsuo, Antti & Tuominen, Jarno. The Simulation Theories of Dreaming: How to Make Theoretical Progress in Dream Science. Open MIND. 1–8. 10.15502/9783958570894. 20 January 2015. 3

Conick, Hal, et al. “Is There a Biological Case for Criminal Justice Reform?” Quillette, 28 Oct. 2017, quillette.com/2017/10/20/biological-case-criminal-justice-reform/. 4

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The Prioritization of Convenience and Cost-Efficiency over Inmate Wellbeing in U.S. Prisons Alena Spreitzer

is a first year student at the University of Chicago. She intends to major in Biology with a specialization in ecology and evolution. She is interested in modern agriculture, field research in phenology, and writing fiction and nonfiction. Alena can most frequently be found reading, losing her voice, or forcing friends to watch scary eel videos with her on her dorm room floor.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

hen there is a killer at large, society’s instinct is to isolate them as quickly as possible. Those convicted of murder often face lifetime prison sentences—if not execution via the death penalty. Because lifetime prison sentences are so costly, academics like Rebecca Roache, a philosophy lecturer at the Royal Holloway University of London, have recently considered the ethical implications of a drug—though not yet developed or implemented—that could resolve this burden. Theoretically, this drug would make prisoners hallucinate their prison sentence within a short period of time by speeding up the processing rate of their brains.10 If a prisoner could experience the punishment of their sentence within only a few hours, it would reduce the financial strain of caring for the prison population. In addition, this drug would make it possible for prisoners to experi© 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

Some of the cost-saving practices in prisons, such as hiring unqualified medical professionals, result in great harm (mental and physical) to prisoners. It seems that the United States prioritizes favorable economics and convenience over prisoners’ wellbeing. ence multiple life sentences, meaning the lengths of prison sentences would have no upper bound and could truly scale with the severity of the crime. Currently, this concept of prison reform exists solely in the realm of ethics and has not yet entered political discussion, but proposals of technologies like this one are alarming visions of what might be possible in the future.

per prisoner,5 this change would have a sizable economic impact. Nevertheless, basing decisions regarding the treatment of prisoners on economic advantages does not frequently result in conditions that are best for the prisoners. Some of the cost-saving practices in prisons, such as hiring unqualified medical professionals, result in great harm (mental and physical) to prisoners. It seems that the United States prioritizes favorable economics and convenience over prisoners’ wellbeing. In this sort of climate, it is no wonder methods of punishment like this theoretical hallucinogenic drug are gathering interest. Instead of contemplating a form of punishment that would make the experience of prison even more distressing, our efforts are better spent examining the current conditions in prisons and how we can improve them. The proposed hallucinogenic drug would make the mind into a prison in a manner reminiscent of the current practice of solitary confinement. A highly debated topic today, solitary confinement practices do more damage than help for the rehabilitation of prisoners. Interviews of

Hallucinogenic drugs—giving prisoners a psychologically distressing experience and releasing them with no rehabilitation— raise many moral questions. However, if a prisoner could live out their full sentence in only a few days or hours, the costs associated with prisoner care plummet. Considering the U.S. currently spends an estimated $30,000 Crowded prison conditions. Credit: LA Times © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

prisoners who have experienced solitary confinement have found that around one third of solitary inmates were “‘actively psychotic and/or acutely suicidal,’” as “solitary can cause a specific psychiatric syndrome, characterized by hallucinations; panic attacks; overt paranoia; diminished impulse control; hypersensitivity to external stimuli; and difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory”.1 One can easily imagine why solitary confinement is so psychologically damaging—a prisoner receives minimal external stimuli and only experiences physical touch when

ly, even as a tool to manipulate inmates for refusing to cooperate. The continued and excessive use of a knowingly harmful practice in U.S. prisons is alarming. Even the Supreme Court acknowledged the dangers of solitary confinement in their 1890 ruling on Medley, Petitioner. The Supreme Court opinion includes a firsthand description of solitary confinement: “A considerable number of the prisoners fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-fatuous condition, from which it was next to impossible to arouse them, and others became violently insane; others, still, committed suicide”.2 The largest legal decision-making body in the country acknowledged the harm done by solitary confinement as early as 1890, yet American prisons still practice it widely because it is easy to implement.

