SOURCE: AP/Charlie Neibergall

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama wave to the audience during the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Denver, Wednesday, October 3, 2012.

Endnotes and citations are available in the PDF version of this issue brief.

Economic growth is front and center in this presidential election, but the two candidates haven’t spent much time talking about two of the most important drivers of the economy: science and technology. Science is not only at the root of our increasing prosperity but it is also the best tool we have to understand our own health, our planet, and our future.

Both President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney have paid lip service to supporting science and technology. But as this fact sheet makes clear, President Obama, who has been endorsed by 68 Nobel prize-winning scientists, space leaders, and high technology executives, offers an impressive science policy record and vision for the future, while Gov. Romney’s shifting positions are all talk.

Investing in science

Public investments in science and technology pay themselves back in the form of greater economic growth, new businesses, new industry, new jobs, and ultimately new tax revenue. About half of every dollar of economic output we enjoy today can be traced back to past investments in science and technology, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Solow. And in the 21st century global innovation economy, discovery, invention, and innovation will only become more crucial to our long-term growth and competitiveness.

Talk: Gov. Romney said “research is great,” but his budget plan would invest only 75 cents in nondefense research and development for every dollar the president has proposed.

Action: President Obama proposed a budget to double research budgets of three key science agencies (the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology) and increase nondefense research and development overall by 5 percent. And despite the intransigence of the Republican House majority, he has secured some increases in these key budgets. The president also understands that we need investments in “research and technology that are key to a 21st century economy.”

Biomedical and stem cell research

Science investments aren’t just keys to growth and competitiveness—they also help us discover and develop new cures to disease.

Talk: Gov. Romney said he supports medical research but supports a budget that would fund 16,000 fewer biomedical research grants in next decade.  Also, as governor, Mitt Romney vetoed a bill to allow stem cell researchers more flexibility, and drafted regulations to actually criminalize the work of stem cell researchers developing medical cures.

Action: President Obama ended the Bush administration ban on embryonic stem cell research to allow scientists more flexibility to develop game-changing medical science while respecting ethical boundaries.

Clean energy research

The clean energy economy supports millions of well-paying American jobs and is an important strategic industry for our country as we continue to develop domestic sources of energy while reducing planet-warming carbon pollution.

Talk: Gov. Romney says he supports clean energy as well as fossil fuels, but advocates for keeping billions in subsidies for oil companies while supporting a budget that would cut energy research in half.

Action: President Obama created the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, or ARPA-E—an efficient, nimble agency to make strategic investments in breakthrough energy technologies—in addition to dozens of new energy research centers, innovation hubs, and public-private partnerships. He also passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, which invested more in clean energy than any legislation in U.S. history. Contrary to his opponents’ claims, the president’s investments in clean energy have not failed. In 2012 the United States is seeing the lowest level of foreign oil imports and the highest level of renewable energy generation in decades.

Connecting research to market

As the technologies that drive the global economy become increasingly complex and interconnected, the path from scientific discovery to useful new product in many fields has become lengthier, more expensive, and more uncertain. To lead the 21st century, we must not only invest in science but also in development and entrepreneurship that help bring new scientific discoveries to market.

Talk: Gov. Romney indicated he misunderstands the shared role of public research and the private sector in driving innovation when he suggested he would end critical supports for technology commercialization, such as the energy loan guarantee program that is leveraging private capital to support dozens of innovative new clean energy companies.

Action: President Obama proposed and implemented dozens of public-private partnerships through the Departments of Energy, Commerce, and Defense, and the National Science Foundation, and reformed the Small Business Innovation Research program to help connect university researchers with private-sector finance to bring new ideas to market.

Innovation in the business sector

Innovation does not just happen in laboratories. Businesses large and small play an essential role in developing the technologies of the future and competing to manufacture and deploy them at the lowest cost to consumers.

Talk: Gov. Romney agrees with the president’s position of expanding the research tax credit but has consistently mischaracterized and opposed public-private partnerships that help innovative businesses grow. Spending cuts necessary in his tax plan would likely cut investments in the building blocks of long-term business innovation, such as education and research.

Action: President Obama set a target to increase public and private investments in research and development to 3 percent of GDP, and supported making permanent the research and experimentation tax credit, which encourages the private sector to invest to help us get there. He also passed the American Invents Act to reform the U.S. patent system with massive bipartisan support, and created the Startup America Initiative to support and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship across the country.

