Reported cases of influenza in China as of April 16, 2013. Confirmed H7N9 cases are in blue, confirmed H7N9 deaths are in red, and cases of other flu strains are in pink.

Amidst the seasonal chatter of virulent H5N1 influenza strains and lingering concerns about H1N1 arose a new topic of interest this April: the emergence of a new flu strain, H7N9, which had previously never been seen in humans. First reported to the WHO on March 31, the new strain had already caused 77 cases and 16 deaths in China as of April 16.

Promisingly, Chinese officials have already started to crack down on H7N9′s spread. Measures have included a closure of poultry markets in Shanghai and a culling of poultry stocks in the areas surrounding affected cities. Culling, in particular, will be important for preventing the spread of virus, since H7N9 has been shown to have low pathogenicity; (that is, it produces no symptoms in infected animals.) And since public health officials are reinforcing the message that H7N9 does not generally appear to be transmissible from human to human, limiting the spread between and from affected birds will be particularly crucial for containing the cases.

Ten Years After

This rapid response to H7N9 contrasts starkly with China’s response to the high-profile SARS epidemic almost exactly 10 years ago. In the initial stages of SARS, starting on November 16, 2002, local and central Chinese authorities covered up the outbreak, fearing social and economic instability if control measures like quarantines and market shutdowns were undertaken. As SARS cases began to appear in other countries, it became clear that China’s refusal to acknowledge that SARS was a problem and institute effective control measures was threatening the health of the international community. Only on February 11, 2003 was the outbreak reported to the WHO, almost three months after it began. By April 20, 2003, two central figures involved in the cover-up were sacked, and China’s position began to shift towards reporting the SARS crisis honestly.

The recent Chinese response to the H7N9 epidemic has clearly improved on the speed of the SARS response, and certain actions taken by the new President Xi Jinping’s administration reflect his commitment to increased transparency. In terms of scientific transparency, the Chinese have provided the WHO with the gene sequence for the virus, allowing for crucial research that can reveal the source of the virus and how it spreads between animals and humans. In terms of government transparency, state censors have permitted news stories about the toll of H7N9 to be published in Xinhua, the official state press, providing numbers ahead of the WHO count. Editorials have even been published critiquing the government response to the SARS epidemic 10 years after, reflecting the government’s recognition that silence is not a sustainable response to crisis.

Room for Growth

Despite improvements in China’s response to health crises, however, there is still much room for improvement. For one, while Chinese authorities were much faster to release news of the emergence of H7N9 than SARS or even H5N1, there was still a critical delay between the first suspected case (February 18), or even the first major cluster of cases (March 18), and the first official notification to the WHO (March 31).

Officials have cited multiple reasons for this delay. For one, the unusually low pathogenicity of the virus makes it difficult to trace infected birds, and this hindered the official detection and response to the epidemic. Furthermore, this recent focus on the threat of H5N1 means that even serology tests conducted on poultry to detect antibodies for influenza may have focused on detecting H5N1 only, rather than detecting all strains of the flu. And after the virus was transmitted to humans, officials claimed that they wanted to wait for official lab confirmation on the identity of the virus, which arrived on March 29, before they reported the new strain to the WHO two days later.

However, others have speculated that the real reason for the delay was not scientific, but political. Notably, the announcement was delayed until after the National People’s Congress on March 16, 2013, during which government power was transferred to new leadership, and dissent was discouraged to a an even greater extent than usual. If so, it does not bode well for China’s image to be known for prioritizing politics over health.

The cost of disease extends beyond the immediate public health budget, to lost economic productivity and numerous intangibles caused by unpredictable responses to outbreaks. And delays amplify that cost; the more infection control responses are delayed, the longer it takes for the pathogen to be sequenced, the slower the control of the outbreak, and the slower the development of an effective vaccine. Delays in response, even on the order of days, mean poorer preparation and capacity among health care agencies to respond effectively to the new threat. The more the virus is allowed to spread, the more persistent it will be, and the greater impact it has on local and global economies.

While China has greatly sped up its response to health crises in the ten years since SARS, this incident makes it clear that it still has much room for improvement. As an April 3 Xinhua editorial noted, “If there is anything that SARS has taught China and its government, it’s that one cannot be too careful or too honest when it comes to deadly pandemics.” The Chinese had an opportunity before and during their National People’s Congress to prove their commitment to transparency and the welfare of their people over politics. It was an opportunity wasted.

