Saturday, October 24, 2009

"Michael Moore's Action Plan: 15 Things Every American Can Do Right Now"

"Michael Moore's Action Plan: 15 Things Every American Can Do Right Now"

You've Seen the Movie -- Now It's Time to ACT!

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Friends,

It's the #1 question I'm constantly asked after people see my movie: "OK -- so NOW what can I DO?!"

You want something to do? Well, you've come to the right place! 'Cause I got 15 things you and I can do right now to fight back and try to fix this very broken system.

Here they are:

FIVE THINGS WE DEMAND THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS DO IMMEDIATELY:

1. Declare a moratorium on all home evictions. Not one more family should be thrown out of their home. The banks must adjust their monthly mortgage payments to be in line with what people's homes are now truly worth -- and what they can afford. Also, it must be stated by law: If you lose your job, you cannot be tossed out of your home.

2. Congress must join the civilized world and expand Medicare For All Americans. A single, nonprofit source must run a universal health care system that covers everyone. Medical bills are now the #1 cause of bankruptcies and evictions in this country. Medicare For All will end this misery. The bill to make this happen is called H.R. 3200. You must call AND write your members of Congress and demand its passage, no compromises allowed.

3. Demand publicly-funded elections and a prohibition on elected officials leaving office and becoming lobbyists. Yes, those very members of Congress who solicit and receive millions of dollars from wealthy interests must vote to remove ALL money from our electoral and legislative process. Tell your members of Congress they must support campaign finance bill H.R.1826.

4. Each of the 50 states must create a state-owned public bank like they have in North Dakota. Then congress MUST reinstate all the strict pre-Reagan regulations on all commercial banks, investment firms, insurance companies -- and all the other industries that have been savaged by deregulation: Airlines, the food industry, pharmaceutical companies -- you name it. If a company's primary motive to exist is to make a profit, then it needs a set of stringent rules to live by -- and the first rule is "Do no harm." The second rule: The question must always be asked -- "Is this for the common good?" (Click here for some info about the state-owned Bank of North Dakota.)

5. Save this fragile planet and declare that all the energy resources above and beneath the ground are owned collectively by all of us. Just like they do it in Sarah Palin's socialist Alaska. We only have a few decades of oil left. The public must be the owners and landlords of the natural resources and energy that exists within our borders or we will descend further into corporate anarchy. And when it comes to burning fossil fuels to transport ourselves, we must cease using the internal combustion engine and instruct our auto/transportation companies to rehire our skilled workforce and build mass transit (clean buses, light rail, subways, bullet trains, etc.) and new cars that don't contribute to climate change. (For more on this, here's a proposal I wrote in December.) Demand that General Motors' de facto chairman, Barack Obama, issue a JFK man-on-the-moon-style challenge to turn our country into a nation of trains and buses and subways. For Pete's sake, people, we were the ones who invented (or perfected) these damn things in the first place!!

FIVE THINGS WE CAN DO TO MAKE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT LISTEN TO US:

1. Each of us must get into the daily habit of taking 5 minutes to make four brief calls: One to the President (202-456-1414), one to your Congressperson (202-224-3121) and one to each of your two Senators (202-224-3121). To find out who represents you, click here. Take just one minute on each of these calls to let them know how you expect them to vote on a particular issue. Let them know you will have no hesitation voting for a primary opponent -- or even a candidate from another party -- if they don't do our bidding. Trust me, they will listen. If you have another five minutes, click here to send them each an email. And if you really want to drop an anvil on them, send them a snail mail letter!

2. Take over your local Democratic Party. Remember how much fun you had with all those friends and neighbors working together to get Barack Obama elected? YOU DID THE IMPOSSIBLE. It's time to re-up! Get everyone back together and go to the monthly meeting of your town or county Democratic Party -- and become the majority that runs it! There will not be many in attendance and they will either be happy or in shock that you and the Obama Revolution have entered the room looking like you mean business. President Obama's agenda will never happen without mass grass roots action -- and he won't feel encouraged to do the right thing if no one has his back, whether it's to stand with him, or push him in the right direction. When you all become the local Democratic Party, send me a photo of the group and I'll post it on my website.

3. Recruit someone to run for office who can win in your local elections next year -- or, better yet, consider running for office yourself! You don't have to settle for the incumbent who always expects to win. You can be our next representative! Don't believe it can happen? Check out these examples of regular citizens who got elected: State Senator Deb Simpson, California State Assemblyman Isadore Hall, Tempe, Arizona City Councilman Corey Woods, Wisconsin State Assemblyman Chris Danou, and Washington State Representative Larry Seaquist. The list goes on and on -- and you should be on it!

4. Show up. Picket the local branch of a big bank that took the bailout money. Hold vigils and marches. Consider civil disobedience. Those town hall meetings are open to you, too (and there's more of us than there are of them!). Make some noise, have some fun, get on the local news. Place "Capitalism Did This" signs on empty foreclosed homes, closed down businesses, crumbling schools and infrastructure. (You can download them from my website.)

5. Start your own media. You. Just you (or you and a couple friends). The mainstream media is owned by corporate America and, with few exceptions, it will never tell the whole truth -- so you have to do it! Start a blog! Start a website of real local news (here's an example: The Michigan Messenger). Tweet your friends and use Facebook to let them know what they need to do politically. The daily papers are dying. If you don't fill that void, who will?

FIVE THINGS WE SHOULD DO TO PROTECT OURSELVES AND OUR LOVED ONES UNTIL WE GET THROUGH THIS MESS:

1. Take your money out of your bank if it took bailout money and place it in a locally-owned bank or, preferably, a credit union.

2. Get rid of all your credit cards but one -- the kind where you have to pay up at the end of the month or you lose your card.

3. Do not invest in the stock market. If you have any extra cash, put it away in a savings account or, if you can, pay down on your mortgage so you can own your home as soon as possible. You can also buy very safe government savings bonds or T-bills. Or just buy your mother some flowers.

4. Unionize your workplace so that you and your coworkers have a say in how your business is run. Here's how to do it (more info here). Nothing is more American than democracy, and democracy shouldn't be checked at the door when you enter your workplace. Another way to Americanize your workplace is to turn your business into a worker-owned cooperative. You are not a wage slave. You are a free person, and you giving up eight hours of your life every day to someone else is to be properly compensated and respected.

5. Take care of yourself and your family. Sorry to go all Oprah on you, but she's right: Find a place of peace in your life and make the choice to be around people who are not full of negativity and cynicism. Look for those who nurture and love. Turn off the TV and the Blackberry and go for a 30-minute walk every day. Eat fruits and vegetables and cut down on anything that has sugar, high fructose corn syrup, white flour or too much sodium (salt) in it (and, as Michael Pollan says, "Eat (real) food, not too much, mostly plants"). Get seven hours of sleep each night and take the time to read a book a month. I know this sounds like I've turned into your grandma, but, dammit, take a good hard look at Granny -- she's fit, she's rested and she knows the names of both of her U.S. Senators without having to Google them. We might do well to listen to her. If we don't put our own "oxygen mask" on first (as they say on the airplane), we will be of no use to the rest of the nation in enacting any of this action plan!

