- Email: [email protected]
WASHINGTON Clinton proposes a science boom for USA
DISPATCHES
WASHINGTON
Clinton proposes a science boom for USA
budget still falls short of the goal of he din of scandal surrounding NIH’s leading lobby, a conglomerate President Clinton has obscured of institutional beneficiaries known the elation that he evoked in the scias the Ad Hoc Group for Medical entific community with his generous Research Funding. Whatever the outspending proposals for medical and come, there is widespread confidence other types of research—sectors that that a turnaround has occurred in previously felt neglected by the chief the administration’s attitude towards executive. After sending Congress the care and feeding five annual budgets of science. that would have “the White House’s Planning for a scikept the National planning for a scienceence-spending boom Institutes of Health spending boom was long was long in the steady with inflain the works” works at the White tion, Clinton this House, and should week proposed an not be regarded as increase that would an overnight cynical ploy to divert raise the NIH budget next year attention from the President’s many by US$1·5 billion, to a total of woes. The proposed surge in research $15·1 billion. spending is attributable to the evapoThe largest increases will be for ration of the federal deficit and to the cancer research. Substantially championing of science by viceincreased spending is also planned president Gore, Clinton’s choice for for the National Science Foundation, next US president. the chief government financier of From cancer research to expansion academic science outside the health of the “information highway”, Gore area. The increases are encompassed has energetically embraced all things in what the president has christened scientific in a way that leaves little “a 21st Century Research Fund for room for a competitor to seem anypathbreaking scientific inquiry”. thing but a “me-too” copy. Gore’s In funding the research accounts, prominence in this area is rapidly Congress often exceeds the sums proexpanding. Normally, the president’s posed by the White House. The presscience and technology advisor idential figures can thus be regarded presides at the annual press briefing as likely minimums, making the on the research and development financial future look even brighter. portion of the proposed federal budLarge as it is, the proposed NIH
T
JERUSALEM
get. This year, for the first time, Gore led the briefing, with the advisor and other senior government research officials lined up behind him. With the exception of a few who are dismissed as cranks, no-one is against spending more money on science. So, the stage has been left to those who enthusiastically endorse the proposals. “I can’t remember a State of the Union speech, and I’ve seen a lot them—in which science issues played a more prominent role”, declared Congressman George Brown. Brown, widely regarded as Capitol Hill’s grand old man of science, had previously savaged Clinton and company as indifferent to the value and needs of research. The Science Coalition, a lobby that looks after the money needs of the National Science Foundation, also hailed the creation of the 21st Century Research Fund. But, fearful of the attractiveness of medical research relative to NSF’s oftenobscure projects, the Coalition urged the president and Congress “to maintain a balanced federal research portfolio across all research agencies and science disciplines”. In the politics of science, concerns are now shifting from insufficiency to fair shares. What a change. Daniel S Greenberg
Palestinian human rights suffer from official corruption
L
ast week, the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) released its 1997 annual report The State of Human Rights in Palestine. The humanrights situation was worse than in 1996, emphasised director Bassem Eid, because systematic abuse is officially sanctioned. Illegal arrests and arbitrary detentions by police and by the Preventative Security Services are “the norm rather than the exception”. Eid also said that the health of the people is deteriorating because government-appointed officials are corrupt, stealing resources and donations before they get to the health and social-welfare agencies. The scathing report described the Palestinian Authority as a “police state” detailing widespread abuses including torture and extrajudicial killings in PA custody, while “the average citizen looks on in horror”. “Seven Palestinians died in custody
THE LANCET • Vol 351 • February 7, 1998
during 1997, compared to only four in 1996” with “no investigations” or punishments. Worse still, “more and more Palestinians are engaged in arresting, torturing, and occasionally killing each other”, the PHRMG charged. Criticisms of the Authority are effectively illegal—political opponents are jailed as an expedient means of blocking opposition. The justice system itself is not immune—a day before the PHRMG report was made public (in violation of PA laws), Qusai Al Abadleh, the life-term (sic) appointed Palestinian Chief Justice and President of the Palestinian High Court, was dismissed, after he had criticised Minister of Justice Freih Abu Medein in a newspaper article. In 1996, a senior judge was dismissed for ruling against the PA in a landmark human-rights case brought by the Palestinian humanrights society LAW.
