1NC
Off
OFF
“Nearly all” means 95 percent or more
GAO 9, Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives, June 2009, “Federal Lands: Enhanced Planning Could Assist
Agencies in Managing Increased Use of Off-Highway Vehicles,” http://www.gao.gov/assets/300/291866.html
Because of a lack of historical and nationwide information about OHV use on federal lands, we also developed and administered a Web-based survey
to gather federal land managers' perspectives on the management and use of OHVs from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 on Forest Service,
BLM, and Park Service lands. The survey was administered to the entire population of national forests and BLM field office units and to Park Service
field units most likely to have OHV use, either authorized or unauthorized.[Footnote 1] To ensure the validity of survey responses, we (1) extensively
pretested the survey to ensure that questions were understood appropriately across all three agencies, (2) pledged to report only aggregate survey
information (as opposed to information that would identify a particular unit), and (3) conducted reliability and validity checks of the survey responses.
We obtained a 100 percent response rate for the survey from all three agencies. A complete tabulation of the results of the survey can be viewed at
GAO-09-547SP. To characterize the results from our survey in this report, we assigned specific meanings to the words used to quantify
the results, as follows: "a few" means 1 to 24 percent of respondents, "some" means 25 to 44 percent of respondents, "about half"
means 45 to 55 percent of respondents, "a majority" means 56 to 74 percent of respondents, "most" means 75 to 94 percent of
respondents, and " nearly all" means 95 percent or more of respondents. Appendix I explains our methodology in greater detail.
Printed organs are artificial NOT human- their author. Vote neg for predictable
ground--- OR they don’t legalize key tech- vote neg on presumption
Gwinn 14 (James Gwinn is a rising senior at the University of Kentucky – Paducah Campus, where he
will graduate with dualdegrees in Economics and Mechanical Engineering. ASME helps the global
engineering community develop solutions to real world challenges. Founded in 1880 as the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME is a not‐for‐profit professional organization that enables
collaboration, knowledge sharing and skill development across all engineering disciplines, while
promoting the vital role of the engineer in society. ASME codes and standards, publications, conferences,
continuing education and professional development programs provide a foundation for advancing
technical knowledge and a safer world. ASME’s mission is to serve diverse global communities by
advancing, disseminating and applying engineering knowledge for improving the quality of life; and
communicating the excitement of engineering*. “Bioprinting: Organs on Demand” pg. 15)
So far, the only way to accurately reproduce the architectural, physiological, and material properties of living tissue is through 3D
bioprinting. (6) Bioprinters and advanced CAD/CAM software make it possible to design myriad biological tissues from scratch‡ .
These machines operate depositing droplets (spheroids) of biomaterials.(9) The range of biomedical applications for AM is quite
broad, but the holy grail of this technology is de novo organ printing. DE NOVO is a Latin phrase meaning “from the new.”
The creation of de novo organs requires contributions from a number of fields, including: biology, chemistry, genetic engineering,
mechanical engineering, micro‐fluidics, medicine, and computer programming. (12) Several of these disciplines are already capable
of providing the accuracy and precision to create de novo organs. There are commercially available machines capable of depositing
biomaterials accurately and precisely, and there are hydrogels that accurately
tissue.
mimic the strength and structure of natural human
Vote neg
a) Limits---they allow a huge number of subset affs that legalize one
instance of an activity---wrecks neg prep
b) Ground---DA links are based on removing all or most of the
prohibition---affs that just exempt one subset dodge our best
arguments- proven by the fact that they moot 99% of the organs negAND the ONLY solvency advocate that says organs is an UNDERGRAD at
Kentucky.
