Gathering prominent scientists and legislators together in the White House, President Barack Obama signed a pair of directives Monday that loosen restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research and demand "scientific integrity" in the federal government.

"Promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion..." said Obama. "It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."

Obama's executive order on stem cells lifts President George W. Bush's limits on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, but congressional action would be needed to change a separate law that bans federal financing for human embryo experiments. Obama has ordered the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to draw up guidelines within four months under which scientists will be able to apply for federal grants to research the hundreds of human embryonic stem cell lines.

Former NIH director Harold Varmus, the president of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York and co-chair of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), said the NIH will look closely at suggested stem cell guidelines from the National Academy of Sciences and the International Society for Stem Cell Research, which require informed consent from embryo donors.

The prospect heartened many stem cell researchers. "This is a fabulous liberation of scientific research," said David Scadden, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and co-chair of Harvard University's Department of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. He told Seed that Obama's directives will open up competitive NIH grants to the best stem cell research and stop the wasteful "double-pipette" restrictions that required scientists to separate approved and non-approved stem cell lines in experiments. (Bush's order had limited federal funding to studies of 21 existing stem cell lines; hundreds of other stem cell lines have since been created that are better suited for research.)

In a joint statement Monday, the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine said Obama's order "can hasten progress through stem cell research to treat disease and ease suffering." The academies said the order "echoes the recommendations of a 2001 report by the National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, which noted that public funding was the most efficient and responsible way to realize the medical promise of embryonic stem cell research."

Scientists in states that acted on their own to fund embryonic stem cell research during the Bush years — including California, New York, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey — stand to benefit from the loosened restrictions, in part because they now have a head start on rivals elsewhere.

Federal law continues to ban the use of federal money to destroy human embryos for their stem cells. But, depending on the new NIH rules, funding may be allowed for research using stem cells derived from embryos specifically created to yield them, rather than being limited to cells from frozen embryos destined to be discarded by fertility clinics. Several members of Congress are pushing for legislation to revise the current federal restrictions, but opponents, including many Republicans, have vowed to try to stop that initiative. Congress twice passed legislation that would have expanded NIH funding for stem cell research, but President Bush vetoed the bills both times.

Many scientists have complained that Bush's restrictions have set back embryonic stem cell research in this country, with surveys indicating that the US share of stem cell research publications has dropped significantly since 2001. While Scadden does not think many US stem cell scientists actually left the country to pursue their research elsewhere, he said the restrictions have "led some of the best and brightest young researchers to shift to other fields." He also said that, while some promising research has focused on adult stem cells, that "embryonic stem cells remain the gold standard" for now.

In a separate presidential memorandum, Obama ordered the OSTP's leadership to develop a strategy within four months to ensure that the selection of professionals for science and technology jobs in the executive branch should be based on "scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, and experience," and that federal agencies:

• Use scientific and technological information that has been subject to well-established scientific processes such as peer review;


• make those findings available to the public; and


• have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency, including whistleblower protection.

The Bush administration had been widely criticized for "politicizing" science in several key areas, such as climate change, reproductive freedom, and the protection of endangered species. Obama pledged that his directive will base public policy on sound science: "We appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions."

"That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals — to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives."

Today, with the Executive Order I am about to sign, we will bring the change that so many scientists and researchers; doctors and innovators; patients and loved ones have hoped for, and fought for, these past eight years: we will lift the ban on federal funding for promising embryonic stem cell research. We will vigorously support scientists who pursue this research. And we will aim for America to lead the world in the discoveries it one day may yield.

At this moment, the full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated. But scientists believe these tiny cells may have the potential to help us understand, and possibly cure, some of our most devastating diseases and conditions. To regenerate a severed spinal cord and lift someone from a wheelchair. To spur insulin production and spare a child from a lifetime of needles. To treat Parkinson's, cancer, heart disease and others that affect millions of Americans and the people who love them.

But that potential will not reveal itself on its own. Medical miracles do not happen simply by accident. They result from painstaking and costly research — from years of lonely trial and error, much of which never bears fruit — and from a government willing to support that work. From life-saving vaccines, to pioneering cancer treatments, to the sequencing of the human genome — that is the story of scientific progress in America. When government fails to make these investments, opportunities are missed. Promising avenues go unexplored. Some of our best scientists leave for other countries that will sponsor their work. And those countries may surge ahead of ours in the advances that transform our lives.