I'm sure there are many other ideas you can come up with on how we can build this movement. Get creative. Think outside the politics-as-usual box. BE SUBVERSIVE! Think of that local action no one else has tried. Behave as if your life depended on it. Be bold! Try doing something with reckless abandon. It may just liberate you and your community and your nation.

And when you act, send me your stories, your photos and your video -- and be sure to post your ideas in the comments beneath this letter on my site so they can be shared with millions.

C'mon people -- we can do this! I expect nothing less of all of you, my true and trusted fellow travelers!

Yours,
Michael Moore
MMFlint@aol.com
MichaelMoore.com

Eye gene therapy boost for young

Eye gene therapy boost for young

Boy navigating course
The therapy produced highly promising results in an eight-year-old

Gene therapy can be particularly effective in treating inherited sight problems in children, fresh trials show.

US doctors treating 12 patients with a rare genetic eye disorder were able to significantly improve vision in the youngest.

The study, published in The Lancet, builds on work carried out by doctors at London's Moorfields Eye Hospital.

The eye is proving to be a particularly successful target for gene therapy.

The principle is simple: to replace a defective gene and restore function to a part of the body affected by a genetic disorder.

Striking early

Treatment so far has focused on Leber's congenital amaurosis (LCA), a rare inherited disorder which causes gradual deterioration in vision and can lead to blindness by the time the patient is 20.

It occurs when faulty genes, called RPE65, stop the layer of cells at the back of the eye working.

LCA affects approximately one in 80,000 people, and is responsible for one in 10 severe sight disorders in children.

This latest study from the University of Pennsylvania involved patients aged between eight and 44, each of whom had the genetic material needed to correct LCA injected into the eye with the worst vision.

The study reported that all patients responded well to the treatment.

There were measurable improvements, including an at least 100-fold increase in pupillary light response - when the pupils constrict in brightness.

But the most marked improvements were seen in the young.

One eight-year-old developed the same degree of light sensitivity as an unaffected contemporary, while all the children involved gained vision sufficient to walk unaided.

The researchers noted the results showed early intervention produced the best results.

Advertisement

This 'before' video shows a young patient negotiating an obstacle course with his injected eye covered up

"The visual recovery noted in the children confirms the hypothesis that efficacy will be improved if treatment is applied before retinal degeneration has progressed," said lead author Professor Jean Bennett.

"Assessment of whether the treatment alters the natural progression of the retinal degeneration will be possible in follow-up studies."

Visionary

Gene therapy has already been successfully deployed in the eyes by a team at the Institute of Ophthalmology and Moorfields Eye Hospital in London

The first such operation was carried out in 2007, and last year a further three patients received it - one of whom reported significant improvement.

The eye is seen as a particularly attractive target for these new treatments.

The genes are contained in a harmless virus which is unlikely to be attacked by the body as the immune system is not strong in the retina.

The eye is also readily accessible, and a relatively simple organ.

It is hoped that all this work will provide the basis for age-related as well as other genetic sight disorders, but also different conditions altogether.

Advertisement

This 'after' video shows a young patient successfully negotiating an obstacle course using his injected eye to navigate

Gene therapy has already been successfully deployed to treat children with X-SCID - a life-threatening immune deficiency also known as "boy in the bubble syndrome".

Professor Robin Ali of the UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, who has led the British trials, said the latest study was "very encouraging".

"The findings provide further evidence that gene therapy can be safe and can improve retinal sensitivity, particularly in dim light, even when a relatively small area of retina is treated.

"The next challenge is to determine the dose and the extent of retina that needs to be treated in order to slow retinal degeneration and preserve sight."

Barbara McLaughlan, of the charity RNIB, said: "We welcome the continuing research in this field and hope that at some point it will be possible to use gene therapy for conditions such as age related macular degeneration which are more complex because of a complicated interaction between multiple genetic and environmental factors."

But a lot more research was needed, she added, "to maximise the benefits of gene therapy techniques and understand how they can then be turned into effective treatments for a variety of more common degenerative eye conditions."

Source

Friday, October 23, 2009

Rich Germans demand higher taxes

Rich Germans demand higher taxes

Euro banknotes (file image)
Germany could raise 100bn euros with the wealth tax, say the petitioners

A group of rich Germans has launched a petition calling for the government to make wealthy people pay higher taxes.

The group say they have more money than they need, and the extra revenue could fund economic and social programmes to aid Germany's economic recovery.

Germany could raise 100bn euros (£91bn) if the richest people paid a 5% wealth tax for two years, they say.

The petition has 44 signatories so far, and will be presented to newly re-elected Chancellor Angela Merkel.

The group say the financial crisis is leading to an increase in unemployment, poverty and social inequality.

Simply donating money to deal with the problems is not enough, they want a change in the whole approach.

"The path out of the crisis must be paved with massive investment in ecology, education and social justice," they say in the petition.

Those who had "made a fortune through inheritance, hard work, hard-working, successful entrepreneurship, or investment" should contribute by paying more to alleviate the crisis.

The man behind the petition, Dieter Lehmkuhl, told Berlin's Tagesspiegel that there were 2.2 million people in Germany with a fortune of more than 500,000 euros.

If they all paid the tax for two years, Germany could raise 100bn euros to fund ecological programmes, education and social projects, said the retired doctor and heir to a brewery.

Signatory Peter Vollmer told AFP news agency he was supporting the proposal because he had inherited "a lot of money I do not need".

He said the tax would be "a viable and socially acceptable way out of the flagrant budget crisis".

The group held a demonstration in Berlin on Wednesday to draw attention to their plans, throwing fake banknotes into the air.

Mr Vollmer said it was "really strange that so few people came".

Source

Abbas sets Palestinian polls date

Abbas sets Palestinian polls date

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas. Photo: October 2009
Mr Abbas' presidential term officially expired in January

Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has announced that presidential and parliamentary elections will be held on 24 January.

His office said in a statement that the polls would take place across the Palestinian territories, including the rival Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Mr Abbas's Fatah faction, which runs the West Bank, has so far failed to reach a reconciliation with Hamas.

The Palestinian leader's presidential term expired earlier this year.

Hamas officials said Mr Abbas's election call would deepen divisions between their faction and Fatah.

"This is an illegal and unconstitutional step because Abu Mazen's [Mr Abbas's] tenure is over and he has no right to issue any decree concerning this," Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhum told AFP news agency.

Hamas won a landslide victory in the last parliamentary elections in 2006.

A bitter power struggle between Fatah and Hamas ensued, and in 2007 Hamas staged a violent takeover of Gaza.

In recent months Egypt has tried to broker a unity deal between the two factions.

Hamas has so far refused to sign up to Egyptian proposals accepted by Fatah, though Hamas officials have denied stalling on an agreement.

Mr Abbas had said he would call elections even if no unity deal was reached.

Source

The End of California? Dream On!

The End of California? Dream On!

