Remarks by William R. Brody, President
The Johns Hopkins University 171st National Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science
Thursday, February 17, 2005
Marriott Wardman Park Hotel, Washington D.C.
6:30 p.m. [Introduction by AAAS president (& Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute president) Shirley Ann Jackson] Thank you, Shirley. Scientists love numbers, so permit me to greet you with some numbers today. This past summer the Washington D.C. Convention and Tourism Corporation held a press briefing to announce that tourist visits to the nation's capital are up — during the previous year Washington hosted 16.4 million domestic visitors, an increase of 3.2 percent. These millions of tourists came from all 50 states. They stayed an average of 3.3 nights in hotels, spending about $500 each per day. Two-thirds of those visitors were here purely for pleasure — to see the White House and the National Capitol, the Supreme Court and the many monuments, museums and historic buildings that have made this city famous. Tourism in Washington D.C. is a growth industry, bringing jobs and economic benefits. I think we can all agree this is a good thing. But I have recently come to the conclusion that not all tourism is a good thing. There is a tourism that poses a very real and growing threat to the mission and values of American science. I am honored to serve as co-chair of the 171st national meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. And I am very pleased that the triple-A S has invited me to offer brief remarks prior to Dr. Jackson's Presidential Lecture. I want to use this opportunity today to say a few words about that other kind of tourism. Right now in Annapolis, the Maryland legislature is contemplating a bill that would provide $25 million in support of stem cell research. Some proposed language suggests that the state is "authorizing" this particular kind of research — which could suggest that at some time in the future such research not properly re-authorized is thereby prohibited. A different bill would ban in Maryland, any kind of research that in any way destroys a human embryo. What I am describing here is hardly unique to Annapolis or the Maryland General Assembly. In state houses from Albany, New York, to Sacramento, California, legislators and sometimes even the general public are taking on a new role. They are setting aside deliberations to invite themselves into our classrooms and laboratories with the goal of saying what kind of research we should or should not do. Call it scientific tourism. Sometimes they come to advance a particular line of research or kind of approach. Other times, they show up to prohibit it. In either case, by trying to bend the course of research, they end up warping the structure of science. And this concerns me very much. I am concerned in particular for two reasons. First, that this hodgepodge of local legislation, control and restriction does not recognize the fundamentally porous nature of modern research science. What we do is collaborative and interdisciplinary. It crosses not just fields of knowledge, but often cuts across states and even countries of origin. A Johns Hopkins scientist in Baltimore collaborating with a colleague at the University of Wisconsin Madison may find herself in violation of the law because of the nature of the work done in the other lab — or vice versa. Imagine a research scientist flying from Baltimore to California to collaborate with a colleague on stem cell research using human embryos. He changes planes in the Cincinnati Airport. Unbeknownst to him, the Cincinnati Airport is physically located in the state of Kentucky. Getting off the plane from BWI, with papers and tissue samples in his briefcase, he is met by state agents with a warrant for his arrest for transporting prohibited research materials. It may sound improbable, but it should be impossible. Consider that Kentucky last year passed a fetal homicide bill that confers human status on in-utero fertilized eggs from the moment of conception and imposes penalties of up to life in prison for destroying them. Five other states have prohibited therapeutic cloning. South Dakota specifically forbids research on embryos. Massachusetts Governor Romney wants to ban therapeutic cloning in one of the most medical research-intensive states in America. Historically, science and society have been served well by having one national policy guiding scientific research in this country — instead we are threatened with a patchwork quilt of competing legal statutes. In the coming years, scientists may find it necessary to do their basic research in San Francisco, animal studies in Minneapolis and clinical trials in Baltimore — great business for the struggling airlines, but not necessarily beneficial for science and the public good. My second area of concern is more philosophical than practical. As scientists we know that the results of our efforts are often unpredictable. We start off with an idea, perhaps a hypothesis, and if we're lucky we are able to contribute to an evolving body of knowledge by showing that something is or is not true. Sometimes we stumble into results that are controversial and go against the established scientific dogma. Then we know there will be a lot of people wanting to challenge our position. We have to be prepared for exacting scrutiny and rigorous debate. This is the foundational method of science, and it gives us a neat and easy way of determining good science from bad. Good science holds up. It can be replicated and defended on the basis of research that delivers the same results when done by different scientists. Bad science doesn't meet this fundamental criterion. One danger of having a patchwork quilt of scientific regulations is that scientific inquiry that historically has been conducted in full public view will move 'underground' as it were, free from the kind of scrutiny that exposes 'bad' science but also promotes innovation based upon 'good' science. When public officials want to create science specifically to support certain ideologies or beliefs, we are starting down that slippery slope. Politicians must answer to public opinion. That is their function. Scientists owe their allegiance to measurable truth. This is the house we live in. Fundamentally, at some level, we come from different places. If scientific theories were to be decided by popular opinion, the world would still be flat. But we have proved otherwise. And we must continue to do so. In many issues we face today, the ethical challenges are as important — and as difficult — as the scientific ones. I don't wish to minimize either. Nor do I wish to suggest that these ethical issues should be decided by scientists alone. These are problems we must resolve as a nation, at the national level. In issues ranging from global warming and environmental degradation to medical science and the beginning and end of life, we need to debate as a nation, and decide as a nation. But let's make sure that we take part in the discussion. On all these issues, scientists have important things to say. It is important to recognize that having one national science policy has served us well in the past. We in the scientific community should encourage and support our federal government to develop sound science policy for the public good. Otherwise, scientific tourists might decide that the best science is that which is most pleasing to the folks back home. This is our challenge, and the answer must ultimately come from all of us. At the start of the 171st annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I congratulate the association, President Shirley Jackson, and all the membership on the magnificent achievements and commendable history of American science. May we always continue to advocate for truth, disdain error, and keep foremost in our minds the lesson of the Washington tourist, who was riding in a cab past the National Archives Building on Pennsylvania Avenue. In front of the building there is an imposing statue of a seated woman cut from a single block of limestone that weighed 125 tons. On the base are carved the words, "WHAT IS PAST IS PROLOGUE." The tourist read the words aloud and wondered what they meant. Luckily, cab drivers always have an answer. "It means," said the cabby, "you ain't seen nothing yet." Thank you. | 