Space technology

Space is not only the “final frontier”—it’s also a major source of U.S. competitiveness. In 2011 the private U.S. aerospace industry had the largest positive trade balance of any U.S. industry, and our public investments in space play a big role in determining whether or not we will stay on top.

Talk: Gov. Romney released an eight-page document that even conservative pundits said contained “empty platitudes” for more “focus” for NASA, but it contained no specifics. Budget cuts necessitated by his tax plan would likely mean deeper cuts to NASA.

Action: President Obama oversaw the first-ever docking of a commercial space capsule with the international space station. He also implemented a new “National Space Policy” that increased science funding to NASA while allowing the private sector to compete to take more responsibility for some aspects of the space program and “freeing up NASA” to take on new challenges, like sending astronauts into deep space, to asteroids, and eventually to Mars.

Science education

Science education isn’t just “nice to have”—it’s a must-have. In the 21st century innovation economy, education is everything. The United States can’t continue to lead the world in innovation and create the jobs of the future if we aren’t training the world’s best scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, American students’ performance in science and math has fallen behind that of other nations’ students, according to many metrics.

Talk: Gov. Romney says we need to invest in education but at the same time supports his running mate Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget, which would cut education funding by as much as 33 percent, with even deeper cuts for low-income students and special education. Gov. Romney’s budget cuts could deprive 1 million students of Pell Grants to help afford college.

Action: President Obama made a “national commitment to science education and training” and set a goal of recruiting 100,000 new science and math teachers over the next decade. Then he convinced private businesses and foundations to invest $700 million to improve science and math education across the country through the “Educate to Innovate” program without costing taxpayers a dime. The president demonstrated in the Florida debate that he understands the link between science and math education and long-term economic prosperity.

Environmental science

Clean air and clean water affect our health in serious ways. Pollution causes sickness and even death, which together represent both an emotional and economic burden for Americans. Implementing balanced pollution safeguards is vital to healthy communities, healthy ecosystems, and a healthy economy.

Talk: Gov. Romney says he wants to “aggressively” develop coal—one of our countries’ dirtiest energy sources—and block recent EPA public health safeguards. Scientists say blocking these safeguards would lead to 21,600 fatalities and 200,000 asthma attacks per year.

Action: President Obama finalized and proposed limits on mercury pollution, toxics, smog, and soot that scientists predict will save 21,600 lives annually.

Climate change

Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and many economists believe it is already responsible for billions of dollars in costs to farmers, homeowners, businesses, and local governments for its influence on increased droughts, wildfires, floods, and heat waves. In the long run, scientists believe unabated climate change could threaten our way life.

Talk: Gov. Romney incorrectly believes the science of climate change is unsettled and has said that carbon dioxide is not “harmful.” He is opposed to even market-based policies to cap carbon pollution and would reverse EPA carbon pollution standards put in place by President Obama.

Action: President Obama understands that climate change is “not a hoax,” and has put in place our nation’s first-ever greenhouse gas regulations to reduce pollution from new cars and power plants.

Cyber security

Cyber security presents a grave threat to our national security. Some have even compared the growing threat of a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Talk: Gov. Romney has paid lip service to cyber security but has not announced concrete plans. Republican allies call for voluntary rather than mandatory steps by private industry, which may not go far enough to improve protection of critical infrastructure.

Action: President Obama has made cyber security a top priority, pushing for passage of the bipartisan Cyber Security Act of 2012, which would strengthen role of the Department of Homeland Security in managing government-industry collaboration to protect critical infrastructure while also protecting privacy and civil liberties. He has also prepared an executive order in case Congress does not act to ensure agencies effectively coordinate to protect critical infrastructure.

Internet freedom

“Neutrality” has been one of the defining characteristics of the Internet, and it has allowed the ideas and content of regular people to compete with that of wealthy corporations. But lobbyists in Washington would like to increase the control that Internet service providers have over the content that Americans can or cannot see. How to encourage innovation while ensuring the Internet remains free and open to everyone’s ideas is an unresolved issue in the 21st century.

Talk: Gov. Romney opposes the Obama administration’s Internet freedom policies that ensure Internet service providers can’t pick and choose what content web users can access.

Action: President Obama implemented common-sense Internet freedom policies that are a compromise between industry and consumer groups. He also appointed the nation’s first-ever chief technology officer to coordinate technology modernization efforts across government.

Scientific integrity in government

We are a nation of science, and science is the best tool we have to make critical decisions about how to manage our public health, our environment, our natural resources, and even our economy. Yet it’s not a given that government will use sound science in its decision making—ideology can cloud scientific reasoning. A good president will ensure U.S. government agencies rely on sound science, rather than political convenience, to make regulatory and other decisions.