OFF
Obama will secure enough Dem votes on TPA, but capital is key
Needham 1-28-15 (Vicki, “New Democrats want assurances on party support on trade,”
http://thehill.com/policy/finance/231082-new-democrats-want-assurances-on-party-support-on-trade)
A group of House Democrats who stand ready to support President Obama’s trade agenda are asking
Senate Democrats and the White House to take the lead on a historically difficult issue for their party. The 46member New Democrat Coalition is likely key to the Obama administration’s efforts to round up enough
votes so Congress can pass a t rade p romotion a uthority bill. So they want “ reassurances that they do
not stand alone” on the prickly issue that is pitting some liberal Democrats against Obama, a House
Democratic aide told The Hill. To that end, New Democrats want the Senate to be the first to consider a
trade promotion authority bill, also known as fast-track, which would give Congress up-or-down votes on any trade agreements,
such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), that reach Capitol Hill. A vote in support is much easier when their senators also are
backing trade, the aide said. That political cover could come, for a start, from Democrats on the Senate
Finance Committee where Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) is eager to push a bill through his
committee by the end of February. For his part, U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman reiterated during
hearings Tuesday on Capitol Hill the Obama administration’s commitment to convincing Democrats to back
fast-track and the trade deals. He referred to the “whole-government approach” of building support, which includes a fullcourt press from the president’s Cabinet. In fact, the Obama administration’s two-year long campaign to
get trade-friendly Democrats on board is working , a House Democratic aide said. Rep. Ron Kind of Wisconsin,
chairman of the New Democrats, has been outspoken in advocating for a new way to negotiate trade agreements while urging other
members of his party to look hard at a world without the United States leading on trade. "I also think we need a proactive,
aggressive trade agenda that’s going to work for American workers and our businesses," Kind said Wednesday on C-SPAN’s
Washington Journal. Kind's group is making its case to their own party on two points — the trade deals will raise global labor and
environmental standards — a major issue for them — and those who might oppose the deals are settling for a status quo that’s
worse for American workers, an aide said. "That’s why the administration is trying to get core labor and environmental standards in
the body of the agreement, so that we can push standards up from where they are, rather than trying to compete with China in a
race to the bottom,” Kind said. At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing on Tuesday with Froman, Kind said it doesn’t make
sense for lawmakers to wholly oppose the trade deals before seeing them. So he is urging the most vocal fast-track opponents such
as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) to be “engaged in trade negotiations." “It’s up to each Member of Congress to be personally
engaged in that effort." Kind also pushed back ask the assertion made by many opposed Democrats that Froman and his team
aren’t providing enough information on the trade deals. “The USTR team that’s negotiating these agreements are on Capitol Hill all
the time,” Kind said on C-SPAN. "They walk through text, and they show Members different chapters of what’s being discussed so
that Congress can guide them on what the negotiating objectives need to be,” he said. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (DCalif.) told The Hill in a recent interview that while her members have many concerns on trade she won't decide whether she will
support fast-track until she has seen what's included in the TPP. Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans have
expressed support for fast-track and moving forward with trade agreements like the TPP. Speaker John
Boehner (R-Ohio) said “I think getting the t rade p romotion a uthority for the president that he's asked for is certainly
likely ,” on Fox News's “Special Report with Bret Baier” on Wednesday night. But Democrats have been more
cautious , with many opposing the ambitious trade agenda over concerns that the deals will ship U.S. jobs overseas and damage
the economy. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said on Tuesday that the administration "is making
an effort, in my view, to work with members on both sides of the aisle to make sure that this process is
transparent. Still, he wants to allay Democratic concerns before lending support. "Steps are being
taken to raise that confidence, and if that occurs I think that it's possible for a significant number of
members to support both TPA and TPP. But I think those concerns need to be met."
Plan guts political capital
Steve Calandrillo, University of Washington, “Cash for Kidneys? Utilizing Incentives to nd America’s Organ Shortage,”
GEORGE MASON LAW REVIEW v. 13, 2004, LN.
legalized human organ market would be far from a utopian solution: it would
be political suicide to propose, entail significant administrative costs to establish and monitor, and
remain morally distasteful to many Americans. While such markets havebeen debated without much progress in the
Despite the above analysis, any form of
past, far less attention has been paid to dozens of other monetary and nonmonetary incentives that could be employed. Taking an
incentive-based approach would avoid imposing risk on living donors, dramatically expand the pool of available organs, and shock
the conscience far less than allowing living-seller markets.190
Obama pressing hard for fast track now – PC key to secure the votes
Lauren French 1-30-15, and Anna Palmer, Journalists, “Obama cranks up trade pitch to Dems”, Politico,
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/obama-trade-pitch-114781.html
PHILADELPHIA — President Barack
Obama , Vice President Joe Biden and a phalanx of top administration
officials are making the sales pitch to congressional Democrats for fast-track authority on trade deals.
Obama and Biden each made that plea during their appearances at this week’s House Democratic
retreat in Philadelphia, which ended Friday. Top White House economic adviser Jeffrey Zients, Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew, Commerce Secretary Penny Pritzker and Labor Secretary Tom Perez have
also joined the effort to sway House and Senate Democrats, as well as some skeptical
Republicans. The administration hopes to secure the 30 to 50 Democratic yes votes in the House that
might be needed to push a trade bill over the top. But sources have said the White House is still only informally
counting votes, and Obama was careful to soften the hard sell during a closed-door meeting with lawmakers here Thursday night.