Photo credit: businessinsider.com

On October 22, 2012, Italian judge Marco Billi sentenced six Italian scientists and a government official to six years in prison. The crime? Manslaughter, for statements they made prior to a 5.8 magnitude earthquake in the region of Abruzzo, which resulted in 309 deaths. On March 6, almost five months after the sentencing and just before the March 7 deadline, the scientists have appealed the ruling.

In its responses to the original verdict, Nature magazine has repeatedly touched upon how ludicrous Billi’s ruling is in punishing scientists for poor prediction. And if this were the extent of the scientists’ mistake, I would be inclined to agree. Seismological and earthquake prediction are both notoriously unreliable, and false alarms and near misses are common. Disasters such as Hurricane Katrina rapidly come to mind, and we should ask in these cases: Should the scientists who missed predictions be subject to the same sort of standards the Italian scientists were? The answer, most would agree, is no.

However, the issue at stake here is not whether the scientists made a poor prediction, but whether they adequately communicated the risks pursuant to that prediction. And in this case, the evidence is murkier. As the prosecution alleged during trials, the seven implicated individuals downplayed risks of tremors, falsely reassuring citizens and directly contributing to 29 of the 309 deaths that occurred as a result of the subsequent earthquake. As Billi noted, ”the deficient risk analysis was not limited to the omission of a single factor, but to the underestimation of many risk indicators and the correlations between those indicators.”

Even given that the scientists may bear responsibility for poor scientific communication, it is a leap to go as far as Billi does in saying that the scientists provided “an assessment of the risks that was… criminally misguided”. It would be difficult — nay, impossible — to prove that the scientists bore malicious intent when they told the public that the risks of an earthquake were small. Similarly, it would be difficult to prove that the scientists are solely responsible for those 29 of 309 lives lost during the earthquake — that without the scientists’ reassurances, those 29 people would have been in a a safe, open place rather than in frail houses that collapsed around them while they slept.

The ramifications of Billi’s ruling run far beyond this individual case in L’Aquila. By sending the message that it is acceptable to punish scientists for an action that was a result of inefficient communication, the government risks driving away those experts whose opinions are most needed in moments of crisis. Signals of that kind of fear have already manifested themselves after the ruling, with two scientists in the Italian equivalent of FEMA resigning their posts in October after the ruling. It is easy and convenient to point fingers in the wake of a disaster; it is satisfying to ascribe blame to a party for a tragedy that seems senseless. But the way to solve problems and prevent a catastrophe of this scale in the future is not to punish the scientists, but to work with them.

It is for this reason that the scientists’ recent appeal should be considered, and the original verdict reviewed and overturned. With the time and financial resources that went into fighting the legal battle against the scientists, Italy could have instituted programs to improve risk communication for its public officials and could have invested in sturdier infrastructure that better withstands earthquakes. Until real action supplements talk, everyone is a victim of L’Aquila.

Article Photo Credit: Alessandro Giangiulio.

Featured Photo Credit: Wikimedia

I wrote a column a few weeks ago about the rapid decline of science coverage in the media–a decline partially related to declining profits in print journalism, and partially related to the decline in prestige associated with science since the Cold War ended. I was thus saddened to see on March 1 that The New York Times is shuttering its Green blog, which focused specifically on issues of energy and the environment. From now on, content on these topics will be split between their Bits blog, focusing on technology, and their Caucus blog, focusing on policy.

I have no doubt that The New York Times will continue covering these topics in print and online, but closing the Green blog sends the message that energy and the environment are low priorities for the Times. Having a blog and staff writers dedicated to covering energy and the environment generates the mindset that there is important information that needs to be deeply explored, mined, and conveyed to the public, since the strength of a dedicated Green unit is in the ability of its writers to easily exchange focus-specific ideas. With a team of writers scattered in different departments, with different deadlines and demands, it is likely that this kind of deep exploration that produced such series as A Watery Crossroads, on the disruption of the Mekong River ecosystem by hydroelectric projects, and Temperature Rising, examining the scientific and policy consequences of global warming, will no longer have a home.

One can hope that the elimination of the Green blog is only a one-time event for a newspaper of such repute as The New York Times–but more likely and regrettably, it is only one step in a larger trend of the media following the profits rather than the stories.

Photo Credit: NY Senate

This is why I’m writing a science policy column for the HPR: 95 weekly science sections in newspapers in 1989, 34 in 2005, 19 in 2012. Newspapers once wore science sections as a symbol of pride – everybody knew that they didn’t make money, so having one of good quality meant that your paper was successful, perhaps reliable and trustworthy. Now, with profits from print journalism falling, science sections are being shuttered. Among those sections that remain, basic science headlines are increasingly being diluted by headlines about “health” and “technology.” Many section articles merely cover the latest fad diet or iPhone release, rather than real, evidence-based discoveries from reputable journals.