Talk: Gov. Romney has paid lip service to science in government but has appointed top oil and coal executives and lobbyists to advisory positions on his campaign, instead of appointing scientists and engineers. He said he would also change regulatory procedures to make it easier for regulatory agencies to ignore scientific findings by citing “cost.”

Action: President Obama promised to restore “science to its rightful place” in government, and then took action by implementing the first-ever government-wide set of scientific integrity guidelines to increase transparency and rigor of federal decision making across dozens of agencies. He also appointed many distinguished scientists to high-profile leadership positions within government, including a Nobel laureate, a MacArthur Genius, and two former heads of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Conclusion

The United States is a nation of science. Many of the founding fathers were themselves scientists in their day.

One can draw a line of intellectual descent from Isaac Newton, the greatest scientist of his day, to Benjamin Franklin, the greatest scientist of his, and the founder of one of our nation’s great research universities, the University of Pennsylvania. Thomas Jefferson was preoccupied with astronomy and went on to found another great research institution, the University of Virginia. And Alexander Hamilton, before becoming a statesman, was intent on a medical career and attended all the lectures on natural philosophy that he could in his days at university.

But leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge is not merely a cultural tradition of our nation—today it is an economic imperative. Science isn’t just spending—it is a wise investment in future economic growth that pays off in unexpected yet inevitable ways. Economists today know that the application of new technological knowledge to the economy is responsible for between 50 percent and 90 percent of the economic growth in the long term.

Science shouldn’t be a political issue. We must all be the constituency of the future.  We have a duty—to ourselves, to our children, to future generations—to make these farsighted investments in science and technology for a better America and a stronger economy.

Sean Pool is a Policy Analyst for Science and Innovation Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and managing editor of Science Progress Action.

SOURCE: Flickr/ereneta

Sixty-eight Nobel laureates in science endorsed President Obama's science policies on Wednesday.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund today received an open letter co-signed by 68 Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, and medicine. The letter strongly endorses President Barack Obama’s science policies. “America’s economic future,” the letter begins, “depends on our ability to continue America’s proud legacy of discovery and invention.”

In the letter the Nobel Prize-winning scientists contrast President Obama’s programs to train young Americans in science and technology, strengthen science-based decisionmaking in government, and increase investments in science and innovation, with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s budget proposal, which would slash these investments. Indeed, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) budget plan, which Gov. Romney endorsed, would invest fully one-quarter less in nondefense research and development compared to the president’s plan.

“The Nobelists’ commitment to a prosperous future built on innovation is in the finest spirit of the Founding Fathers and expresses a core American value,” said Jonathan D. Moreno, Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress Action and Senior Fellow at CAP Action. “In this time of economic recovery, we must keep our eye on the horizon by investing in the science, technology, education, and workforce we need to stay on the cutting edge and compete in a world economy where success is increasingly determined by our ability to out-invent and out-innovate our competitor nations.

Spanning several generations, the Nobelists are themselves fine examples of how public investments in science lead to a substantial return on our nation’s investment. James Watson, who won the Nobel Prize in 1962 at age 34 for his work on the way DNA and RNA work together to create proteins, is now 84, and Charles Townes, inventor of the precursor to the laser and winner of the prize in 1964, is now 97. Among the most recent winners of the prize is Robert Lefkowitz, who won the prize earlier this month for revealing the inner workings of an important family of receptors that govern how cells in the body communicate with one another.

These are America’s most accomplished scientists, and their discoveries have led to real progress. Without James Watson’s discovery of the structure and function of DNA and RNA, we would not have a biotechnology industry that contributes nearly $1 trillion annually to the U.S. economy. And Charles Townes’s discovery of the maser, which later led to the laser, has touched nearly every industry and countless everyday products, from DVDs to LASIK eye surgery to precision manufacturing.

At CAP Action we believe public investments in science and technology are the bedrock of our nation’s economy and key to future prosperity. Indeed, another Nobel laureate, Robert Solow, won the prize in economics in 1987 for showing that more than half of the wealth our nation has created since World War II stems directly from technological innovation. The iPhone 5 alone, which itself contains countless inventions that arose from federally funded research, is predicted to add between one-quarter and one-half of a percentage point to our nation’s gross domestic product this year, according to the chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan.

“As a nation we must continue the investments that revolutionized agriculture, invented the Internet, gave us modern medicine, and enabled a strong national defense. Abandoning this tradition would be a devastating step backwards,” the 68 Nobel laureates conclude.