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger laughs off the California-is-over drama:
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger laughs off the California-is-over drama: "It's all bogus."
Jeff Minton for TIME
SunPower's Dinwoodie at the company's historic plant; once it made Model A's, and now it's making clean energy.
SunPower's Dinwoodie at the company's historic plant; once it made Model A's, and now it's making clean energy.
Jeff Minton for TIME
Venter has come to San Diego to develop synthetic tools to attack disease and global warming.
Venter has come to San Diego to develop synthetic tools to attack disease and global warming.
Jeff Minton for TIME
Chef Choi and his Kogi Korean-BBQ taco truck: gourmet dining at recession-proof prices via Twitter alerts.
Chef Choi and his Kogi Korean-BBQ taco truck: gourmet dining at recession-proof prices via Twitter alerts.
Jeff Minton for TIME

California, you may have heard, is an apocalyptic mess of raging wildfires, soaring unemployment, mass foreclosures and political paralysis. It's dysfunctional. It's ungovernable. Its bond rating is barely above junk. It's so broke, it had to hand out IOUs while its leaders debated how many prisoners to release and parks to close. Nevada aired ads mocking California's business climate to lure its entrepreneurs. The media portray California as a noir fantasyland of overcrowded schools, perpetual droughts, celebrity breakdowns, illegal immigration, hellish congestion and general malaise, captured in headlines like "Meltdown on the Ocean" and "California's Wipeout Economy" and "Will California Become America's First Failed State?" (See pictures of the clean-up after California wildfires.)

Actually, it won't.

Ignore the California whinery. It's still a dream state. In fact, the pioneering megastate that gave us microchips, freeways, blue jeans, tax revolts, extreme sports, energy efficiency, health clubs, Google searches, Craigslist, iPhones and the Hollywood vision of success is still the cutting edge of the American future — economically, environmentally, demographically, culturally and maybe politically. It's the greenest and most diverse state, the most globalized in general and most Asia-oriented in particular at a time when the world is heading in all those directions. It's also an unparalleled engine of innovation, the mecca of high tech, biotech and now clean tech. In 2008, California's wipeout economy attracted more venture capital than the rest of the nation combined. Somehow its supposedly hostile business climate has nurtured Google, Apple, Hewlett-Packard, Facebook, Twitter, Disney, Cisco, Intel, eBay, YouTube, MySpace, the Gap and countless other companies that drive the way we live. (See pictures of California first lady Maria Shriver.)

"Whenever we have a problem, everyone makes a big drama — 'Oh, my God, it's the end. California is over,'" Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger told me. "It's all bogus." Schwarzenegger likes spin and drama too — he's issued warnings about a "financial Armageddon" — and he literally blew smoke in my eyes while we spoke. But his belief in the anything-is-possible dream of California is more than spin; he is, after all, its ultimate embodiment. (See how marijuana is taxed in California.)

California, to borrow a phrase, will be back. It's been stuck in an awful recession — not quite as awful as Nevada's — but it's getting unstuck. It's made nasty cuts to close ugly deficits, but it hasn't had to release prisoners or close parks, and its IOUs are being paid. Its businesses aren't fleeing to Nevada or anywhere else; Jed Kolko, an economist at the Public Policy Institute of California, has shown that fewer than one-tenth of 1% of its jobs leave the state each year. Even California's real problems tend to get magnified by its size. If it were a country, it would be in the G-8. So, yes, California has the most foreclosures and layoffs. With 38 million residents and a $1.8 trillion economy, it also has by far the most homes and jobs. (See pictures of California modernist homes.)

It can be perilous to generalize about a place this gigantic, an overwhelmingly metropolitan state that leads the nation in agricultural production, a majority-minority state with a white-majority electorate. There are real differences between (crunchy, techy) Northern and (hipster, surfer) Southern California, and especially (richer, denser, bluer) coastal and (poorer, sparser, redder) inland California. But one generalization has held true from the Gold Rush to the human-potential movement to the dotcom boom: California stands for change, for disruption of the status quo. "California is not another American state," concluded Carey McWilliams in his 1949 history California: The Great Exception. "It is a revolution within the states."

Today, it's still the home of the new new thing. It is electric-vehicle start-ups like Tesla, Fisker and Better Place taking on the Big Three, or the local-organic foodies behind California cuisine going after Big Ag. It's Kaiser Permanente, the HMO whose model of salaried doctors in group practice may be the future of health care, or the University of California at Irvine's law school, which opened this semester with free tuition and was instantly more selective than Harvard or Yale. It's SpaceX, the private rocket-launching company, or Kogi, the Korean taco truck that announces its location over Twitter to flash mobs of Angelenos. "The beauty of California is the idea that you can reinvent yourself and do something totally creative," says Kogi's Roy Choi, a former chef at the Beverly Hilton. "It's still the Wild West that way."

California is a state of early adopters — not only in fashion, technology and design but in politics too. Its voters approved huge bonds for stem-cell research, high-speed rail and repairs to aging infrastructure while Washington was dragging its feet; its politicians adopted first-in-the-nation greenhouse-gas regulations, green building codes and efficiency standards for automobiles and appliances that have rearranged the national energy debate. Yes, it was also an early adopter of subprime mortgages — Countrywide, Golden West and IndyMac were all California-based — but life on the frontier has always been risky. "This is the most dynamic place for change on earth," genomic pioneer J. Craig Venter said on a recent tour of his San Diego labs, where researchers are studying ways to convert algae into oil, coal into natural gas and human wastewater into electricity. "That's why we're here." Dressed in shorts, flip-flops and a crazy-loud floral shirt on a typically perfect day, Venter noted that California's quality of life isn't bad either: "It is pretty nice not to have to wear pants."

California has long inspired its own premature obituaries. The 1855 book The Land of Gold dismissed it as "lawless, penniless and powerless." TIME published a woe-is-California issue called "The Endangered Dream" in 1991 after the aerospace industry collapsed. But even with 12% unemployment, California still has an enviably young and productive workforce. And it's still a magnet for dice-rolling dreamers who want to start anew, make money and change the world, with or without pants. "I see my own pattern repeated again and again — people who want to invent the future and aren't afraid to fail," says billionaire Silicon Valley financier Vinod Khosla, an Indian immigrant who helped found Sun Microsystems and recently unveiled a $1.1 billion venture fund for investments in clean technology.

Which just happens to be the next California gold rush.

See pictures of wildfires in California.

See TIME's California covers.

The New Gold Rush
Tom Dinwoodie is standing on a roof, staring at the future. The roof covers Richmond's grand "daylight factory" overlooking San Francisco Bay, where Ford built Model A's before World War II and then the iconic Rosie the Riveter built jeeps and tanks during the war. Now SunPower Corp. uses it to assemble the world's most efficient solar panels, including a sleek array on its roof. That's where Dinwoodie, SunPower's chief technology officer, likes to go to look across the bay at a collection of hulking tanks in which Chevron stores fossil fuels. If we don't stop global warming, he says, that water will rise. But if solar and other renewables keep growing as fast as they are in California, "we'll turn those tanks into hot tubs."

If you think solar is an eco-fantasy, you probably don't live in California, where rooftop installations have doubled for two years in a row, to 50,000, heading to the state goal of 1 million by 2017. The San Francisco utility Pacific Gas & Electric, which recently bolted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over climate policy, has 40% of the nation's solar roofs in its territory. SunPower now has more than 5,000 employees. It's building massive power plants for utilities, as well as roof panels for big-box stores, complete subdivisions and individual homes. Prices are plummeting, and competition is fierce, most of it from California firms like BrightSource, Solar City, eSolar, Nanosolar and Solyndra. "The scramble is on, and California is leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the country," says Dinwoodie. "That's true of all energy issues." (Read a 1993 TIME profile of California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.)