But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research — and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans — from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs — have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

That is a conclusion with which I agree. That is why I am signing this Executive Order, and why I hope Congress will act on a bi-partisan basis to provide further support for this research. We are joined today by many leaders who have reached across the aisle to champion this cause, and I commend them for that work.

Ultimately, I cannot guarantee that we will find the treatments and cures we seek. No President can promise that. But I can promise that we will seek them — actively, responsibly, and with the urgency required to make up for lost ground. Not just by opening up this new frontier of research today, but by supporting promising research of all kinds, including groundbreaking work to convert ordinary human cells into ones that resemble embryonic stem cells.

I can also promise that we will never undertake this research lightly. We will support it only when it is both scientifically worthy and responsibly conducted. We will develop strict guidelines, which we will rigorously enforce, because we cannot ever tolerate misuse or abuse. And we will ensure that our government never opens the door to the use of cloning for human reproduction. It is dangerous, profoundly wrong, and has no place in our society, or any society.

This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let's be clear: promoting science isn't just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient — especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.

By doing this, we will ensure America's continued global leadership in scientific discoveries and technological breakthroughs. That is essential not only for our economic prosperity, but for the progress of all humanity.

That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals — to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives.

As we restore our commitment to science, and expand funding for promising stem cell research, we owe a debt of gratitude to so many tireless advocates, some of whom are with us today, many of whom are not. Today, we honor all those whose names we don't know, who organized, and raised awareness, and kept on fighting — even when it was too late for them, or for the people they love. And we honor those we know, who used their influence to help others and bring attention to this cause — people like Christopher and Dana Reeve, who we wish could be here to see this moment.

One of Christopher's friends recalled that he hung a sign on the wall of the exercise room where he did his grueling regimen of physical therapy. It read: "For everyone who thought I couldn't do it. For everyone who thought I shouldn't do it. For everyone who said, 'It's impossible.' See you at the finish line."

Christopher once told a reporter who was interviewing him: "If you came back here in ten years, I expect that I'd walk to the door to greet you."

Christopher did not get that chance. But if we pursue this research, maybe one day — maybe not in our lifetime, or even in our children's lifetime — but maybe one day, others like him might.

There is no finish line in the work of science. The race is always with us — the urgent work of giving substance to hope and answering those many bedside prayers, of seeking a day when words like "terminal" and "incurable" are potentially retired from our vocabulary.

Today, using every resource at our disposal, with renewed determination to lead the world in the discoveries of this new century, we rededicate ourselves to this work.

Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless America.

Science and the scientific process must inform and guide decisions of my Administration on a wide range of issues, including improvement of public health, protection of the environment, increased efficiency in the use of energy and other resources, mitigation of the threat of climate change, and protection of national security.

The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions. Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions. If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public. To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking. The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

By this memorandum, I assign to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (Director) the responsibility for ensuring the highest level of integrity in all aspects of the executive branch's involvement with scientific and technological processes. The Director shall confer, as appropriate, with the heads of executive departments and agencies, including the Office of Management and Budget and offices and agencies within the Executive Office of the President (collectively, the "agencies"), and recommend a plan to achieve that goal throughout the executive branch.

Specifically, I direct the following:
1. Within 120 days from the date of this memorandum, the Director shall develop recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch, based on the following principles:
(a) The selection and retention of candidates for science and technology positions in the executive branch should be based on the candidate's knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity;
(b) Each agency should have appropriate rules and procedures to ensure the integrity of the scientific process within the agency;
(c) When scientific or technological information is considered in policy decisions, the information should be subject to well-established scientific processes, including peer review where appropriate, and each agency should appropriately and accurately reflect that information in complying with and applying relevant statutory standards;
(d) Except for information that is properly restricted from disclosure under procedures established in accordance with statute, regulation, Executive Order, or Presidential Memorandum, each agency should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions;
(e) Each agency should have in place procedures to identify and address instances in which the scientific process or the integrity of scientific and technological information may be compromised; and
(f) Each agency should adopt such additional procedures, including any appropriate whistleblower protections, as are necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific and technological information and processes on which the agency relies in its decisionmaking or otherwise uses or prepares.