But the evidence shows that the public’s investments in science and technology pay off. If we’re serious about creating jobs and growing the economy for the long term, then Gov. Romney and his allies in Congress have it backward: It’s not that we can’t afford to increase our investments in science. It’s that we can’t afford not to.

Read the full letter here.

Sean Pool is a policy analyst for science and innovation policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and managing editor of Science Progress Action.

SOURCE: Center for American Progress

Download the comments (pdf)

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA, has asked for comments on what issues should be addressed through a privacy multistakeholder process. Based on my experience in privacy law and policy, I believe an early and prominent candidate should be the definition of what counts as “de-identified” information. As discussed below this topic has multiple advantages, including heightened protection for consumers, positive effects on innovation and the broader economy, and likelihood of concrete, enforceable success for the process itself.

These comments provide background for the discussion and then explain the importance of the topic of de-identified data. The comments explain how the recent Federal Trade Commission privacy report provides a new and useful set of proposals for how to handle de-identified data, and concludes with an analysis of why the topic of de-identified data is a good candidate for early consideration in a multistakeholder process.

Background

As background for these comments, I am the C. William O’Neill Professor of Law at the Moritz College of Law of the Ohio State University, and Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Future of Privacy Forum. Under President Bill Clinton I served as chief counselor for privacy in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Under President Barack Obama I was special assistant to the president for economic policy in 2009 and 2010. Further information is available at www.peterswire.net.

This February the administration issued its white paper, “Consumer Data Privacy in a Networked World: A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation in the Global Digital Economy.” This privacy framework defined a Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights. To implement this bill of rights, the framework called on the Department of Commerce to foster the development of enforceable codes of conduct for consumer privacy. These codes of conduct will be developed through multistakeholder processes, so that the range of relevant stakeholders can convene and develop codes of conduct even in the absence of binding legislation or regulation. Consumer privacy legislation has been difficult to enact in the United States, so consumer protection will advance more quickly through initiatives, such as the multistakeholder process, that do not depend on passage of such legislation.

Along with the administration’s framework, the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, has continued its vital role in U.S. privacy policy and enforcement. On March 26, 2012, the FTC issued “Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change: Recommendations for Businesses and Policymakers.” This report reflected intensive FTC efforts on a wide range of privacy topics. The comments here, building on a short previous statement, focus on the FTC’s recommendations about how to approach the important issue of de-identified data.

The importance of de-identified data

The title of the administration’s white paper reflects two principal goals for policy concerning the data of individual consumers: “A Framework for Protecting Privacy and Promoting Innovation.” This title reflects the risks to individuals if privacy is not protected effectively. It also reflects the importance of creating good information rules in order to foster innovation and growth in our information economy.

The issue of de-identified data creates a vital opportunity to meet both goals—use data for innovation and growth while also protecting privacy. At least in theory, de-identified data allows us to have our cake and eat it, too. With de-identified data, we strip out the name and other information that reveals identity, but we nonetheless can process the data, do research, discover patterns, and innovate in how we respond to the information.

In any statute or other legal obligation, such as a company’s enforceable promise to protect privacy, the most important definition is what counts as covered by the law or obligation. Defining what counts as “de-identified” is crucial because it draws the line between what data is covered by privacy protections (still “identified”) and what data is not (“de-identified”).

In U.S. law de-identified data was first defined as part of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, medical privacy rule drafted in the late 1990s. I was very involved in drafting the proposed and final HIPAA rule and paid particular attention to defining what counted as “de-identified.” In HIPAA “identified” data is considered personal health information, subject to the full range of privacy protections. If the data is scrubbed hard enough, however, then it becomes de-identified data and no longer subject to the regulatory requirements.

The final HIPAA medical privacy rule provided two ways to show that data was de-identified. First, the holder of the data could remove a list of at least 17 data fields that could identify a person, such as name, address, or Social Security number. Second, a statistical expert could certify that the risk is very small that the information could be used, alone or in combination with other reasonable available information, to re-identify the individual. Since HIPAA went into effect nearly a decade ago, health care entities have been able to publicly release health data if it has been scrubbed well enough to meet the regulatory requirements for de-identification.

Finding a Goldilocks solution for de-identified data

Since the HIPAA de-identification provisions were proposed in 1999, we have learned a lot about when and how it is possible to “re-identify” data—to link a person’s name with the supposedly de-identified data. Two big trends have made it harder to keep information de-identified. First, search on the Web has gotten much better. Google was not incorporated until 1998, and today’s search engines let anyone link together tidbits from previously hard-to-link data sources. Second, the amount of information on the Web about a typical person has grown astronomically, including all of the personal details on a person’s blog or Facebook page.