When it comes to energy, California is not just ahead of the game; it's playing a different game. Its carbon emissions per capita are less than half the U.S. average. And from 2006 to '08, it attracted $3 of every $5 invested in U.S. clean tech — five times as much as the No. 2 state. It's by far the national leader in green jobs, green patents, supply from renewables and savings from efficiency. It's also leading the way toward electric cars, zero-emission homes, advanced biofuels and a smarter grid: its electric utilities plan to install smart meters in every California home. It's even launched a belated battle against car-dependent sprawl, with unprecedented rules forcing communities to consider carbon emissions in their land-use plans.

California has been preparing for its clean-energy future for a long time. Starting in the energy crisis of the 1970s, California revamped its electricity markets so that utilities could make more money by helping their customers use less power. It also began enacting groundbreaking efficiency standards for buildings, appliances, pool heaters and almost anything else that needs juice. It just proposed the first standards for flat-screen TVs. As a result, per capita energy use has remained stable in California while soaring 50% nationwide, saving Californians an estimated $56 billion and avoiding the need for 24 new gas-fired power plants. On the supply side, the state has required utilities to provide one-fifth of their power from renewables by 2010, which will jump to one-third by 2020. And California's soup-to-nuts effort to slash emissions — including a cap-and-trade regimen in 2012 — is the blueprint for federal climate legislation. (Download a PDF outlining some of the Golden State's industries, laboratories and technologies.)

This public-sector foresight has created alluring opportunities for the most tech-savvy private sector on earth. The venture capitalists behind the high-tech and biotech booms see clean tech as the next big score. The necessary engineers, scientists, accountants, lawyers, marketers and other knowledge workers are already there. "We've already turned industries on their heads, so we assume we can do it again," says Steve Dolezalek, VantagePoint Venture Partners' managing director, who oversaw the firm's software and life-sciences investments before heading its clean-tech group.

The lines between sectors are blurring fast. As its name suggests, eSolar is essentially a software play; its added value is advanced code that positions vast arrays of mirrors to the millimeter to maximize their exposure to sunlight. The company was spawned by IdeaLab, a Pasadena incubator that developed NetZero, Picasa, pay-per-click ads and online car-selling. "We only do ideas that challenge the status quo, and California is the only place we'd do it," says CEO Bill Gross.

Chip-industry veterans are also drifting into solar, as well as LED lighting and green materials, while Cisco, which made the guts of the Internet, is pivoting to make the guts of the digitized grid. San Diego's cluster of more than 500 biotech companies is now the world capital of algae-to-fuel experiments, including a new $600 million joint venture between ExxonMobil and Venter's Synthetic Genomics. Khosla's investments include Calera, a carbon-capturing-cement start-up founded by a Stanford expert in medical cement; Amyris, which has Berkeley malaria researchers working to turn sugar into diesel; and Soladigm, which exploits semiconductor-industry expertise to make energy-efficient windows.

California scores poorly in most "business friendly" ratings, which tend to focus on tax rates and wage levels rather than on, say, worker productivity or creativity. And the state has more than its share of no-no-no types protesting nanotechnology, synthetic biology and even some SunPower solar-energy projects, which could possibly imperil kangaroo rats and fairy shrimp. But the state's business culture fetishizes long-shot ventures and game-changing ideas. Failure is appreciated, not stigmatized, and an entrepreneur without a few busted start-ups on his résumé is almost suspect.

Guido Jouret, who oversees Cisco's emerging technologies, explained this creative destruction when we talked over TelePresence, an ultra-high-definition substitute for the hassle, expense and carbon footprint of business travel. We were 3,000 miles (4,800 km) apart, but I kept forgetting we weren't at the same conference table. One of Steven Spielberg's cinematographers helped Cisco get the illusion of intimacy just right. "California has a very welcoming attitude, but it's a Darwinian society," Jouret said. "Companies come and grow and die, and no one sheds a tear. And there's a real sense that it isn't worth doing if it won't change the world."

California's high-tech community has concluded en masse that the next Google guys are going to be the visionaries who figure out how to harness the sun, build a battery to store the wind or engineer the renewable fuel that won't compete with the food supply. (It could be the actual Google guys, who have launched an aggressive clean-energy initiative.) "Inventing a better gadget isn't enough anymore. We're trying to reshape the way people live," says SolarCity CEO Lyndon Rive, a South African who went to California for the world underwater-hockey championships, got caught up in the Internet boom and never left. He built and sold an IT-support company; now he's reshaping its software to monitor solar panels.

See TIME's San Francisco city guide.

See TIME's Los Angeles city guide.

The State of Progress
So why all the end-is-nighism? Schwarzenegger thinks California gets slagged nationwide for the same reason the U.S. gets slagged worldwide: it's natural to resent the big kahuna. (He should know; his approval rating has dipped below 30%.) In a poolside interview after hosting a global climate summit in Century City, he suggested that outsiders envy California's immense resources — beaches, mountains and redwoods; Hollywood, Napa and Disneyland; the best in stem-cell research, fruits and vegetables, entertainment and fashion. (He was sporting a suit with a zebra-print lining.) "We're all about the cutting edge," he said. "I mean, come on. California is wild!" He's right about the schadenfreude, and it was fun to hear him say the word. It is easy to gloat when the cool jock with the hot girlfriend wrecks his sweet car, especially if he seems kind of smug. I was reminded of this during Rob Lowe's talk at the summit, when he declared that everyone has an obligation to join the fight against global warming, then continued, "For my part, I'll be doing The Ellen DeGeneres Show."

Then again, California has legitimate problems that inspire legitimate criticism: gangs, sprawl, disturbing dropout rates, water shortages that don't seem to stop farmers from irrigating rice and cotton in the desert, the crazymaking traffic that Hollywood immortalized in Falling Down. It's still sitting on a fault line. Its expensive housing, even after the real estate crash, poses a real obstacle to the dream of upward mobility. So do its public schools and other public services, which have been deteriorating for years — in part because older white voters have been reluctant to subsidize younger minorities. (Watch TIME's 10 Questions video with Nancy Pelosi.)

This gets to the one area where California really is dysfunctional: its budget. Californians generally enjoy government spending more than they enjoy paying for it, which is a national problem, but they've also straitjacketed their politicians with scads of lobbyist-produced ballot initiatives locking in huge outlays for various goodies, as well as the notorious Proposition 13, which has severely restricted local property taxes since 1978. California is also one of only three states that need a two-thirds supermajority to pass a budget or raise taxes, a virtual impossibility in its ultra-partisan legislature. So it relies on a boom-and-bust tax base that even many liberals admit is overreliant on the rich. The state's economy actually grew last year, but its revenues crashed because its top earners had lower incomes and capital gains. That meant sharp cutbacks, especially in education, which in California is unusually dependent on state cash. "We have an incredibly dynamic economy, but we'll still end up in federal receivership if our government can't pay its bills," says historian Kevin Starr, a prolific chronicler of the state.