2. Each agency shall make available any and all information deemed by the Director to be necessary to inform the Director in making recommendations to the President as requested by this memorandum. Each agency shall coordinate with the Director in the development of any interim procedures deemed necessary to ensure the integrity of scientific decisionmaking pending the Director's recommendations called for by this memorandum.

3. (a) Executive departments and agencies shall carry out the provisions of this memorandum to the extent permitted by law and consistent with their statutory and regulatory authorities and their enforcement mechanisms.
(b) Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

4. The Director is hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA

Got something for Daily Zeitgeist? Email us.

Of the world's 7,000 languages, 40 percent are on their way to extinction, with the last fluent speaker of a language dying once every two weeks. The Linguists, airing on PBS on February 26 at 10 p.m ET, traces two insatiable researchers, K. David Harrison and Greg Anderson, on a journey to the ends of the Earth to meet the speakers of some very remote languages — Chulym in Siberia, Sora in eastern India, Kallawaya in Bolivia, and Chemehuevi in Arizona — and to document them with audio recordings. The Indiana Jones-like adventures of Harrison and Anderson, whether avoiding Maoist guerillas in India or trekking through the Andes, often dominate the film, yet The Linguists also brings to light the role of technology in preserving language diversity and the knowledge contained within them.

Harrison and Anderson, both linguists, run the Oregon-based Living Tongues Institute for Endangered Languages, a nonprofit that devotes much of its efforts to building searchable "talking" online dictionaries of rare and endangered languages. By studying these "real outliers," as Harrison calls them, he says we get incrementally closer to understanding how language itself works.

The results of the research are not only on view in the documentary, which premiered at Sundance in 2008, but samples of the audio recordings of Kallawaya, taken during filming, also already appear on the Living Tongues Institute website. Moreover, Anderson has built online dictionaries with accompanying audio devoted to the Siberian language of Tuvan and the North American Indian language of Siletz Dee-ni, which is password-protected: Only members of the tribe can access it. Currently, the institute is building a new online library of the Indian Munda "Ho" language, a sister language to Sora, one of the languages featured in the film.

Harrison says his goal is to "assist small and underrepresented languages in crossing the digital divide." Recording the languages and giving them a presence on the Internet helps maintain and grow the number of speakers, he says, and lends some "prestige" to speaking a minority language.

In a particularly powerful moment in the documentary, Harrison and Anderson use a laptop to show elderly Chulym speakers video footage of themselves speaking that they've edited together via iMovie software. While sitting around the computer as if it were a campfire, the Chulym speakers express a sense of delight at seeing and hearing their recorded voices for the first time. "To see themselves represented in a high-tech way," says Anderson in the film, says to them that "maybe our language isn't so backward; maybe I have a knowledge that really is special."

For Harrison and Anderson, documenting languages doesn't always involve Bolivian healing ceremonies with live chicken sacrifices, as the film might suggest. In fact, Harrison says, "it's much more effective, rather than have an outsider linguist going in, to train local people" to do the documentation. With that in mind, the Living Tongues Institute has so far given two communities "language technology kits," which include a laptop computer, a digital camera, a digital audio recorder, and a still camera. A University of Oregon graduate student went to the University of Ranchi in eastern India to work with speakers of Ho, recording thousands of words from elders that will feed into its corresponding online language dictionary. Another kit went to a team of researchers at Gauhati University in Assam, in northeastern India, to document students in their linguistic department, who speak dozens of indigenous languages.

The tech tools of recent decades — like text messaging, web pages, chat rooms, and YouTube — are finding use among speakers of indigenous languages, says Anderson. Margaret Noori, a colleague of Anderson's and a professor of literature and linguistics at the University of Michigan, is part of a network of Native American Ojibwe speakers who have Facebook networks, a website (Ojibwe.net) with easy-to-download language lessons, and who share Ojibwe words with each other using the Zephyr application for iPhone.