The combination of efficient search tools and lots of data means that there is a higher likelihood today that a person’s medical or other records can be re-identified even if the name and other traditional identifiers are deleted. For instance, the de-identified medical record might state that a person in Ohio had minor hand surgery on April 3. In the past, it would have been difficult or impossible for an outsider to figure out the name. Today, online search might turn up a social network thread about the hand surgery—there are multiple such surgeries in Ohio each day, but not that many. A bit of follow-up research, using the rest of the supposedly de-identified information, might easily pinpoint the person who had the surgery.

As academics have analyzed these facts about re-identification, some have concluded that the entire effort to de-identify data has failed, because of the risk of linking information back to the individual. Others have emphasized the limited actual success of re-identification efforts in practice, and found that the benefits to research and innovation are so great that they outweigh the privacy risks.

The preliminary FTC report, issued in 2010, received strong criticisms from both of these perspectives. The earlier report would have applied privacy protections to “consumer data that can be reasonably linked to a specific consumer, computer, or other device.” The debate centered on what the FTC meant by “reasonably linked.” Consumer groups correctly emphasized that it is easier now to search on the Web and re-identify data, at risk to privacy. Researchers and other users of data focused on the problems that come with an over-broad definition of “reasonably linked,” which could extend privacy rules to an almost unlimited range of data processing, if enough effort is put into tracking down and re-identifying data.

Responding to these critiques, the FTC looked at the technical de-identification issues, and found what I believe is a Goldilocks solution for the problem of de-identified data. The FTC provides what amounts to a safe harbor where: “(1) a given data set is not reasonably identifiable; (2) the company publicly commits not to re-identify it, and (3) the company requires any downstream users of the data to keep it in de-identified form.”

The FTC approach responds to the technical experts who correctly say that it is easier today to find data on the Web that helps us re-identify data. To address the privacy concerns the FTC approach first requires a company to make a data set reasonably de-identified. We can think of this as “good but not foolproof de-identification.” Then, in addition, the FTC requires administrative protections. The company has to commit publicly that it won’t re-identify the data. The company also has to get similar promises from anybody downstream who receives the data. These promises are enforceable because Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits deceptive practices, such as broken privacy promises. Privacy is protected through the combination of technical measures, having reasonably de-identified data, and backup administrative measures, so that the only people who receive the data have made binding promises not to re-identify.

The FTC approach also responds to those who want to study data for research, innovation, and related purposes. Data must be scrubbed pretty hard but not incredibly hard—the dataset need merely not be “reasonably identifiable.” That data should still often be detailed enough to be useful for a variety of purposes, protected by the enforceable promises not to re-identify.

I have long believed that technical controls alone are not enough to protect consumers against possible re-identification, as shown in a 2009 report by the Center for Democracy and Technology and my December talk on de-identified data. The best path is to have reasonably strong technical protections, supplemented by the sorts of enforceable promises that the FTC report supports.

Why defining de-identified data is a good fit for the multistakeholder process

The combination of the importance of de-identified data and the FTC’s support for the mix of technical and administrative protections makes the de-identification issue a top candidate for early use of the multistakeholder process. This issue has multiple advantages, including heightened protection for consumers, positive effects on innovation and the broader economy, and likelihood of concrete, enforceable success for the process itself.

Consumers benefit if and when companies implement the FTC de-identification safe harbor. Privacy risks are lower if companies hold data in reasonably de-identified form, compared to holding that data in fully identified form. Within the company, reasonably de-identified data is less likely to be subject to peeping by employees who are not authorized to see the data, as has happened for instance to the passport records of presidential candidates and the medical records of numerous celebrities. Reasonably de-identified data also reduces the risk from a data breach, because the chances of identity theft and other harms to consumers will be lower if their names and other identifying information have been masked. In addition, the enforceable privacy promises by the companies mean that a new layer of administrative protections will exist on top of current technical de-identification protections.

Researchers and others who use data will benefit from the de-identification safe harbor. Good-faith researchers already implement privacy and security measures to protect the confidentiality of the data about individuals. For instance, medical researchers who agree to “data use agreements” under HIPAA get enhanced access to personal health information while promising to implement good confidentiality protections. By creating a clear legal mechanism to enable research and similar uses, the FTC de-identification safe harbor encourages responsible and innovative use of information.