Even when evidence-based research is covered, journalists and editors twist correlative relationships into causal ones in pursuit of the eye-catching headline. I am reminded particularly of a comic satirizing “Today’s Random Medical News,” which sadly reflects the superficiality of a greater and greater share of today’s medical reporting. Watching the evening news or reading the health section of publications these days, you would think that the biggest scientific breakthroughs come from observational studies about whether coffee lowers your risk of type 2 diabetes by 8 percent or how red wine is linked to beneficially lowering blood pressure.

What media coverage often minimizes or does not mention are the limitations to those studies. For instance, the coffee study was only carried out among health professionals whose health habits may have been more adaptive overall than the general population’s and masked the real effect of the coffee; the red wine study only enrolled 67 men in a specific age range and risk for cardiovascular disease. While the studies’ findings suggest the potential for further research, they don’t necessarily translate into the statements about “drinking all the coffee you want.”  However, as newspapers and magazines acknowledge, readers prefer certainty over doubt, and science stories that portray discoveries as limited and merely probabilistic simply don’t sell as well.

The state of scientific media coverage, already problematic because of such overly certain and generalized reporting, is further complicated by the rising coverage of pseudoscience. When such theories are presented on equal footing with evidence-based theories, they can acquire undue legitimacy. See as an example recent controversies regarding the validity of celebrity doctor Mehmet Oz’s claims on his TV show. A graduate of Harvard College and the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, and a professor of surgery at Columbia University, Dr. Oz’s educational background and professional credentials would suggest that he is a reliable source of health information for the layperson.  Yet, his shows feature or promote controversial views, ranging from the widespread existence of arsenic in apple juice to reparative therapy for homosexuals, that are unsupported or downright rejected by mainstream research.

The format of Dr. Oz’s show—multiple “experts” speaking back-to-back about the same issue—is promising for the multiple perspectives it brings.  However, one Harvard researcher, who recently went on the show to discuss the dangers of the hCG fad diet, was highly critical.  That researcher, Dr. Pieter Cohen, lamented that Dr. Oz is “fundamentally doing a disservice to the viewers” when he presents perspectives without interpreting them or weighing them on the basis of the evidence.

Why should we care, and how is science writing relevant to a political review? The decline of science journalism, the misinterpretation of data, the popularization of science that is not evidence-based, changing definitions of what it means to “do” science – all these trends are embedded in the larger picture of our society’s values today. In the coming months, I hope to highlight current advances in science and health and bring them in conversation with perhaps more familiar issues: economics, education, religion, technology, national security. Science is no heroic pursuit isolated from the influence of politics, nor can policy be isolated from scientific or social scientific evidence – let’s bring them together.

Photo Credit: NPS

The West Nile Virus outbreak this year has been one of the worst on record. As of September 25, there have been 3,545 cases, with almost 40 percent of those in Texas. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported a deceleration in the number of new West Nile Virus cases, which suggests the season may be coming to an end.

Most public health efforts regarding prevention of West Nile Virus during the season involve mosquito surveillance and advising citizens to take precautions like staying indoors or wearing bug spray. However, a number of factors can stymie prolonged protective behavior in the population. Ineffective communication can lead people to downplay the actual threat of the disease, which causes symptoms ranging from fever to encephalitis (swelling of the brain) and even death. Additionally, people may de-emphasize the benefits of protecting oneself, or after the novelty of the threat has faded, normalize and ignore the threat.

It’s clear that hoping for successful communication between officials and citizens is not enough. If global warming is indeed responsible for the severe West Nile season, and unseasonably warm climate patterns persist, the range of West Nile will only increase. Structural solutions like pesticide spraying and larvicide distribution, therefore, should be standardized for all regions at risk.

Many areas already have infrastructure in place for mosquito spraying during outbreaks, but there are few clear guidelines as to when it is appropriate to utilize that infrastructure. The official CDC guidelines for spraying during West Nile Virus outbreaks give no guidelines other than that spraying is recommended when human cases are reported, leaving further decisions to the states. This suggests that public health agencies consider mosquito-borne diseases to be relatively endemic and regional, which has generally been true in the past in cases of Eastern Equine Encephalitis outbreaks.