Inmate healthcare also leaves much to be desired. In prisons, there are “high "Segregation" (solitary confinement) cell in Waupun Correctional Facility levels of mental in Wisconsin, USA. Credit: Wisconsin Department of Corrections disorders, chronic disease and drug restrained by guards. It follows that “iso- use, above those of their populations of lated inmates are seven times more likely origin”.4 For example, in European prisons, to hurt or kill themselves than inmates the rates of tuberculosis “can be up to 81 at large”.8 times higher in prisons than among the Solitary confinement is a convenient pun- general population”.3 Because of rampant ishment, and U.S. prisons use it extensively. health issues within the prison population, While “[s]olitary confinement used to a higher standard of healthcare—possibly be “largely employed as a short-term even of a higher standard than that for punishment, it’s now regularly used as a the public—is necessary to effectively way of disciplining prisoners indefinitely” maintain a healthy prison population. during ongoing investigations.8 American However, the healthcare provided in prisprisons use solitary confinement frequent- ons is notoriously insufficient in caring 42

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The U.S. prison system’s use of knowingly harmful and nonproductive punishment—as well as lack of sufficient inmate healthcare—only exacerbates the difficulties released inmates experience as they transition back into society. for the inmates properly and humanely. Because “states are responsible for the health care costs of inmates in state prisons”,7 states spend as little money as possible on prison healthcare. This frugality manifests in prisons staffing underqualified doctors and not taking inmate pain seriously. There are countless accounts of prisoners with serious, life-threatening illnesses being denied care altogether or prescribed pain medication and sent away without proper medical attention. In addition, prisoners usually have to wait to see a qualified doctor because of continued dismissals or delays in the process. For example, in April of 2017 in Perrysville, AZ, a woman with a family history of breast cancer requested a mammogram, but was denied the scan because she was too young and presented no symptoms. A month later, she reported a tumor and requested a mammogram, which she received the following month. After a series of surgical and oncological consultations, doctors diagnosed her with advanced breast cancer.6 Had prison workers taken her request for a mammogram seriously and sent her straight to oncology professionals, this woman could have begun treatment before the cancer reached an advanced stage. How© 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

ever, because prisons practice a policy of cutting costs when it comes to healthcare, she was denied care that could mean the difference between life and death. Prison healthcare varies greatly among states. Some states develop their own prison healthcare systems and subcontract with nearby universities or private healthcare facilities, while others hire private contractors.6 With this variability, it is difficult to initiate change in all prison healthcare systems. In addition, because each prison is unique, it is difficult to accurately gauge the severity of the prison healthcare crisis across the country. The National Commission on Correctional Health Care “issued an extensive report in 2002 titled The Health Status of Soon-ToBe-Released Inmates; although it included recommendations of specific strategies to improve inmates' health, no congressional action has ensued”.11 Given that the country is in debt and each state has its own financial struggles, prison healthcare reform remains on the back burner, but this is not an excuse for the continued mistreatment of prisoners, especially because the Supreme Court opinion is that “the government has an obligation to provide medical care in certain limited circumstances, such as for prisoners”.9

Because of rampant health issues within the prison population, a higher standard of healthcare—possibly even of a higher standard than that for the public—is necessary to effectively maintain a healthy prison population. THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Minimizing inmate illness—both mental and physical—is important when it comes to their release so as not to release them in worse health than when they were incarcerated. The U.S. prison system’s use of knowingly harmful and nonproductive punishment—as well as lack of sufficient inmate healthcare—only exacerbates the difficulties released inmates experience as they transition back into society. Solitary confinement provenly results in harm to inmates, but putting a prisoner in solitary confinement is often the most convenient mode of punishment. Healthcare is an-

other domain where prisons fall short. Inmates have difficulty receiving timely and proper care, if this care is available at all. The prospect of a hallucinogenic drug, which would provide a cheap alternative to current prison punishments, should be alarming. The prison system clearly prioritizes convenience and cost-efficiency over the moral treatment of prisoners. The prison system should not be hindered by private economic interests and priorities of convenience—it must uphold morality and humanity, and immoral alternatives like the hallucinogenic drug should not be explored just because they are economically convenient.