With the safe harbor, companies also gain an important new incentive to implement reasonable de-identification procedures. The safe harbor makes it worth the while of companies to implement reasonable de-identification procedures—the company faces lower data breach and other risks from disclosure or use of the data. Under the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights, responsible companies would have specific compliance responsibilities, such as to provide access to certain personal data and to use personal data consistent with the context in which it was collected. De-identified data, however, is outside the scope of these compliance responsibilities. Companies thus can make compliance easier by using the de-identification safe harbor.

These benefits to consumers, companies, and the economy create an opportunity for a win/win outcome from the multistakeholder process. In self-regulatory approaches, I have long argued that a credible threat of regulation is often important for convincing participants that it is better to agree to a code of conduct than to leave the status quo in place. Because Congress has long been divided on how to address privacy protection, the likelihood of legislation is not very high in the short term. It may thus be difficult to achieve consensus in the multistakeholder process for issues where stakeholders have sharply differing views.

Instead of facing the threat of legislation on de-identification, companies today face uncertainty in practice about what constitutes “reasonably de-identified” under the FTC safe harbor and what will count as sufficiently strong commitments not to re-identify. Multistakeholder consensus about these issues can provide valuable clarification about what it takes for a company to qualify for the safe harbor, with the accompanying benefits to companies, consumers, and other users of the data.

A related advantage is that there are well-defined pieces that would benefit from the multistakeholder process. My suggestion is not to seek a global definition of “reasonably de-identifiable” for all types of data. Instead, early efforts can focus on situations that arise often and are near the line between identified and de-identified data. For example, legal regimes have varied about how to treat IP addresses, which are the Internet addresses used by your computer or smartphone when communicating with a Web site. Web sites automatically log these IP addresses when you visit their web page, for reasons including the need to know where to send the pages you select to read. These IP addresses don’t list you by name, but with more or less effort a website may be able to link the address to a user’s name. I suggest that this topic of IP address could be an early candidate for a multistakeholder process, to define what counts as “reasonably de-identified” for IP addresses, and what sorts of privacy promises effectively reduce the risk of re-identification. A code of conduct here could help everyone who runs a website in order to highlight which activities deserve full protections as personal data and which ones instead qualify for the FTC safe harbor and thus don’t trigger the requirements of the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights.

A second candidate could be how to draw the line between identified and de-identified for other information kept in routine website logs, perhaps including the use of cookies. Like IP addresses, cookies don’t list a user’s name, but with more or less effort a website can often figure out a way to re-identify the user. In my view, cookie data quite possibly can be scrubbed enough so that at some point it should be considered “reasonably de-identified.” When the holder of the cookie information also enforceably promises not to re-identify the user, then the privacy risks from that cookie information become lower. The combination of technical and administrative measures may be an important way to find greater areas of consensus in how cookies are used in connection with targeted online marketing. Even if complete consensus is not reached on an issue as contested as cookies, the process may provide important information about uses that are clearly on one side or the other of the identified/de-identified line.

Conclusion

These comments have explained reasons for the FTC de-identification safe harbor to be the basis for early use of the privacy multistakeholder process. I commend the NTIA and the Department of Commerce for its leadership on privacy issues, and look forward to the continued efforts in this area.

Download the comments (pdf)

Read more here.

Why tweet?

In the US alone, there are 26.5 million people on Twitter and among them are many, if not most of the most influential people in the country. These people are talking about all of the issues of the day, from the most mundane to the most profound. If you are not on Twitter, you are not part of the conversations that matter most to you and your cause, and you are missing the opportunity to engage with the people who are most able to influence large segments of the country and the key decision makers affecting your mission.

What are three simple things people can do to maximize their twitter impact?

• Make sure your audience includes the most influential people in your issue space.
• Be sure your tweets are engaging and valuable to your target audience, providing links to useful content, easy to use facts and talking points, and, whenever possible, are directly engaging people and conversations already in progress on Twitter.
• Be human! Make sure people can see that there is a real, live, caring person behind your tweets.

Read more here.

Their arguments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the interaction of faith and science, treating science as an ideology to be ignored rather than empirical facts to be considered. While the candidates equivocated in answering the question, neither Brownback nor Huckabee last night acknowledged support for evolution.

Huckabee claimed he did not know the answer because “I wasn’t there,” millions of years ago. Brownback was equally vague, and though he recently claimed in a New York Times opinion piece that he believes in “small changes over time within a species,” he avoided acknowledging a belief that all life evolved from a common ancestor.