Fortunately, help may be on the way. Nonpartisan groups like Repair California and California Forward have built momentum for sweeping reforms that could stop the unsustainable chaos — including an end to the two-thirds rule, limits on ballot initiatives and a new system of taxation. Schwarzenegger is pushing for a gargantuan water-sharing agreement that could help prevent the state from running dry. And his potential successors are also formidable go-getters with forward-thinking credentials — including former governor and current attorney general Jerry Brown, golden-boy San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Brown, the early front runner, was widely mocked as Governor Moonbeam back in the 1970s, but some of his ideas — including energy efficiency, as well as the emergency-communications satellite that inspired his nickname — no longer seem so flaky. (Download a PDF outlining some of the Golden State's industries, laboratories and technologies.)

But the krazy-Kalifornia criticism is likely to continue regardless of the facts on the ground — not just because of envy, but because of ideology as well. The collapse of the Golden State provides an irresistible parable for hippie-lefty vegan politics, the failure of a quasi-Scandinavian progressive experiment symbolized by MoveOn.org, Daily Kos and the Sierra Club; yoga, crystals and medical marijuana; "Hollywood values" and "San Francisco values." California has a tradition of activist government, and public support for the University of California, federal energy labs and the military-aerospace-industrial complex played a huge role in creating Silicon Valley, San Diego's biotech cluster and the state's other private-sector centers of innovation. So it's been a juicy target for right-wingers who consider Schwarzenegger a squishy sellout. If a low-carbon, Big Government, change-obsessed state with high taxes on the wealthy, draconian environmental regulations, a porous border and the nation's most vibrant labor movement were imploding, what would that say about the age of Obama?

Then again, the home state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan has been a conservative trendsetter as well, leading the backlash against taxes, affirmative action and illegal aliens and enacting the first three-strikes law against career criminals. Its economy is much closer than the nation's to a true model of free-enterprise capitalism, in which government sets rules and enforces a level playing field but declines to pick winners. And what could be more Californian than the conservative megapastor Rick Warren urging his multimedia flock to make a fresh start with a forgiving God? "A clean slate is possible!" he wrote in his best seller God's Power to Change Your Life. "It's a lot like my son's Etch A Sketch."

In any case, California is not imploding, which ought to be heartening to Americans regardless of ideology or geography. Because America is essentially the land of the Etch A Sketch, and California is America but more so, beckoning dreamers who want to cook Korean tacos or convert fuel tanks into hot tubs. It's progressive more in the literal than in the political sense of the word. And it's where America is going: a greener, more advanced and more global economy; a browner and more metropolitan population; and, yes, some staggering debts and other governance problems that need to be resolved. It's expensive and crowded — because people still want to be there! — and it's recovering from an economic earthquake. But it continues to have a powerful claim on the future. "In the depths of the breakdown, you can see the next narrative," says Mark Muro of the Brookings Institution's metropolitan-policy program. "It's California. The next economy is already in place there, and it's amazing."

Source


How Drug-Industry Lobbyists Got Their Way on Health Care

How Drug-Industry Lobbyists Got Their Way on Health Care

Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Jim Greenwood, President and CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization.
Richard A. Bloom

In Congress, committee chairmen are known as the old bulls for a reason: it's unwise to provoke them. So it isn't often that you see one get rolled by his own committee — especially when the chairman in question is the formidable and canny Henry Waxman and the issue in question is one that matters a lot to him. But that was what happened on July 31 as the House Energy and Commerce Committee was putting the final touches on health-reform legislation. Waxman's fellow California Democrat Anna Eshoo offered a last-minute amendment that Waxman opposed. Knowing he would lose, Waxman decided to save face with a quick voice vote. But Eshoo insisted on a roll call, which would put every member on record. Waxman snapped at her, "You promised you wouldn't do that!" The final tally was 47-11 against the chairman.

Waxman's loss that day was a big victory for drug companies, which have spent more than any other segment of the medical industry to make sure that they come out winners in the effort to overhaul the nation's health-care system. It's understandable the drugmakers would want a roll-call accounting of who their friends and enemies are, considering the size of the investment they are making on Capitol Hill: in the first six months of this year alone, drug and biotech companies and their trade associations spent more than $110 million — that's about $609,000 a day — to influence lawmakers, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics. The drug industry's legion of registered lobbyists numbers 1,228, or 2.3 for every member of Congress. And its campaign contributions to current members of Waxman's committee have totaled $2.6 million over the past three years. (See 10 players in health-care reform.)

The return on that investment has been considerable, both in the House and in the Senate. "We've done very well," says lobbyist Jim Greenwood, a former Republican Congressman from Pennsylvania who was a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and now heads the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO). "We carried a majority of the Democrats and a majority of the Republicans in each of the committees, and by very clear margins."

Whether the broader public is benefiting from the industry's success is less clear. How Greenwood's group has scored decisive early victories on an obscure but crucial health-care provision is a case study in how interest groups are shaping the contours of health-care reform — and why that's not necessarily good news for consumers.

The Generic Nudge
The question before Waxman's committee last summer was this: How many years of monopoly protection should be afforded to biotechnology drugs, known as biologics, before cheaper alternatives are allowed on the market? These miraculous drugs — which differ from traditional, chemical-based pharmaceuticals because they are derived from living matter — are widely regarded as the future of the pharmaceutical industry and, indeed, of medicine itself. While only 20% of drugs on the market today are biologics, it is expected that, with 633 biotechnology medicines in development last year for more than 100 diseases, half the new drugs approved in 2015 will be. Biologics average more than 20 times the cost of traditional drugs: treating breast cancer with a year's worth of the biologic Herceptin can cost $48,000; Remicade, for rheumatoid arthritis, can cost $20,000 annually. For other, rarer diseases, the price of biologic treatments can be as high as $200,000 a year.

As policymakers look for ways to control health-care costs, the price of biologics is drawing more and more scrutiny. The obvious model for bringing in competition is a 1984 law that Waxman wrote with Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. It lowered the regulatory obstacles that prevented generic drugs from making their way to market. At the time, it was expected that fast-tracking the approval of "bioequivalent" drugs would bring down medical costs by $1 billion a year. But with generics now accounting for more than 70% of prescriptions dispensed in the U.S., "the actual savings have exceeded our wildest expectations," Waxman said in a Sept. 18 speech before the Generic Pharmaceutical Association. "In the last decade alone, generic drugs have saved consumers, businesses and state and federal governments $734 billion."(See TIME's health and medicine covers.)

Can a similar approach work with biotechnology drugs, which were not dealt with in the 1984 law because the industry was then in its infancy? A 2008 analysis by former Clinton Administration official Robert Shapiro, who has consulted for both biologics companies and their would-be generic competitors, suggested that generic versions of the top 12 categories of biologics whose patents have expired or will expire soon could save Americans up to $108 billion in the first 10 years and as much as $378 billion over two decades. "It's the low-hanging fruit," says Mark Merritt, head of the Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, the trade organization for prescription-drug-benefit managers. "If you can't get this right on cost control, what can you get right?"

But there's a dilemma: policymakers want to foster cost-saving competition without killing the financial incentives that have put the U.S. biotechnology industry at the vanguard of medical science and without stifling the development of even more drugs that could save lives and eliminate suffering. Finding that equilibrium goes to the question of how long biotech firms should be guaranteed exclusivity, outside the protection of their patents, before copycats can begin using the data they have developed.