References Breslow, Jason M. “What Does Solitary Confinement Do To Your Mind?” Frontline, 22 April 2014, https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/. Accessed 5 March 2019. 1

Grassian, Stuart. “Psychiatric Effects of Solitary Confinement.” Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, January 2006, https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1362&context=law_journal_law_policy. Accessed 5 March 2019. 2

“Health.” Penal Reform International, https://www.penalreform.org/issues/prison-conditions/key-facts/ health/. Accessed 5 March 2019. 3

Hernandez et al. “The need to improve healthcare in prisons.” Revista de Saude Publica, https://www. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4206137/. Accessed 5 March 2019. 4

“History.” Center for Prison Reform.” https://centerforprisonreform.org/history/. Accessed 2 March 2019.

Ness, Erik. “Just Treatment: Exploring Cancer Care for Prisoners.” Cancer Updates, Research Research & Education, 2 August 2018, https://www.curetoday.com/publications/cure/2018/summer-2018/just-treatment-exploring-cancer-care-for-prisoners. Accessed 5 March 2019. 6

Scotti, Samantha. “Health Care In and Out of Prisons.” National Conference of State Legislators, https:// www.ncsl.org/bookstore/state-legislatures-magazine/health-care-in-and-out-of-prisons.aspx. Accessed 5 March 2019. 7

Stromberg, Joseph. “The Science of Solitary Confinement.” Smithsonian Magazine, 19 February 2014, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-solitary-confinement-180949793/. Accessed 5 March 2019. 8

Swendiman, Kathleen. “Health Care: Constitutional Rights and Legislative Powers.” Congressional Research Service, https://www.ncsl.org/documents/health/LegPowers.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2019. 9

Williams, Rhiannon. “Prisoners ‘could serve 1,000 year sentence in eight hours.’” The Telegraph, 14 March 2014, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10697529/Prisoners-could-serve-1000-yearsentence-in-eight-hours.html. Accessed 5 March 2019. 10

Wilper et al. “The Health and Health Care of US Prisoners: Results of a Nationwide Survey.” American Journal of Public Health, April 2009, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661478/. Accessed 5 March 2019. 11

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The Race,,,, to Quantum Supremacy Rohan Kumar

is a first-year intending to major in Physics and Mathematics. He is excited by research into quantum technology and is always looking for opportunities to get involved in the field. Outside the classroom, Rohan enjoys playing his alto saxophone, making dumb jokes, and engaging in oddly specific philosophical debate.

he year was 2013, and Edward Snowden had just released the first set of leaked documents from his time as an employee at the National Security Agency. Among these documents was information pertaining to a $79.7 million investment in Owning the Net (OTN), a project to develop a quantum computer capable of reading and decrypting important communications across the Internet. This information leak was one of the catalysts of public interest in quantum technology. Today, global superpowers are investing billions of dollars into quantum computing and security. But what is a quantum computer, and why is it best suited to the task of Owning the Net? To answer this, we must briefly take a look at some of the funda- Edward Snowden. THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

absence of a pulse as a '0'. Quantum computers, on the other hand, use types of information called qubits to perform computations. Unlike bits, qubits can take on a continuous range of values between 1 and 0. This means that instead of the two possible values that each bit can store, a qubit can theoretically represent an infinite number of values. It is this property of qubits that distinguishes the function of quantum computers from classical computers. Quantum computers are unique due An image of Sycamore, Google's 54-qubit quantum proces- to their efficiency sor. It is the first processor to ever achieve quantum suprem- in solving specific acy. problems that are of critical interest mental ideas behind quantum computing. to governments and large corporations. For example, many Quantum computers are intrinsically dif- Internet communications today are seferent from the computers people use every cured by RSA encryption, a method of day and even the supercomputers used scrambling data such that only the reby technology companies such as Google ceiver can unscramble it. While classical and Facebook. All of those computers can be classified under one category: classical computers. What defines a classical Quantum computers are computer is that it performs operations unique due to their effiusing bits, which are states that can be ciency in solving specific represented by either a 1 or a 0. This can problems that are of critbe represented in a number of ways: for example, a classical computer might ical interest to governuse the existence of an electrical pulse ments and large corpoat a particular moment as a '1' and the rations. Credit: Live Science