Unfortunately, there was no follow-up question in either debate about why a new flu vaccine is needed each year or why we are running out of antibiotics that kill bacteria. The answers to these questions presuppose the mechanisms that underlie evolution and much of biology, and it would be nice to hear the candidates’ answers.

Rather than directly address the issue, both candidates attempted to twist the question into an attack on faith. In his opinion piece, Brownback lashed out at what he calls the “exclusively materialistic, deterministic vision of the world,” which he associates with evolution. He said that aspects of evolution that contradict his beliefs “should be firmly rejected as an atheistic theology posing as science.”

Huckabee was equally caustic last night, claiming the question about his belief in evolution was “an unfair question because it simply asks us in a simplistic manner whether or not we believed… there’s a God or not.”

Here Brownback and Huckabee reveal their true colors. Rather than acknowledge that faith and science address different questions, they want to treat science as a rival ideology to be dismissed at their whim. But there is no reason to view evolution as an attack on faith.

The Catholic Church, for example, does not deny evolution any more than it contends the Earth is flat or the center of the universe. In fact, many scientists believe in God, like Francis Collins, leader of the Human Genome Project, and Darwin himself, both Christians. And evolutionary theory makes no claims about religious issues; it simply explains the processes that have led to the diversity of life on Earth.

The candidates’ real concern lies not with evolution but with the conclusions that some people have drawn from evolutionary evidence, and with the moral anxiety that many people feel today. They have every right to argue against the notion of a materialistic world that lacks meaning or purpose, but they’re wrong to equate such philosophical and cultural concerns with scientific evolution. As the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, you’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.

This dismissal of evolution could not be more ill-timed. Scientific knowledge is more important than ever, particularly in the biological sciences. Just as the 20th century saw the exploration of the New Frontier of space, the 21st century will witness the exploration of the Next Frontier of the human body.

Biomedical research will lead to life-saving new treatments for diseases and advances that will improve the quality of life and increase prosperity. It will also pose new questions about the best ways to use this technology to serve humankind. In order to ensure that this work proceeds ethically and effectively, Americans—both religious and secular—need to be scientifically literate.

Our growing understanding of the world is one of humanity’s greatest achievements. Shouldn’t our leaders celebrate it? When Huckabee was asked about evolution last night, he claimed: “I don’t honestly know, and I don’t think knowing that would make me a better or a worse president.” But he misses the point entirely.

We need our leaders to set a positive example. They should be clear that they will not allow personal ideology to color facts or dismiss evidence that does not fit with their preconceived notions. And they must be courageous enough to engage honestly with the new promises and challenges of biomedical research.

Increasingly, science presents us with discoveries that expand our understanding of the world and how our beliefs apply to it. The solution is not to deny these facts, but to continue to explore our values and our faith in light of new knowledge.

Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor and Professor of Medical Ethics and the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Sam Berger is a Researcher at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Scientists announced yesterday that they had found stem cells in the amniotic fluid of pregnant women that have similar characteristics to embryonic stem cells. While these new stem cells hold great promise, they will not replace embryonic stem cells:

• There are questions over whether the amniotic-fluid stem cells can differentiate into as many types of cells as embryonic stem cells, thereby limiting their medical application.

• It is unlikely that amniotic-fluid stem cells will be as useful as embryonic stem cells for studying early human development, one of the most promising areas of stem cell research.
• Scientists already know that stem cell research is not “one-size-fits-all”; different types of stem cells will be necessary to treat different types of injuries and diseases, so while these new stem cells will be medically useful, they will likely not replace embryonic stem cell research and therapies.
• It will take years for other scientists to reproduce these results, then try to convert them to materials that could be used first in animal models of human disease, and then test them in a few people for safety. Meanwhile, we already know how to obtain embryonic stem cells, while the research continues to advance rapidly,
• Prominent stem cell scientists agree that the amniotic-fluid stem cells will not replace embryonic stem cells:

Dr. Robert Lanza, chief scientist at the stem cell company Advanced Cell Technology, said “[these new stem cells] can clearly generate a broad range of important cell types, but they may not do as many tricks as embryonic stem cells.”

Dr. George Daley, a Harvard University stem cell researcher, said “While the [new stem cells] are fascinating subjects of study in their own right, they are not a substitute for human embryonic stem cells, which allow scientists to address a host of other interesting questions in early human development.”

Dr. Larry Goldstein, a professor of cellular and molecular medicine at UC San Diego, said the absence of tumors in the new stem cells might signal a limitation. “It makes me wonder how pluripotent they are.” Though the cells might prove useful in some circumstances, Goldstein said, they aren’t a substitute for embryonic stem cells. “They built a screwdriver here, but I need a wrench.”