Anderson says he hopes their documentation efforts will also become a tool to test out linguistic theories. "One of the things that I see myself being able to do," he explains, "is provide detailed and adequately confirmed phenomena to the general linguistic community and say, 'here's some data, now come up with a new theory to explain this data.'"

During filmmaking, Harrison and Anderson discovered an interesting feature of Sora: Its speakers can incorporate definite and specific nouns into a verb, to create, for example, the single-word jo-me-bob-dem-te-n-ei ("I will anoint my head with oil," or, literally, "smear-oil-head"). This structure goes against prevailing linguistic models, which argue that the incorporated part of the word (i.e., "oil") should not be available to the external syntax of the phrase, in which the verb is embedded. "Since 80 percent of the world's languages aren't documented," Harrison says, many of the languages they encounter "confound current [linguistic] theories in interesting ways."

"The fact that these languages are disappearing," Harrison says, gives him a sense of urgency. "The tipping point has passed for many languages. There's only one option for them: Record what you can before they disappear."

Got something for Daily Zeitgeist? Email us.

Few endeavors have been affected more by the tools and evolution of the internet than science publishing. Thousands of journals are available online, and an increasing number of science bloggers are acting as translators, often using lay language to convey complex findings previously read only by fellow experts within a discipline. Now, in the wake of a new paper challenging the methodology of a young field, there is a case study for how the internet is changing the way science itself is conducted.

That area of research is the burgeoning subfield of social neuroscience, which seeks to understand the neurobiological basis of social behavior. Using neuroimaging techniques such as fMRI, researchers correlate neural activity with social and behavioral measures in order to pinpoint areas of the brain associated with social decision making or emotional reactivity.

Late last year, Ed Vul, a graduate student at MIT working with neuroscientist Nancy Kanwisher and UCSD psychologist Hal Pashler, prereleased "Voodoo Correlations in Social Neuroscience" on his website. The journal Perspectives in Psychological Science accepted the paper but will not formally publish it until May.

The paper argues that the way many social neuroimaging researchers are analyzing their data is so deeply flawed that it calls into question much of their methodology. Specifically, Vul and his coauthors claim that many, if not most, social neuroscientists commit a nonindependence error in their research in which the final measure (say, a correlation between behavior and brain activity in a certain region) is not independent of the selection criteria (how the researchers chose which brain region to study), thus allowing noise to inflate their correlation estimates. Further, the researchers found that the methods sections that were clearing peer review boards were woefully inadequate, often lacking basic information about how data was analyzed so that others could evaluate their methods. (Read Vul et al.'s entire in-press paper here.)

A number of online science writers and bloggers, including the widely read Sharon Begley of Newsweek, immediately wrote about the paper. The vast majority of the online responses to the paper were extremely positive, with Begley suggesting that "like so many researchers in the social sciences, psychologists have physics envy, and think that the illusory precision and solidity of neuroimaging can give their field some rigor." Vaughan Bell of Mind Hacks predicted that the paper "has the potential to really shake up the world of social cognitive neuroscience."

Got something for Daily Zeitgeist? Email us.

Got something for Daily Zeitgeist? Email us.

While key policy discussions opened with a collective sigh of relief over the transition from Bush to Obama, many concluded with a question: What do we do now? As science policy columnist David Goldston pointed out during a panel held 12 hours after the stimulus bill passed the Senate, Obama wants to restore science to its "rightful place," but few seem to know what that is. (See Seed's Rightful Place Project.) "I think it's fair to say that this administration has already paid more conscious attention to science issues and science staffing than any administration, perhaps ever," Goldston said. "But that doesn't mean that everything is going to be easy."

Got something for Daily Zeitgeist? Email us.

Presidential speeches are symbolic acts. The momentous ones, which inaugural speeches often are, capture the spirit of the nation at a turning point in its history. They diagnose a set of needs and they put forth a vision of how to meet them. So the question for thoughtful Americans, interested in the future of science and technology and reflecting on President Barack Obama's historic inaugural address, is not, What is science's rightful place?, but rather, What do the president and his administration see as science's rightful place? And, as critical consumers of both science and democracy, is it a vision that we, the people, can comfortably embrace?

Let's begin by recognizing that there is no place in modern societies from which science is wholly absent.