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

computers would take billions of years to break into RSA encrypted data, quantum computers could hypothetically decrypt the data in about two minutes using a process called Shor's Algorithm. This is the premise of the OTN project; in order to monitor communications of interest to the government, the National Security Agency funded a project to build a quantum computer capable of running Shor's Algorithm, allowing them to decrypt and record private Internet communications at will. On the other hand, quantum computers would also be able to implement special kinds of 'quantum encryption' that would be resistant to other quantum computers’ RSA-breaking abilities. However, the potential applications of quantum computers are not limited to security. A number of other tasks, such as the modelling of large systems and improving artificial intelligence, could be performed with significantly greater efficiency using quantum computers.

This could accelerate development in a wide range of scientific and technological endeavours, such as medicine, chemical engineering, environmental science, and data science. All of these properties make quantum technology an area of great interest to governments, companies, and researchers. Crucially, the above properties mean that a country with a quantum computer running Shor’s algorithm would be capable of surveilling communications in other countries with ease, as long as the other countries in question have not implemented quantum encryption algorithms. Due to the potentially devastating security compromises that could result from such an occurrence, governments around the world in the USA, China, Russia, and India have each invested billions of dollars into quantum computing research. In December 2018, President Donald Trump signed the National Quantum

Credit: USTC

Professor Jian-Wei Pan of the University of Science and Technology of China working on an optical quantum computer.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

A number of other tasks, such as the modelling of large systems and improving artificial intelligence, could be performed with significantly greater efficiency using quantum computers Initiative Act, a $1.2 billion program to advance quantum computing across the country. On the other side of the world, President Xi Jinping has also dedicated large sums of money to research in the field. While China's total spending on quantum technology is unknown, the $10 billion National Laboratory for Quantum Information Sciences in Hefei is expected to be completed by 2020. Behind these two frontrunners, India committed over $1 billion into the field in February 2020, putting it in the top tier of countries invested in quantum computing. While the funding of quantum technology has been on the rise, only two institutions have ever reached 'quantum supremacy', a term used to describe a demonstration of a real quantum computer's ability to outperform a classical computer in performing a given task. In October 2019, Google (in collaboration with NASA) first achieved quantum supremacy using its 54-qubit quantum computer “Sycamore” by executing a truly random number generation algorithm in 200 seconds, more than a billion times faster than a classical computer would have taken. Briefly, this seemed to place the United States as the global leader in the race towards quantum computing. However, just days later, researchers at the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) 48

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

achieved quantum supremacy with their own optical quantum computer. On the quantum communications front as well, China poses significant competition to the US. In January 2020, USTC announced that it had engineered an 80 kilogram 'ground station' capable of communicating with quantum satellites in orbit around the Earth. This ground station would use photon qubits to perform long-range quantum communication with satellites carrying the appropriate quantum technology in space. Given that the ground station can't move during the communication and that its portability is limited, the technology is far from perfect. However, once fully developed, anyone with a ground station would theoretically be able to perform remote and perfectly secure quantum communication across the world. In 2019, the battle between the USA and China over quantum technology became underhanded. A report by private intelligence firm Strider revealed that the Chinese government was mak-

[A]nyone with a ground station would theoretically be able to perform remote and perfectly secure quantum communication across the world. ing systematic efforts to steal and exploit the USA’s federally funded research in quantum technology. In order to develop their quantum technology workforce, China sent scientists to conduct research in leading quantum technology labs across the USA for training on the condition that they would return to China on demand. © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