LAW executive-director, Shawqi Issa, said that the situation has “improved somewhat”. Random violations, mass arrests, and casual torture have decreased, “not from humane reasons but because “these made the PA look very bad and brought too much attention to their corrupt government practices”. “Now torture is mainly restricted to criminals, collaborators, and land dealers. Political prisoners and religious groups are usually held without being questioned”. A Palestinian human-rights worker agreed that there is a “more sophisticated public relations awareness”. But, for whatever reason, PHRMG said: “It is absolutely verifiable that torture is taking place throughout the West Bank and Gaza with the knowledge and approval of our executive branch . . . To talk of ‘improvement’ mocks the victims.” Rachelle H B Fishman
425
WASHINGTON
Clinton proposes a science boom for USA
budget still falls short of the goal of he din of scandal surrounding NIH’s leading lobby, a conglomerate President Clinton has obscured of institutional beneficiaries known the elation that he evoked in the scias the Ad Hoc Group for Medical entific community with his generous Research Funding. Whatever the outspending proposals for medical and come, there is widespread confidence other types of research—sectors that that a turnaround has occurred in previously felt neglected by the chief the administration’s attitude towards executive. After sending Congress the care and feeding five annual budgets of science. that would have “the White House’s Planning for a scikept the National planning for a scienceence-spending boom Institutes of Health spending boom was long was long in the steady with inflain the works” works at the White tion, Clinton this House, and should week proposed an not be regarded as increase that would an overnight cynical ploy to divert raise the NIH budget next year attention from the President’s many by US$1·5 billion, to a total of woes. The proposed surge in research $15·1 billion. spending is attributable to the evapoThe largest increases will be for ration of the federal deficit and to the cancer research. Substantially championing of science by viceincreased spending is also planned president Gore, Clinton’s choice for for the National Science Foundation, next US president. the chief government financier of From cancer research to expansion academic science outside the health of the “information highway”, Gore area. The increases are encompassed has energetically embraced all things in what the president has christened scientific in a way that leaves little “a 21st Century Research Fund for room for a competitor to seem anypathbreaking scientific inquiry”. thing but a “me-too” copy. Gore’s In funding the research accounts, prominence in this area is rapidly Congress often exceeds the sums proexpanding. Normally, the president’s posed by the White House. The presscience and technology advisor idential figures can thus be regarded presides at the annual press briefing as likely minimums, making the on the research and development financial future look even brighter. portion of the proposed federal budLarge as it is, the proposed NIH
T
JERUSALEM
get. This year, for the first time, Gore led the briefing, with the advisor and other senior government research officials lined up behind him. With the exception of a few who are dismissed as cranks, no-one is against spending more money on science. So, the stage has been left to those who enthusiastically endorse the proposals. “I can’t remember a State of the Union speech, and I’ve seen a lot them—in which science issues played a more prominent role”, declared Congressman George Brown. Brown, widely regarded as Capitol Hill’s grand old man of science, had previously savaged Clinton and company as indifferent to the value and needs of research. The Science Coalition, a lobby that looks after the money needs of the National Science Foundation, also hailed the creation of the 21st Century Research Fund. But, fearful of the attractiveness of medical research relative to NSF’s oftenobscure projects, the Coalition urged the president and Congress “to maintain a balanced federal research portfolio across all research agencies and science disciplines”. In the politics of science, concerns are now shifting from insufficiency to fair shares. What a change. Daniel S Greenberg
Palestinian human rights suffer from official corruption
L
ast week, the Palestinian Human Rights Monitoring Group (PHRMG) released its 1997 annual report The State of Human Rights in Palestine. The humanrights situation was worse than in 1996, emphasised director Bassem Eid, because systematic abuse is officially sanctioned. Illegal arrests and arbitrary detentions by police and by the Preventative Security Services are “the norm rather than the exception”. Eid also said that the health of the people is deteriorating because government-appointed officials are corrupt, stealing resources and donations before they get to the health and social-welfare agencies. The scathing report described the Palestinian Authority as a “police state” detailing widespread abuses including torture and extrajudicial killings in PA custody, while “the average citizen looks on in horror”. “Seven Palestinians died in custody
THE LANCET • Vol 351 • February 7, 1998
during 1997, compared to only four in 1996” with “no investigations” or punishments. Worse still, “more and more Palestinians are engaged in arresting, torturing, and occasionally killing each other”, the PHRMG charged. Criticisms of the Authority are effectively illegal—political opponents are jailed as an expedient means of blocking opposition. The justice system itself is not immune—a day before the PHRMG report was made public (in violation of PA laws), Qusai Al Abadleh, the life-term (sic) appointed Palestinian Chief Justice and President of the Palestinian High Court, was dismissed, after he had criticised Minister of Justice Freih Abu Medein in a newspaper article. In 1996, a senior judge was dismissed for ruling against the PA in a landmark human-rights case brought by the Palestinian humanrights society LAW.
LAW executive-director, Shawqi Issa, said that the situation has “improved somewhat”. Random violations, mass arrests, and casual torture have decreased, “not from humane reasons but because “these made the PA look very bad and brought too much attention to their corrupt government practices”. “Now torture is mainly restricted to criminals, collaborators, and land dealers. Political prisoners and religious groups are usually held without being questioned”. A Palestinian human-rights worker agreed that there is a “more sophisticated public relations awareness”. But, for whatever reason, PHRMG said: “It is absolutely verifiable that torture is taking place throughout the West Bank and Gaza with the knowledge and approval of our executive branch . . . To talk of ‘improvement’ mocks the victims.” Rachelle H B Fishman
425