Waxman had pushed to shield biologics for no more than five years — the same amount of time that traditional pharmaceuticals get under the Hatch-Waxman law. President Obama proposed seven years as a compromise.

Eshoo's successful amendment to the Energy and Commerce Committee bill would extend that to 12 years of exclusivity, as would legislation passed a few weeks earlier by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee. Then-chairman Ted Kennedy, whose state of Massachusetts is home to many biotech firms, had long supported a 12-year exclusivity period. The industry showed its gratitude last year when Amgen, one of the biggest biotech firms, donated $5 million — twice the size of the next largest donation — to a nonprofit educational institute being built in Kennedy's honor. (Watch TIME's video "Uninsured Again.")

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), though, argued in June that giving biologics makers any period of exclusivity at all could actually stifle innovation. Biologics are so much more complex and expensive to produce than traditional drugs that the barriers to would-be "biosimilar" competitors are already high, the FTC said. Giving biologics further protection — particularly the 12 years of exclusivity that the industry wants — would merely encourage firms to tinker with what they have rather than drive them toward "new inventions to address unmet medical needs."

Most small biologics companies are still years away from seeing their first profits in this high-risk, high-return business. Their trade association, BIO, says that in the past 11 months, at least 40 of them have cut back or eliminated drug-development programs. The venture capitalists who invest in them "aren't looking to cure Parkinson's disease as much as they are looking for a return on their investments," says Greenwood. "They're just as happy to put their money into the next iPod." But increasingly, the big players in the pharmaceutical industry are moving into the biologics business themselves, either by investing in cutting-edge firms or by acquiring them. (See the most common hospital mishaps.)

Shifting Politics
That makes the politics — and the lines of political influence — a lot more difficult to sort out. Whereas the traditional pharmaceutical industry is concentrated in just a couple of states, biotech firms have sprung up just about anywhere you find a university with a research hospital, which gives them a broad political base. "I know that vote hurt me at home," says Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, who led the unsuccessful fight against the 12-year exclusivity in the Senate HELP Committee.

Indeed, the biologics lobby has become one of K Street's most powerful players. Working largely through BIO and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), it has funded an extensive network that includes not only lobbyists but also think-tank experts and advocacy groups. "You can't get on the phone with someone who isn't getting paid," says an economist who has studied the biologics issue with funding from a drug company. "They give money to everyone and anyone."

That means it can be hard to find a truly independent viewpoint, though it often requires deep digging into the finances of advocacy groups to discover their ties. In July, one calling itself the National Health Council wrote letters to members of Congress "on behalf of 133 million Americans" asking for a minimum of 10 years of data exclusivity. The group boasts a membership that includes 50 of the nation's largest patient-advocacy groups, including the American Cancer Society, Easter Seals and the National Kidney Foundation. But its board of directors reads like a Who's Who of top pharmaceutical executives from Amgen, Pfizer, Novartis and Bristol Myers Squibb. Its 2007 tax filings show that almost half its $2.3 million budget came from PhRMA and drug companies.

Similarly, on Oct. 19, PhRMA put out a statement calling for a "fair period of data protection" of 12 years at a "bare minimum." To defend its position, the group cited Duke University economist Henry Grabowski, whose work it has funded, and two patient groups. One, called RetireSafe, receives regular infusions of "general operating support" from Pfizer and operates out of a small Washington law-firm office. It has been blitzing Capitol Hill with letters arguing that guaranteeing biologics makers fewer than 12 years of exclusivity in the use of their data could cost lives. The other group, the Alliance of Aging Research, is also run by the drug industry. Its chairman is the managing partner of Foxkiser, a drug-company consultant, and its vice chairman is with Novartis.

Among the biologics industry's most high-profile advocates has been former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean, who is consulting for a law firm that has a deep roster of biologics clients. In July he wrote an Op-Ed in the Hill newspaper arguing for a "commonsense and fair approach" to give biologics companies at least 12 years of exclusivity. ("I wouldn't do this if I didn't believe it," Dean, a physician, said in an interview.) His former campaign manager Joe Trippi echoed Dean's views on a Huffington Post blog without disclosing that he had been paid by BIO to create two Web campaigns. (He also says his views predated his paycheck.)

The other side has resources of its own. The biggest generic-drug company, Teva Pharmaceuticals, has spent more than $2 million on lobbying and also sponsored academic work on the issue, aiming to disprove Duke's Grabowski. Generic-drug manufacturers are allied with such powerful organizations as AARP, labor unions, insurance companies, health-maintenance organizations and health-reform advocacy groups. There will be fights on the House and Senate floors and ultimately a House-Senate conference committee, on which Waxman will be a key voice. "The war is not over," he has warned. "If you know me at all, you know that I don't give up that easily."

How it is resolved — in favor of protecting the biotech industry or opening up the market to generics — may say a lot about which interest groups will ultimately reap the windfall of the big-stakes battle in Washington. What it means for consumers is somewhat murkier: Will a miracle cure be there when you need one? And if it is, will you be able to afford it? Those are questions that hinge on whether the rest of us can trust Congress to find proper balance between competition and innovation.

Source

Thursday, October 22, 2009

US Question Time 'would not work'

US Question Time 'would not work'

On Question Time's 30th anniversary, editor Ed Havard celebrates the show's capacity to put politicians on the spot.

David Dimbleby
David Dimbleby has chaired Question Time since January 1994

There is something very British about Question Time.

Having just spent a sabbatical year in Washington - where politicians are in the most part astonishingly remote from their electorate - I am reminded that the programme represents a major investment in the democratic process by our political class.

My American colleagues - some of them aides to top US politicians - would watch DVDs of the show in near disbelief, open mouthed.

This could never happen in the US, they would say, none of the senior politicians would be willing to mix with voters in prime time.

Yet back in the UK, that is exactly what happens, week after week.

Speaking at the weekend to mark the show's 30th anniversary, Harriet Harman said that Question Time can still make or break a political career - and it remains the most dangerous of political formats.

There is none of the predictability of a set piece interview.

'It takes guts'

With an audience determined to ask questions about almost anything - and to keep asking until they get a straight answer - it takes guts for politicians to appear.

Margaret Beckett

Some current ministers, like many Tories before them, have agreed to come on the panel even when they know they are riding into the eye of the storm.

At the height of the public's anger over Northern Rock, Ruth Kelly, then Transport Secretary, dropped everything to travel to the bank's home, Newcastle, to face the public's fury - something no Treasury minister was willing to do.

Some members of the audience were genuinely worried that they would lose huge sums of money, but she found the audience's outrage tempered significantly by their appreciation that a senior member of the government had come to listen to them.

Similarly, Patricia Hewitt was on the programme as Health Secretary at the very moment that she was being attacked relentlessly by doctors in the press.

Question Time has never enjoyed an easy or cosy relationship with the political parties

Though subjected to repeated calls for her resignation from the audience, she calmly argued her case.

She could easily have pulled out of the show - other ministers have done so over much less - but not only did she come, she answered e-mails from doctors in the audience in the days afterwards.