Years later, the Chinese government would request the scientists to return home and work on their local quantum technology projects, allowing them to capitalise on the knowledge and expertise the scientists gained from their research experience in the USA. At the centre of this operation was the USTC in China, the same university that achieved quantum supremacy days after Google pioneered the achievement. From this event, it is clear that the stakes of the race towards practical quantum computers are only escalating. While the race towards quantum security may seem ominous, most experts agree that internet-breaking quantum computation is still decades away. Developments in the other applications of

quantum technology, such as more efficient simulation and optimization, are expected much sooner. Despite this, the high global stakes of the applications of quantum technology will likely cause the race to continue to escalate. Until then, we can only speculate what form the competition surrounding quantum technology will take. Will we see a conflict similar to the Cold War, where two superpowers make large political moves to outcompete each other as tensions continue to rise? Will other countries get involved, forming competing coalitions? Will all parties decide to form an international treaty to mitigate the potentially disastrous effects of quantum technology in the wrong hands? Is a quantum cold war on the horizon? Only time will tell.

References Thomson, Iain. Snowden Docs: NSA Building Encryption-Cracking Quantum Computer. San Francisco: The Register, 2014. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/snowden_docs_show_nsa_ building_encryptioncracking_quantum_system/ 2 Srivastava, Smriti. Top 10 Countries Leading in Quantum Computing Technology. 2019. https://www. analyticsinsight.net/top-10-countries-leading-quantum-computing-technology/ 3 Kuo, Mercy. Quantum Cryptography in the U.S.-China Tech Race. The Diplomat, 2019. https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/quantum-cryptography-in-the-us-china-tech-race/ 4 Giles, Martin. President Trump has signed a $1.2 billion law to boost US quantum tech. MIT Technology Review, 2018. https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612679/president-trump-has-signed-a-12-billonlaw-to-boost-us-quantum-tech/ 5 Is China winning race with the US to develop quantum computers? South China Morning Post, 2020. https://www.scmp.com/news/china/economy/article/2140860/china-winning-race-us-develop-quantum-computers 6 Mehta, Ivan. India finally commits to quantum computing, promises $1.12B investment. TNW, 2020. https://thenextweb.com/in/2020/02/01/india-finally-commits-to-quantum-computing-promises-1-12b-investment/ 7 Arute, Frank, et. al. Quantum supremacy using a programmable superconducting processor. Nature, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1666-5 8 Chen, Stephen. Chinese scientists develop portable quantum satellite communication device. South China Morning Post, 2020. https://ph.news.yahoo.com/chinese-scientists-develop-portable-quantum-144357951.html 9 Zialcita, Paolo. Google Claims To Achieve Quantum Supremacyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;IBM Pushes Back. NPR, 2019. https:// www.npr.org/2019/10/23/772710977/google-claims-to-achieve-quantum-supremacy-ibm-pushes-back 10 Tavares, Frank. Google and NASA Achieve Quantum Supremacy. NASA, 2019. https://www.nasa.gov/ feature/ames/quantum-supremacy 11 Gertz, Bill. China Steals US-funded Quantum Research. The Washington Times, 2019. https://www. washingtontimes.com/news/2019/dec/4/china-steals-us-funded-quantum-research/ 1

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

NASA’s Spacesuit Problem Joalda Morancy

is a second year at the University of Chicago, majoring in Geophysics. Her interests are topics within astronautics, planetary science, and astrophysics. On campus, she runs a club called Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS), which is a group that promotes students to make an impact on space exploration. Along with writing for SISR, Joalda participates in University Theater by serving as an assistant scenic designer. In her free time, she likes to scroll mindlessly through Twitter and play video games.