However, this recent West Nile Virus outbreak has demonstrated the capacity for an epidemic to spread from essentially one state, Texas, to the entire country. The speed with which this epidemic has moved has demonstrated that even though we consider WNV to be an “emerging” infectious disease, it has a capacity to be a serious national public health threat.

In order to have an effective public health response, states must act quickly against threats like disease-carrying mosquitoes. It is therefore discouraging to see that only some states have official policies on mosquito control, that these policies are highly variable, and that even states with policies have trouble mobilizing a response. For instance, Texas, a state with an official mosquito control policy, only began spraying at the end of August 2012, after 586 cases and 21 deaths from WNV had already been reported. If this response speed were for something like a foodborne outbreak, you could guarantee that public officials would be chastised for not taking action sooner to protect the public.

Part of the reason Texas may have been slow to respond is that mosquito spraying wasn’t a part of its routine protocol, having not been used in 43 years before this WNV outbreak. But once carried out, the results of the spraying were breathtaking: areas that were sprayed twice consecutively reported a 93 percent decrease in disease-carrying mosquitoes, while areas that were not sprayed reported an increase. The successes of mosquito spraying are evident; it should now be an imperative to rewrite existing policy in such a way that spraying as a form of outbreak response is just as legitimate and essential as surveillance and public health education.

As new threats to public health change, so must the official response to protect populations. Communicating the nature of the threat to the public, always a balancing act of adequately conveying risk without inciting social panic, may no longer be enough. Ultimately, an epidemic, West Nile or otherwise, is not merely an environmental or an economic concern; it’s a public health issue, which should be combated with substantive action that directly addresses the factors that cause the disease.

Photo Credit: Spike Walker, Wellcome Images

Earlier this month, perhaps the most scientifically significant discovery of the century thus far took place: scientists found the God Particle. The news was all over the Internet, television, and papers worldwide. Finding the God Particle has even been hailed as the biggest breakthrough since the discovery of DNA.

A CERN simulation of data depicting a Higgs event

Surprisingly, however, few outside scientific and scientifically-inclined circles seem truly jolted or amazed by this discovery. If this is as big a deal as DNA, why was the news so quick to fade from the public mind? The reasons are twofold: one, its name is misleading. Though the particle does explain physics as we know it, it has little to do with God. Secondly, it’s a matter of physics that isn’t immediately relevant to areas of development today. Because it will lead to no sudden advances in medicine or technology, it is difficult to convince the public of its significance.

Let’s look at the first idea: the God Particle is anything but. Despite its God-like ability to give mass to matter, its nickname has little to do with God, and is less an innocent expression of awe than an act of censorship. Leon Lederman, who originally coined the term for his book The God Particle in 1993, actually named it the “Godd**m” particle because scientists had an extremely hard time finding it. His publishers, the story goes, picked the tamer version. Though someone with little scientific or religious knowledge might have gotten the impression that by finding the particle, we had found the basis for a universe with no room for an actual God, that idea is nothing more than hollow speculation.

But despite the fact that the particle—known in less flashy circles as the Higgs boson, after Peter Higgs, who proposed its existence in 1964—is not holy in any sense of the word, its discovery is nonetheless monumental in helping to uphold the Standard Model of physics. It still fails to excite the public, though, because it does not immediately catalyze discoveries that can impact our world. The discovery of the Higgs boson, which more cautious circles have yet to completely confirm, simply validates a Higgs-based model physicists have been using for a number of decades now. The model, too, is merely a proposed way of viewing things; scientists have also proposed alternative Higgs-less models in the past in case the Higgs was not found. DNA, on the other hand, was a concrete discovery that could be directly studied to facilitate breakthroughs in biology and medicine. Now that scientists claim to have found the Higgs, all they can do is make sure they really have found it before delving into further theoretical research that leads to no immediate contribution to mankind.

But before I get a lot of flak for a seemingly anti-scientific attitude towards the Higgs, bear in mind that I am trying to explain public sentiment about the exciting discovery. The “so what?” question has been hard for Higgs experts to answer. But the truth is, it is hard to get the public excited by what seems like obscure “ivory tower” science that is expensive and hard to immediately justify (the “for knowledge!” argument only goes so far). This can be seen with the regular desire to slash NASA funding, despite the many advances its research has provided us. And the American people have expressed extreme disdain for investing in the necessary infrastructure to find the Higgs themselves.