A few months ago, I heard a distinguished biologist declare, holding his laptop in his hands, "Without these things, we all die." A bit of hyperbole perhaps, but not so far from the truth. We are citizens of the empire of technology founded on the bedrock of scientific knowledge, from the moment we wake to bursts of radio news and cups of automatically brewed coffee, through the innumerable daily routines of transportation and communication, of meeting and eating, all regulated by expert advice, to the ends of days on which, thanks to lightbulbs, email, and global call centers, the sun never sets. Judged by our consumption habits, we are all science junkies, since we are irredeemably addicted to the technologies that science enables. Science, as opinion polls continually remind us, underwrites our most fervent hopes for the future, whether they center on education or health, on sustainable environments or relief from hunger, on better jobs or more efficient production, on winning wars or keeping peace.

That science has a place in our lives is not in doubt. The question is, what is that place? As a nation, we Americans own science: We accept it, we support it with money and enthusiasm, we celebrate it, and considerable numbers of us practice it. But public respect for any institution, no matter how powerful or pervasive, requires visible affirmation. For the law to enjoy respect, for example, justice must not only be done but also done visibly. The same is true for science and technology. That public show of support has been noticeably absent in the past eight years. The new administration has signaled that disregard for science is neither its intent nor its policy.

The main lines of the "Obama Restoration" of science are already clear, and many of the president's early actions deserve praise. In speech after speech, Obama has stated that science and technology will feature in his administration as both instruments and objects of public policy. Prominent scientists and engineers, with long experience of public service and advising governments, were named to key posts early in his presidential transition. The administrative rank of the president's science adviser has been raised, placing him on an equal footing with the president's other top aides. The alliance between the White House and religious extremists on science and medicine has been decisively broken, and policies ranging from development aid to stem cell research will now be carried out without ideological constraints reflecting America's peculiarly corrosive politics of abortion. The hollowing out of scientific competence at federal regulatory agencies will cease, as will the dangerous US fence-sitting on climate change. Programs to benefit the environment through green innovation and renewable energy research will not go begging as in recent years. On a host of technology-intensive policy issues, there is reason to believe that a president who prides himself on listening to all sides will not be afraid to heed uncomfortable advice conveyed by the nation's brightest.

Using hormones like oxytocin, doctors may be able to more easily and effectively penetrate the complexity of the brain to address once inaccessible problems.

Given only a small dose of oxytocin, individuals in a recent study found that their memory significantly improved. Not for historical dates, strings of digits, or bars of music, but for something much more significant: each other.

"We consider faces the most basic class of social stimulus," says Ulrike Rimmele, who led the study at the University of Zurich. Oxytocin's ability to exclusively enhance the recollection of faces points to an important distinction between different types of memory. Social memory — which we use to remember people — is distinct from other types of memory required to store dates, numbers, and objects.

The researchers tested the ways in which the hormone oxytocin affects memory in humans. Participants in the study were given six puffs of a nasal spray containing the hormone and then shown images of faces, landscapes, and various inanimate objects. The next day, they were asked to identify which pictures they had seen 24 hours prior. "Neither oxytocin nor the placebo increased the recognition of inanimate objects. But oxytocin did increase the recognition of faces," says Rimmele.

"Social recognition is an essential prerequisite for more complex social behavior," she says. For instance, around those we know to be trustworthy, we instinctively feel safe in acting more relaxed; with those who are unfamiliar, we know to be cautious.

Understanding the ways in which these distinct forms of memory function in the brain is crucial for the development of treatments for cognitive disorders. Even with this understanding, however, the brain's complexity makes it difficult for doctors to target specific types of memory. And useful treatments are often imprecise, carrying risks of unwanted side effects.

But more precise treatments may someday become available. According to Rimmele, what's especially remarkable about the research is that it shows how "one hormone can specifically influence one type of memory." Using hormones like oxytocin, doctors may be able to more easily and effectively penetrate the complexity of the brain to address once inaccessible problems.

"I see it as a drug that might help patient populations that have social deficits," Rimmele says. She believes that further research into oxytocin may lead to the development of a treatment for autistic patients. "They have a deficit in recognizing emotions and faces, so administering this hormone might help them."

Got something for Daily Zeitgeist? Email us.