Neo-Puritanism hinders science
Nicholas D. Kristof NYT
Saturday, May 10, 2003 A witch-hunt over AIDS
NEW YORK Most AIDS scientists are terrified these days. They describe witch-hunts by neo-Puritans in and out of the Bush administration, and many are so nervous that in e-mail and research abstracts they avoid using words like "gays," "homosexuals," "anal sex" or "sex workers." . So scientists at the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, and elsewhere are devising their own code. I won't give it away, but one term stands for "gay" or "homosexual," another for "anal sex" and so on. . "I would recommend avoiding all electronic communication to any NIH office," one scientist warned in one of many e-mail notes buzzing among AIDS researchers. "Phone communication does not appear tapped at this time. Even so, I am advising staff to speak 'in code' unless an NIH staff member indicates you can speak freely. In short, assume you are living in Stalinist Russia when communicating with the United States government." . As my New York Times colleague Erica Goode noted in breaking the story last month, researchers have been told by NIH project officers to avoid "sensitive language" in grant applications. A University of California researcher, for example, was told to "cleanse" the abstract of his grant proposal of words like "gay," "homosexual" and "transgender." . Since his research was on HIV in gay men, this was a challenge. How can scholars investigate how AIDS spreads without using words that make the religious right blush? . Perhaps this seems like an obscure issue. It's not: The fundamental question is whether elements of the Bush administration are politicizing science, using budgets, committees and the fear of embarrassment to chill the way science is conducted in America. . Particularly in the case of AIDS, which kills more people in two hours than SARS has killed in total, vast numbers of human lives are at stake. In America alone, 12,000 people die annually of AIDS. The difference between solid scientific research and pseudo-science will be measured in millions of lives saved. . "We need science-based HIV prevention, not politically or ideologically driven policies," said David Harvey of the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families. "HIV and AIDS are an uncomfortable topic for many people because of issues related to gay sex and IV drug use. We can't shy away, though." . Some of the upheaval in the research community may be a paranoid overreaction among scientists, who tend to be liberal and secular. The Bush administration itself seems divided about how to deal with AIDS. Some officials have denounced condoms, for example, and want to promote only abstinence. . But President George W. Bush himself is fighting for his $15 billion AIDS initiative, an outstanding effort that sensibly relies on condoms as well as abstinence. Probably no initiative of Bush's will save so many lives or make so much difference in Africa and Asia as his AIDS effort. . Domestically, the administration announced a new strategy last month for fighting HIV, moving the focus from community outreach to more testing and treatment, particularly of expectant mothers. One can quibble about the new strategy, but it's a credible, serious effort, and since new HIV infections in the United States have stubbornly remained at 40,000 annually, the new approach is reasonable. . One reason for the new strategy is that conservatives have had fits about past community outreach efforts. A recent letter from a congressional subcommittee thundered about the use of federal money to finance "great sex workshops, pointers on where to have anonymous sex in public places, masturbation instructions, 'fisting' forums and tips of how to negotiate sex with prostitutes." . Hmm. Defenders say that many at-risk men don't attend meetings on safe sex, so the only way to save their lives is to lure them to picnics or, yes, sex workshops. Still, the efficacy is unclear, and most Americans are unlikely to regard tax dollars as well spent when used to finance gay sex workshops. If Bush makes a serious effort to combat AIDS using other approaches, like testing, that's fair. . The bottom line, though, is that Bush must make it clear that he is on the side of scientists, not the witch-burners. He can't stay on the fence. Too many Americans have already died of AIDS to allow promising fields of research to wither because some Americans get the willies when they see terms like "anal sex." . E-mail: nicholas at nytimes.com
< < Back to Start of Article A witch-hunt over AIDS
NEW YORK Most AIDS scientists are terrified these days. They describe witch-hunts by neo-Puritans in and out of the Bush administration, and many are so nervous that in e-mail and research abstracts they avoid using words like "gays," "homosexuals," "anal sex" or "sex workers." . So scientists at the National Institutes of Health, or NIH, and elsewhere are devising their own code. I won't give it away, but one term stands for "gay" or "homosexual," another for "anal sex" and so on. . "I would recommend avoiding all electronic communication to any NIH office," one scientist warned in one of many e-mail notes buzzing among AIDS researchers. "Phone communication does not appear tapped at this time. Even so, I am advising staff to speak 'in code' unless an NIH staff member indicates you can speak freely. In short, assume you are living in Stalinist Russia when communicating with the United States government." . As my New York Times colleague Erica Goode noted in breaking the story last month, researchers have been told by NIH project officers to avoid "sensitive language" in grant applications. A University of California researcher, for example, was told to "cleanse" the abstract of his grant proposal of words like "gay," "homosexual" and "transgender." . Since his research was on HIV in gay men, this was a challenge. How can scholars investigate how AIDS spreads without using words that make the religious right blush? . Perhaps this seems like an obscure issue. It's not: The fundamental question is whether elements of the Bush administration are politicizing science, using budgets, committees and the fear of embarrassment to chill the way science is conducted in America. . Particularly in the case of AIDS, which kills more people in two hours than SARS has killed in total, vast numbers of human lives are at stake. In America alone, 12,000 people die annually of AIDS. The difference between solid scientific research and pseudo-science will be measured in millions of lives saved. . "We need science-based HIV prevention, not politically or ideologically driven policies," said David Harvey of the AIDS Alliance for Children, Youth and Families. "HIV and AIDS are an uncomfortable topic for many people because of issues related to gay sex and IV drug use. We can't shy away, though." . Some of the upheaval in the research community may be a paranoid overreaction among scientists, who tend to be liberal and secular. The Bush administration itself seems divided about how to deal with AIDS. Some officials have denounced condoms, for example, and want to promote only abstinence. . But President George W. Bush himself is fighting for his $15 billion AIDS initiative, an outstanding effort that sensibly relies on condoms as well as abstinence. Probably no initiative of Bush's will save so many lives or make so much difference in Africa and Asia as his AIDS effort. . Domestically, the administration announced a new strategy last month for fighting HIV, moving the focus from community outreach to more testing and treatment, particularly of expectant mothers. One can quibble about the new strategy, but it's a credible, serious effort, and since new HIV infections in the United States have stubbornly remained at 40,000 annually, the new approach is reasonable. . One reason for the new strategy is that conservatives have had fits about past community outreach efforts. A recent letter from a congressional subcommittee thundered about the use of federal money to finance "great sex workshops, pointers on where to have anonymous sex in public places, masturbation instructions, 'fisting' forums and tips of how to negotiate sex with prostitutes." . Hmm. Defenders say that many at-risk men don't attend meetings on safe sex, so the only way to save their lives is to lure them to picnics or, yes, sex workshops. Still, the efficacy is unclear, and most Americans are unlikely to regard tax dollars as well spent when used to finance gay sex workshops. If Bush makes a serious effort to combat AIDS using other approaches, like testing, that's fair. . The bottom line, though, is that Bush must make it clear that he is on the side of scientists, not the witch-burners. He can't stay on the fence. Too many Americans have already died of AIDS to allow promising fields of research to wither because some Americans get the willies when they see terms like "anal sex." . E-mail: nicholas at nytimes.com --- Sent from UnionMail Service [http://mail.union.org.za]