Many will remember the controversy in the 1990s over the possible construction of an American superconducting supercollider that would do much of the work CERN has managed to do with its Large Hadron Collider more recently. On top of that, the American Fermilab’s Tevatron (a similar facility) was shut down in 2011. But though an American discovery of the Higgs would have been extremely significant for the scientific community, I am not so sure it would be that much of a reason for national pride. The Higgs particle, as I’ve tried to explain, is not exactly energizing to a public who does not understand it or its discovery’s implications. Because of this, despite its importance for physics, Americans did not miss their chance when it came to finding the Higgs. Even if this statement makes you pause, it is still a truth: if the public does not see its tax dollars being put to visible good use, it is not inclined to spend them. Physics, unlike direct progress in technology and medicine, just does not provide the public with the immediate gratification it seeks.

Photo Credit: CERN via Wikimedia Commons

The following is a transcript of a phone interview conducted with Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson on June 4, 2011. Dr. Tyson is a popular astrophysicist and an advocate for increased government funding of science in general and space exploration in particular.

HPR: You recently delivered a keynote speech at the 28^th Annual Space Symposium in which you commented on the decline of a national collective consciousness with regard to space since the 1960’s and 1970’s, and the countless benefits to be reaped from a greater national investment in space travel. You stated that the culture of NASA drives our economy and the culture of innovation. Given today’s current fiscal situation, how do you think the federal government can balance conflicting priorities to at least double NASA’s current budget, as you proposed previously?

NDT: If it is an investment, it is not a matter of balancing priorities. You balance priorities if there is no other foreseeable return on the money that you are spending, because then you’re taking from Peter to pay Paul, whereas if it’s an actual investment, then it’s an investment in the future of the nation. So when it’s an investment, you don’t have to go through that kind of analysis of who’s going to get money and who isn’t. Secondly, if you double the NASA budget – I recommended doubling it, but any number that is significantly larger than the current amount would be good – it corresponds to a penny on a tax dollar. That is still not a significant fraction of what the total spending of the nation is. So to say, “How do we have to think about balancing it to balance one-half of a percent to one percent?” is a trivial exercise given how much money is floating around doing other things that are not in the interest of boosting the Americans’ economy.

HPR: Just as important as the previous question, though, is the question of communicating this message to the American people. As a preeminent science communicator, how do you communicate the importance of space travel to a generation of Americans who are far removed from any serious interest in space exploration?

NDT: That’s an important question. I think I’ve stopped trying to convince people that discovery is a fun and interesting thing to do. I’ve stopped trying to convince people that exploration is an amazing thing that cultures have done ever since there’s been culture. I’ve resorted to in fact a much more potent comment, a much more potent assessment. And that is, if we do not do it, then our economy will fail on the world stage. And since we’re a free market capitalist democracy, I presume that people care about the health of our economy on a scale that they will do what it takes to keep America economically strong. So it comes down to that. I’ll certainly tell you about the beauty of discovery to whoever will listen, but the history of that exercise is one of failure. What I mean is that, in the history of human culture, discovery has never been a sufficient enough driver to stimulate the large expenditures of money that our next steps in space would require. It just never has. Neither has science. The things that have accomplished this task are war, and the promise of economic return. So I don’t want to go into space for war, I mean, we certainly would if forced, but I don’t want that to be the reason. But economic drivers are almost as potent as military drivers for the major expenditures of human or financial capital. Thus I say we should go into space because if we don’t, we might as well just move back into the cave, because that’s where we will wake up one morning and find ourselves as the rest of the world passes us by.

HPR: Do you see any problem with the current structure of NASA and if so, what steps would you take to reform it and make it more efficient?

NDT: There are always inefficiencies in government. I don’t think that needs to be the center point of any conversation regarding NASA, otherwise you can make it the center point of any conversation you have about any government agency. So that’s not what is going to drive this. What’s going to drive this is the idea that people want to go into space not only because it’s fun, but also because the space exploration culture will help stoke our economy in ways that our economy once was. So when you recognize this idea, it becomes an easy allocation of money because you expect the returns on this in terms of the strength of our economy and the innovations that derive from it.

HPR: Do you see any role for private investment and technological innovation in future space expeditions as governments are impeded by budgetary concerns? Is there a precedent for this, and what ramifications would it have?

NDT: I think private enterprise should have been there a long time ago. I think private enterprise should have taken us into space decades ago, but that is no longer a frontier. Private enterprise can’t advance a frontier; it’s not equipped to do so. But what it can do is take on the routine tasks that have already been established and where the maps are drawn, the trade winds are identified, and so on. Once you know how to quantify those risks, then you can make a capital markets valuation of how to invest in it. So don’t expect it to lead the space frontier; it simply won’t because it’s not conceived to do so.