'Genuine balance'

Others have distinguished themselves by their readiness to appear despite the burden of their office.

David Miliband, for example, came on shortly after becoming Foreign Secretary.

Jack Straw, who has held almost all the major offices of state, has made regular appearances.

Of the current cabinet, only one member is a resolute refusenik.

Question Time

There are none in the shadow cabinet, or in the Lib Dem front bench.

But Question Time has never enjoyed an easy or cosy relationship with the political parties.

Most recently, our decision to invite the BNP onto the panel has been attacked by some. Peter Hain has indicated that he intends to boycott the programme.

Others, including Alastair Campbell and Denis Macshane, have suggested that we are inviting the BNP onto the programme to increase ratings.

Question Time is already the most watched political programme in the country.

What is more, it has recently been getting its highest viewing figures since the programme began 30 years ago - almost four million viewers. An odd time then to be trying to artificially inflate ratings.

Others, though never the top tier politicians, have complained about their treatment at the hands of the audience.

Iraq was especially difficult. Opponents of the war tended to be more vocal than those who backed it, and we always had to work hard to ensure a genuine balance in the audiences.

Audience balance

When we mounted a special to mark the fourth anniversary of the invasion - with an international panel including John Bolton, Benazir Bhutto and the then Defence Secretary Des Browne - that balance was effectively realised (despite the weight of public opinion against the war four years in).

Nick Griffin

But a year or so before, when Jack Straw came on in Manchester during Tony Blair's last party conference as Prime Minister, he was the focus of red hot anger over the war.

The public had not forgotten that he was foreign secretary at the time of the invasion and he was repeatedly challenged during a series of highly-charged exchanges.

For whatever reason, many of the supporters of the war in that audience did not speak up.

The TV reviewers loved it and the viewing figures were sky high.

"Brilliantly enjoyable television," said the Daily Telegraph the next day.

I was not so sure. High-viewing figures and great press coverage do not always equal a good programme.

A one-sided haranguing may be good theatre, but for some it is also television which can appeal to the lowest common denominator and that should not be what Question Time is about.

Although this dynamic between the politicians and the audience is a vital ingredient for Question Time, another is the chairman, David Dimbleby.

The audiences respect him and the panellists trust him. For that reason he is always in control, however heated the debate, and he wields his authority with immense skill.

Thirty years on, he remains one of the secrets behind Question Time's enduring success.

A new series of Question Time begins tonight, Thursday 24 September at 10.35 on BBC One.

Source

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Iran's Biggest Worry: Growing Ethnic Conflict

Iran's Biggest Worry: Growing Ethnic Conflict

Iranian mourners carry the coffin of General Noor Ali Shooshtari, who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards' ground forces, during a funeral ceremony in Tehran on Oct. 20, 2009
Iranian mourners carry the coffin of General Noor Ali Shooshtari, who was deputy commander of the Revolutionary Guards' ground forces, during a funeral ceremony in Tehran on Oct. 20, 2009
Vahid Salemi / AP

The Iranian regime has a problem, and it's not a velvet revolution or Israel's threat to bomb its nuclear facilities. No, what really keeps the mullahs up at night is the specter of ethnic and sectarian conflict — more attacks like the bombing on Oct. 18 in the remote southeastern province of Sistan-Baluchistan, which killed 42 people, including five senior officers of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. The country's leaders cannot help but worry that the same divisions ripping apart Afghanistan and Pakistan are about to visit them.

Tehran immediately blamed outsiders — the U.S., Great Britain and Pakistan — for Sunday's suicide bombing because it cannot admit that it has its own homegrown Taliban. Whatever Iran says about Jundallah, the ethnic Baluch group that claimed responsibility for the attack, it's an indigenous movement. The body of its financing comes from Baluch expatriates, many in the Gulf, and Islamic charities. Its weapons and explosives are readily available in the mountains that span the border between Iran and Pakistan. (Read "Pakistan: Behind the Waziristan Offensive.")

Pakistani intelligence has indeed had contact with Jundallah over the years, but there's no good evidence that Pakistan created Jundallah from scratch. And there's certainly no evidence that Pakistan ordered the attack. In fact, Pakistani intelligence over the past few years has been arresting Jundallah members and turning them over to Iran.

American intelligence has also had contact with Jundallah. But that contact, as Iran almost certainly knows, was confined to intelligence-gathering on the country; a relationship with Jundallah was never formalized, and contact was sporadic. I've been told that the Bush Administration at one point considered Jundallah as a piece in a covert-action campaign against Iran, but the idea was quickly dropped because Jundallah was judged uncontrollable and too close to al-Qaeda. There was no way to be certain that Jundallah would not throw the bombs we paid for back at us. (See TIME's photo-essay "On the Front Lines in the Battle Against the Taliban.")

For Iran, the hard truth is that ethnic Persians make up only 51% of the population. The rest of the country is a mishmash of ethnic minorities, various religions, Muslim sects and semi-nomadic tribes. None has been entirely happy living under the mullahs' Shi'ite theocracy, especially Iran's Sunni citizens, which make up 9% of the population and include most of the Baluch. Iran's minorities have been susceptible to outside influences, but rarely have they felt strong enough to take on Tehran — which fears that that could change with the chaos at its borders. If, for instance, the U.S. were to suddenly pick up and leave Afghanistan, would the new Taliban government resist backing Jundallah? Or if Pakistan fails to subdue the tribal areas and its own Taliban, would this encourage Jundallah?

Tehran is obviously worried that it has a problem with or without a failure in Pakistan or Afghanistan. The five senior Revolutionary Guards officers killed on Sunday were on their way to a meeting with local tribal chiefs to talk about containing Shi'ite-Sunni violence in their province, and the agenda no doubt included what to do about Jundallah.

In that sense, ironically, Tehran is right that its security really does rest with Pakistan and the U.S. A catastrophic failure on their parts would create a threat that would take Iran many years to overcome.

Baer, a former Middle East CIA field officer, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower.

Source


Leaping wolf snatches photo prize

Leaping wolf snatches photo prize

By Victoria Gill
Science reporter, BBC news

Storybook wolf (Jose Luis Rodruiguez)
Jose Luis Rodriguez's haunting portrait of an Iberian wolf won over the judges

A picture of a hunting wolf has won the prestigious Veolia Environment Wildlife Photographer of the Year 2009 award.

Jose Luis Rodriguez captured the imaginations of the judges with a photograph that he had planned for years, and even sketched out on a piece of paper.

"I wanted to capture a photo in which you would see a wolf in an act of hunting - or predation - but without blood," he told BBC News. "I didn't want a cruel image."

With a great deal of patience and careful observation of the wolves' movements, he succeeded in taking the award-winning photograph.

Mr Rodriguez used a custom-built infrared trap to snap the the wolf as it leapt into the air.

The competition, now in its 45th year, is owned by BBC Wildlife magazine and London's Natural History Museum.

The panel of judges looked through more than 43,000 entries to this year's competition.

This is the fifth year that wildlife photographer Mark Carwardine has been on the judging panel. He said of the winning photo: "It's captured thousands of years of human-wolf interaction in just one moment."

STORYBOOK WOLF
The image of a photographer's dreams

Mr Rodriguez won the Animal Portraits category and went on to win the top prize with this haunting image that the judges said captured the character of the wolf.