Dr. Anthony Atala, director of the Institute for Regenerative Medicine at Wake Forest University School of Medicine and the leader of the group of scientists that discovered the amniotic-fluid stem cells, commented that the new stem cells would not replace embryonic stem cells.

• Researchers have used embryonic stem cells in laboratory animals to treat paralysis, slow vision loss, and reverse some of the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. They have also used human embryonic stem cells to create cardiovascular precursor cells that could lead to treatments for heart diseases, T-cells that could lead to a cure for AIDS, and insulin-secreting cells that could lead to a cure for diabetes. 

While these new stem cells will not replace embryonic stem cells, the discovery does demonstrate the potential in basic research on stem cells from various sources, and the need to pursue stem cell research on all fronts and from all sources. Congress needs to give our scientists access to the best tools available in the race for life-saving cures, and it can take the first step this week by passing the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007.

• View as PDF

Turnover elections traditionally bring with them both new hope and great expectations. With their votes, the American people have asked for change in Washington, tired of the partisanship and paralysis of the past. When elections are about change, the electorate, not surprisingly, actually expects change to occur.

The American people expect action and results. According to a post-election USA Today poll, approximately half of respondents said they expected the president and the Congress would cooperate with each other in the coming year.

While it received little attention in the media coverage of the 2006 campaign, the Congressional Democrats put forward a specific policy agenda that begins to implement real change to address our security failures and alleviate the economic pressures on the middle class and least fortunate. The House Democrats’ 100-hour agenda provides the right start for the 110^th Congress, and should pass with bipartisan support. Congress cannot credibly set out to address the nation’s problems until it fixes its own, and the ethics and pay-as-you-go reforms will go a long way to restoring faith in government. Among its other important agenda items: raising the minimum wage, giving government the tools it needs to lower prescription drug prices for our nation’s seniors, replacing tax breaks for polluting oil companies with clean energy technologies, lowering the cost of college, and promoting stem cell research. These are critically needed fixes that will go a long way to securing the trust of the American people in Congress’ ability to work for them and hopefully begin to build a better working relationship between Democrats, Republicans, and the president that can bring effective new policies to our governing.

This past election, Americans asked Washington to stop ignoring our country’s problems and get about the business of solving them. Progressives have an opportunity to show that their governing philosophy addresses real people’s concerns. The righted ship of Congress should leave Americans feeling that progressives have delivered change that clearly opens the doors of opportunity to a growing middle class, reawakens our conscience, and commits us to the common good, reforms government, and restores the image of the US as a nation of both strength and a force for progress.

The Center for American Progress Action Fund offers our recommendation for new ideas and policies that the 110th Congress should take on and enact before the August recess, after the first 100 hours. In the weeks and months after those first hours, Congress will have an opportunity to demonstrate progress on fixing the problems Americans face. Indeed, we argue that instead of following the traditional Congressional course of an initial burst of activity followed by weeks and months of less action, the Congressional leadership can show the American people it continues to work to meet their needs by continually passing legislation in the spring and summer.

While restoring order and accountability to the day-to-day business of the Congress is essential, a sense of urgency needs to become palpable in order to meet expectations set by the midterm elections. Internal and external deadlines with committees should be set on key deliverables. Doors should be opened to include the minority party in an unprecedented fashion. And recognizing the Senate may take longer to work its will than the House, the Senate leadership can continually promote the progressive agenda issues by pushing proposals onto the floor.

The proposals that follow are concrete policy changes that Congress could pass in those months to demonstrate that progress is at the core of a progressive philosophy. By continually moving new proposals through the legislative process, the Congress can also dominate news coverage and communicate its intention to hold equal sway with the president on the domestic and foreign policy agendas of the country.

These policies would address aspects of the most pressing of our nation’s problems—Iraq and national security, energy security, economic policy, health care, education, and the environment. We urge and underscore the need for dialogue across the aisle in addressing these issues, and especially in developing a plan for a swift and successful conclusion to the US presence in Iraq. The American people are looking for bipartisan agreement on that plan.

The opportunity voters have given progressives to lead cannot be overstated, just as the midterm election results cannot be over read. We have been given the chance to prove that our ideas and policies can help solve the nation’s problems, but we also shoulder the responsibility to repair the damage our union has sustained at the hands of radical conservative ideologies. It is an opportunity that should not be wasted.

• Read the agenda