n March 29th, 2019, Anne McClain and Christina Koch almost made space history. The two NASA astronauts were scheduled to complete history’s first all-female spacewalk, which would have made strides not only within the aerospace community but also for women in STEM. About a week before the spacewalk, however, NASA canceled it due to the unavailability of specific spacesuit sizes for women.2 The subsequent backlash led to a discussion about how exactly NASA is managing its current available spacesuits. How could a problem as simple as sizing lead to the cancellation of a historic spacewalk? This cancellation raises questions about spacesuit development, and how complications such as funding, systematic risk, and political decisions shape and constrain scientific exploration. A spacesuit is a pressurized garment used to protect humans from outer space—like a tiny spacecraft made for your body, actively

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

working to keep you alive. There are two categories of spacesuits: intravehicular suits and extravehicular suits. Intravehicular activity (IVA) suits are meant only to be worn inside a pressurized spacecraft, allowing them to be lightweight and more flexible. Astronauts use extravehicular activity (EVA) suits outside the spacecraft on spacewalks or during planetary exploration. Current EVA suits aboard the International Space Station (ISS) are called Extravehicular Mobility Units (EMUs). They first came into use over forty years ago, but they were only supposed to last fifteen years. Since then, the availability of spacesuits has decreased due to various failures and prolonged use by astronauts. Limited launch availability impacts how often they can switch out spacesuits, leading to ignored scheduled maintenance. Inadequacies in EMU design have recently

[R]estraints can include health risks as well as design flaws like upper-torso sizing limits, which caused the cancellation of the all-female spacewalk. come to light because of their limited availability. These restraints can include health risks as well as design flaws like upper-torso sizing limits, which caused the cancellation of the all-female spacewalk. The upper-torso design does not necessarily accommodate non-male bodies and comes in only three sizes: medium, large, and extra-large. Studies by NASA showed that both age and sex were important factors in spacesuit production.4 Timelines for development have also been in question as NASA debates which explo-

Credit: NASA

Spacesuit engineer Amy Ross, left, and NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, second from left, watch as spacesuit engineer Kristine Davis wearing a ground prototype of NASAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU), and Orion Crew Survival Systems Project Manager Dustin Gohmert, wearing the Orion Crew Survival System suit, right, wave after being introduced by the administrator.

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

ration missions to pursue. Currently, they are allocating resources to the Artemis program, which aims to land the first woman on the moon by 2024. NASA

[T]he availability of spacesuits has decreased due to various failures and prolonged use by astronauts. has also been actively working on their “Journey to Mars,” in which they plan to land on Mars sometime in the 2030s. For each of these missions, NASA has to create different types of spacesuits in order to fit the exact needs of the respective project. For example, the current EMUs used by NASA lack some of the flexibility needed to explore a planetary surface. A new spacesuit necessitates new technologies 52

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

which in turn require dedicated time by its manufacturer to account for all possible risks and design faults. However, NASA has not followed this method of spacesuit manufacturing linearly, having run into issues with budget misallocation and unclear mission goals. In October 2010, NASA canceled the Constellation program, which sought to complete missions that would land astronauts once again on the moon by 2020 and eventually on Mars. But even after this, NASA continued working on the Constellation Space Suit System (CSSS), a contract made with a commercial company to make spacesuits unique to the program. The contract, worth up to $148 million dollars, stayed active until January 2016. By then, NASA had spent a total of $135.6 million dollars.4 This spending continued even while © 2020, The Triple Helix, Inc. All rights reserved.

NASA was working on the Advanced Space Suit Project, which had the goal of designing spacesuits to fit the objectives of Journey to Mars. This spacesuit would fit the needs of both Mars and cislunar space. NASA had also been working on the Orion Crew Survival System (OCSS). This is an IVA suit meant to be worn by astronauts inside the Orion spacecraft. The OCSS is a modified replacement of the Advanced Crew Escape System (ACES), which were the puffy orange spacesuits that astronauts would wear during the Space Shuttle program. The cost of the Advanced Space Suit Project totals around $51.6 million and, for the OCSS, $12 million. Compared to the CSSS budget, clearly NASA had not been spending their money wisely.4 Instead of choosing to advance new spacesuit projects, they instead chose to follow the dead CSSS contract, wasting