When he started planning the photograph, he feared that he might not be able to get close enough to the Iberian wolves.

This subspecies of the grey wolf lives close to human habitation in northern Spain. They are often persecuted by people who see them as a threat to livestock, and are consequently very wary of people.

Watching the animals as they returned to the same spot to collect food each night, Mr Rodriguez decided on his dream shot.

He eventually captured using a photographic trap that included a motion sensor and an infrared barrier to operate the camera.

He hopes that his picture, "showing the wolf's great agility and strength", will become an image that can be used to show just how beautiful the Iberian wolf is and how the Spanish can be proud to have such an emblematic animal.

Hasselblad 503CW with a 6x6 Fujichrome backing + Planar 80mm lens; 1/30 sec at f11; ISO 50; purpose-made Ficap infrared camera trap

CLASH OF THE YELLOWHAMMERS
The yellowhammer males fought over ownership of the oats

Fergus Gill, who was 17 years old when he entered the competition, won this year's Young Photographer of the Year award for his picture of a brief but dramatic clash between two of the colourful UK songbirds.

He started planning the image in summer, collecting oat sheaves from a local farmer specifically as winter food for the yellowhammers.

One evening in February, hearing that snow was forecast for the next morning, Fergus set up his hide in the garden of his home in Scotland and hung out feeders for the birds.

"At one point I counted 32 yellowhammers feeding on the ground," he said.

When the snow fell, the birds jumped up on to the feeders and the males would occasionally fight over the oats.

"The spats were incredibly fast," he said. It took Fergus two days to capture the dramatic clash that earned him his award.

Nikon D300 + Nikon 200-400mm f4 lens at 220mm; 1/1000 sec at f5.6; ISO 500

RESPECT
Ryska the cat fiercely guarded her property

With the help of his feisty cat, Igor Shpilenok won the Urban and Garden Wildlife category with this shot.

He spent five months as a ranger in the Kronotsky Nature Reserve in Kamchatka in the east of Russia, and took his cat Ryska with him for company.

"It's a very remote place and there were lots of animals - bears, foxes, wolverines - living near my cabin," he told BBC News.

"The cat was really jealous about me. If I started to look at the animals she would attack them. Just like woman," he smiled.

"Maybe she thought I was her pet."

But the animals were curious about the area's new residents, and drawn by cooking smells from the cabin. The foxes in particular would visit every day. "When they came within 20m, that was her boundary and chased them. It was really funny - foxes were climbing trees to get away from the cat."

Mr Shpilenok's wife, Laura Williams, selected the category-winning image. "It's ironic," she said. "He photographs the wilderness, but the two times he's won a category [in this competition] it's been the urban wildlife one. Because the wilderness is his back yard." Nikon D3 + 300mm lens; 1/500 sec at f4.5; ISO 640

SPRINGTAIL ON A SNOWFLAKE
Snowflakes make difficult terrain for tiny springtails

Urmas Tartes won the Animals in their Environment category for this image of a springtail, otherwise known as a "snow flea" navigating its way through delicate snowflakes.

When the temperature drops below freezing, the insects climb down through the frosty crevasses to the warmer soil below.

"But they're only active a few degrees below zero," Mr Tartes told BBC News. "I had to 'ambush' the weather for just the right temperature and conditions."

"I was travelling with my wife and it started snowing slightly," he recalled. "We came to a place where we thought it might be possible [to see the insects] and the thermometer in the car said it was just the right temperature."

Mr Tartes had waited for the perfect weather in which the snow fleas would be active, but the snowflakes would remain frozen.

His patience paid off, and he managed to take over 100 shots while the insects negotiated their way through the tricky terrain.

He believes he captured something truly unique and that this was largely thanks to his knowledge of his country and its climate.

"I think the best of the photos I take are in my homeland," he told BBC News.

"There's a saying in Estonia that in order to see new things, you have to follow common paths - paths you know."

Canon EOS-5D Mark II + Canon MP-E65 f2.5 1-5x Macro lens; 1/200 sec at f14; ISO 400

THE LOOK OF THE JAGUAR
The look of a jaguar (Tom Schandy)
The male jaguar sat on the riverbank calmly staring at the photographer for an hour

Tom Schandy won the Gerald Durrell Award for Endangered Wildlife for this image, which he took while working on a book project in Brazil.

"We spent a few days on a boat along Rio Paraguay and saw four jaguars in the space of three days.

"It was really amazing, because it is such a difficult animal to find.

"This one was very relaxed - it just lay on the river bank staring at us for more than an hour.

"It was a glimpse into the eye of the wilderness."

At sunset, the jaguar rose, yawned and scent-marked. Then he faded back into the dense forest.

Canon EOS-ID Mark III + 500mm f4 lens; 1/250 sec at f4; ISO 400; beanbag

Source

Sunday, October 18, 2009

'Ethical' stem cell crop boosted

'Ethical' stem cell crop boosted

Fibroblasts
The research was done using fibroblast skin cells

US researchers have found a way to dramatically increase the harvest of stem cells from adult tissue.

It is a practical step forward in techniques to produce large numbers of stem cells without using embryos.

Using three drug-like chemicals, the team made the procedure 200 times more efficient and twice as fast, the Nature Methods journal reported.

It is hoped stem cells could one day be widely used to repair damaged tissue in diseases and after injuries.

Much of the work on stem cells has focused on those taken from embryos as they have an unlimited capacity to become any of the 220 types of cell in the human body - a so-called pluripotent state.

This is the first example in human cells of how reprogramming speed can be accelerated
Professor Sheng Ding, study leader

But this has proven controversial and some campaigners have objected to their use on the grounds that it is unethical to destroy embryos in the name of science.

The creation of stem cells from human adult skin cells was first reported in 2007 by Japanese and US researchers, opening the way for new sources of stem cells.

It was done by using viruses to insert four genes into the cells which prompt the switching on and off of other genes and cause the cells to revert to stem cells.

But the process took weeks and the success rate was only about one in 10,000 cells.

Better and faster

The latest research builds on that process by adding specific chemicals to improve the process.

The Scripps Research Institute team had already boosted the number of cells created with two compounds initiating a naturally occurring process that moves the cell nearer to a stem-cell like state.

But they have now discovered that by adding thiazovivin, a small molecule involved in cell survival, they doubled that to get 200 times the number of transformed cells.

The final process also took two weeks compared with a month needed for the original.

Study leader Professor Sheng Ding said they had manipulated a "fundamental" process in the cell.

"Both in terms of speed and efficiency, we achieved major improvements over conventional conditions," he said.

"This is the first example in human cells of how reprogramming speed can be accelerated.

"I believe that the field will quickly adopt this method, accelerating research significantly."

Dr Keisuke Kaji, a stem cell researcher at the Medical Research Council Centre for Regenerative Medicine in Edinburgh said the technique was a "great advance" in cell reprogramming technology.

He added it had already been shown in mouse cells but this was the first time in human cells.

"I am interested in how widely this drug can have positive effect, for example, if it helps to generate induced pluripotent stem cells from old people's cells which are usually more difficult to reprogram and if it can improve the efficiency in non-viral reprogramming strategies."

Source