HPR: One last question for you, Dr. Tyson. History has proven that geopolitics has a central role in determining the trajectory of space travel. Present economic uncertainties notwithstanding, some commentators have suggested that a strengthening of China on the international scene could mean the start of a second great space race. What are your opinions about this and how do you think it would play out both in the short and long terms? In other words, do you see a legacy of active cooperation or one of heated competition?

NDT: If it’s business, then it’s not a matter of cooperation or competition. If business is healthy in the conduct of space activities, then the countries become irrelevant because there would be multinational corporations engaged in it. In terms of how we might be motivated to return to space in a big way, if China says they are going to put military bases on Mars, we’ll be in Mars in 10 months, right? One month to fund, design, and build the spacecraft and nine months to get there. If it’s just because they are doing better than us economically, then it’s time to step up to the plate. But if it’s an economic contest, I don’t know that people would think of it as a race, because a race implies a destination and if we have a healthy space program participating with a space industry, then it’s simply access to our solar system: to the near side of the Moon, far side of the Moon, asteroids, Mars, Martian moons, Lagrangian points. So there is surely enough out there for everybody to participate in. I don’t see it as a race, and if people want to cooperate, that’s fine. But the drivers could be scientific; we’ve cooperated scientifically on missions forever, so that wouldn’t be a new construct. It could be touristic reasons. It could be geopolitical reasons or military reasons. It could be direct economic reasons; for example, mining of the Moon or of asteroids. So I am not going to prejudge the rate at which one of those activities unfold versus another; the circumstances of the moment would dictate that. But if you have access to all of the solar system, then you don’t have to predetermine a path that everyone needs to take first; you don’t have to assert that it is a race to one destination or another. And then everyone just engages in this. And if we want to collaborate with China, fine, but once we recognize that it is an investment in our own future, the collaboration is not necessary due to financial reasons. Therefore, collaboration could happen for geopolitical reasons. Maybe we want to partner with them, and that’s fine too, but none of that should be a prerequisite for any of this. We should do it because it is good for our economy. Period. Whatever else happens after that is gravy.

This interview has been condensed and edited.

Photo Credit: Photobucket

Climate Change can seem removed from our daily lives—many of us live in urban environments, far away from nature, and spend much of our time inside air conditioned buildings. Our modern system of living that contributes to global warming ultimately buffers us from its effects.

Native American tribes, though, living in much more immediate contact with their natural surroundings, have begun to notice environmental changes. And many of these changes have mattered.

Brown Ash: An early victim of climate change

In 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency released a report detailing the changes that have already been set in motion by climate change. In the Northeast, changes include ocean acidification and infiltration by invasive species.

Such changes have had a real impact on Native American life already. Sharri Venno, who acts as the environmental planner for the Houlton Band of the Maliseet Indians, said in an interview with the HPR that even before climate change “became a household word,” the Maliseet Indians were noticing a phenomenon called Brown Ash die-back. The Maliseet use Brown Ash, a plant sensitive to environmental changes, to make baskets, which they both use and sell. And due to climate change, Brown Ash is dying out. Venno explains, “I think the biggest frustration regarding communicating the impact of change to communities outside the tribe is that impacts to tribal culture are very broad and fundamental and can’t be summarized easily.”

The 30+ different kinds of change faced by tribes across the country make clear the urgency of the situation. Consider, though, that 50 percent of U.S. representatives elected in 2010 were global warming deniers. As Venno said, “The timeframe within which things are changing is very short.”

Photo Credit: Keith Kanoti

Political characterizations are always relative. It is often said that if David Cameron, or another conservative European leader, were plucked off Downing Street and dropped on Pennsylvania Avenue, he would undoubtedly find his Conservative Party positions on healthcare, postsecondary education, and fiscal stimulus somewhere in line with the leftmost wing of the American Democrats. But if Mr. Cameron were made in America, the class of political observers that believes ideology entails a combination of choice and socialization would argue that it is impossible to guess what kind of American political life a theoretical David Cameron might have had. An emerging consensus within the field of social psychology, however, suggests a radical revision of the traditional narrative on where ideology comes from.

“Most people,” psychologist Jamie Napier of Yale University contends, “would think that their political attitudes come from a very reasoned, rational perspective – and they decide what’s best.”  But drawing on a wealth of personality, lifestyle, and genetic surveys, social science researchers have begun to argue that political ideology is the product of basic dispositional and cognitive personality traits. The assertion that political ideology is essentially innate has profound implications for how we understand elite decisions, democratic outcomes, and the efficacy of our current system of government.

Read More…