valuable assets. Recently, NASA completed both the Advanced Space Suit Project and the OCSS.3 They unveiled the two spacesuits back in October 2019, most likely due to the recent push to advertise the upcoming Artemis moon missions. The Exploration Extravehicular Mobility Unit (xEMU) has improvements in both comfort and fit, and now has the option of customizing each suit for astronauts of all sizes—a major upgrade from the old EMUs. Not to mention, in February 2020, Congress granted a 12% increase in NASA’s budget, which allowed the Artemis program to achieve its funding goals.1 The agency has not seen such levels of government funding since the full-fledged funding they received in the 1960s for the Apollo missions. These new strides for the agency could mean that we are less likely to see the mistakes that occurred with older spacesuits with the new models. With a direct exploration mission goal and increased funding, we should be seeing fewer issues regarding spacesuit development and management and NASA on its way to more functional, cost-effective spacesuits.

References Berger, Eric. “NASA puts a price on a 2024 Moon landing—$35 billion.” ArsTechnica, 10 February 2020. https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/nasa-puts-a-price-on-a-2024-moon-landing-35-billion/. Accessed 5 March 2020. 2 Fortin, Jacey and Karen Zraick. “First All-Female Spacewalk Canceled Because NASA Doesn’t Have Two Suits That Fit.” The New York Times, 25 March 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/25/science/ female-spacewalk-canceled.html. Accessed 5 March 2020. 3 McGlaun, Shane. “NASA Shows Off New Spacesuit and Orion Crew Survival System Suit.” Slash Gear, 16 October 2019. https://www.slashgear.com/nasa-shows-off-new-spacesuit-and-orion-crew-survivalsystem-suit-16595732/. Accessed 5 March 2020. 4 “NASA’s Management and Development of Spacesuits.” Office of Inspector General, NASA. April 26, 2017. https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-17-018.pdf. Accessed 5 March 2020. 1

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

The Triple Helix International Leadership

The Triple Helix, Inc. is an undergraduate, studentrun organization dedicated to the promotion of interdisciplinary discussion. We encourage critical analysis of legally and socially important issues in science and promote the exchange of ideas. Our flagship publication, the Science in Society Review, and our online blog, The Triple Helix Online, provide research-based perspectives on pertinent scientific issues facing society today. Our students at twenty chapters at some of the most renowned universities in the world form a diverse, intellectual, and global society. We aim to inspire scientific curiosity and discovery, encouraging undergraduates to explore interdisciplinary careers that push traditional professional boundaries. In doing so, we hope to create global citizen scientists. www.thetriplehelix.uchicago.edu

MEET THE STAFF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY REVIEW EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Elizabeth Crowdus Caroline Kim MANAGING EDITORS Sydney Jenkins Jake Scott Abby Weymouth ASSOCIATE EDITORS Katherine Boggs Josie Brown Rose Leah Cytryn Ellie L. Frank Allison Gentry Wonyoung Jang Airi Kogishi Vivian Lei Mallory Moore Kamryn Slomka Sophie Yang Victor Hou Yuan Yang WRITERS Donia Ballan Serdar Celikus Ayushi Hegde Rohan Kumar Megan Lee Joalda Morancy Nick Ornstein Explorer Pan Alena Sprietzer Corinne Stonebraker

SCIENTIA EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Rita Khouri Maritha Wang MANAGING EDITORS Josh Everts Sweta Narayan Molly Sun

E-PUBLISHING EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Yasemin Hasimoglu MANAGING EDITORS Pascale Boonstra Olivia Paraschos

PRODUCTION SISR DIRECTOR Ariel Pan SCIENTIA DIRECTOR Bonnie Hu

EVENTS Hannah Dubinski Harry Gardner Adrian Kwiatkowski

EXECUTIVE PRESIDENT Edward Zhou VICE PRESIDENT Emily Guernsey

THE TRIPLE HELIX Spring 2020

Science in Society Review Spring 2020 Edition

Articles inside

NASA’s Spacesuit Problem

The Race to Quantum Supremacy

Explorer Pan

When Science Relies on Politics: Federal Funding for Research

Can Trees Fight Crime?