He said the White House “will make [a] substantive case” for a trade deal but won’t “go after folks” or make
the vote a “litmus test” for Democrats, according to sources in the room. “We share same values and are looking out for the same
people,” Obama said in response to a question from Washington Rep. Derek Kilmer, who said he was still undecided
despite his state’s dependence on trade. Obama also pledged to work with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (DCalif.) so that members have better access to the “substance of the agreements,” sources said. Biden also gave a forceful
pitch for trade during his closed-door appearance at the retreat Friday. The legislation also has support from the New Democrat
Coalition, an alliance of pro-business lawmakers. The group estimates that roughly 30 of its members will ultimately support the fasttrack measure, according to a private memo obtained by POLITICO. The coalition isn’t creating a whip team to lobby on-the-fence
Democrats, though the group’s chairman, Wisconsin Rep. Ron Kind, said he’s been discussing the merits of trade one-on-one. But
a memo circulated by coalition staffers said the group has been urging freshman lawmakers to hold off on signing anti-trade letters
from Democratic Reps. Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, two leading critics of the proposed deals.
“Working with the White House and business community, we were able to keep about half of the Dems
(including 4 out of the 5 New Dems) to commit to stay off the letter and give the President a chance to
make his case,” the memo said. The “trade promotion authority” legislation would expedite the passage of trade deals by
letting Obama submit the final agreements to Congress for an up-or-down vote, without amendments. That authority is viewed as
key to wrapping up two giant agreements — the Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 Asia-Pacific countries, and the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership with the 28 nations of the European Union — because other nations would have the assurance
that Congress won’t undo any concessions included in the deals. The trade pacts have drawn opposition from liberal groups
concerned about their effect on U.S. jobs and wages, labor rights, the environment and intellectual property protections. And House
Democrats are deeply divided on giving Obama — or any president — authority to negotiate trade packages without letting
legislation from Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), top committee Democrat
Ron Wyden of Oregon, and House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) will probably be unveiled in late
February. The Finance Committee is expected to first . Hatch said Friday that the fast-track legislation is the
country’s “ most important tool to open markets.” “The U.S. needs to lead on trade,” Hatch said in a
Congress amend the terms. Any
speech to the American Enterprise Institute. “We need to establish rules that hold other nations accountable for their unfair trade
practices. And we need to tear down barriers that block our goods from foreign markets. We can only do that if we renew
TPA and do so soon.” Both opponents and supporters base much of their case on potential growth for the middle class —
an issue central to the House Democrats’ de-facto messaging strategy. Supporters argue that the middle class can’t expand without
the economic growth that comes with free trade, while opponents say wages will drop and jobs go overseas if trade deals don’t offer
strong protections. “I’m not saying trade is the middle-class issue, but it’s one of the middle-class issues,” said Michigan Rep.
Sander Levin, the top Democrat on Ways and Means. He added that members showed “a lot of
interest” in fast-track authority during the retreat, following months of discussions in Washington.
“ This is now the main thing going on,” he said. The debate over trade started early during the
retreat. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka railed against the proposals during his headline speech to members Wednesday, and
lawmakers held an early-morning panel with DeLauro on trade Thursday. “[The trade proposals are] nothing but a license to
continue the same failed trade policies that have emptied America of jobs,” Trumka said, according to sources in the room. “Trade
can raise working people up or it can drive us down.” DeLauro’s closed-door panel brought nearly 30 members to debate currency,
labor and environmental concerns. A source said the bulk of the lawmakers who spoke expressed support for
the administration’s trade proposal. And lawmakers will be hearing more soon. Kind said Lew will head to
the Capitol in coming weeks to brief members on trade, following the nearly two years of meetings they’ve had with Pritzker, Perez
and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman.
Solves global trade
*Global trade order collapsing – TPA key to avoid protectionism and war
Ezell 14 (Stephen, Senior Analyst with the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), with a focus on innovation
policy, international information technology competitiveness, trade, and manufacturing and services issues, 10-29,
http://www.innovationfiles.org/trade-promotion-authority-a-vital-component-of-u-s-trade-policy/,)
there is currently a fight for the soul of the global trading system . The
years since the Great Recession have seen a dramatic increase in countries’ use of innovation mercantilist
policies—such as forcing local production as a condition of market access, subsidizing exports, stealing intellectual property, or manipulating currencies and standards—
which seek to favor domestic enterprises at the expense of foreign competitors. Viewing with envy
China’s rapid economic growth, dozens of other countries—from Brazil and India to Malaysia and South Africa—have
enacted similar mercantilist policies, giving rise to an emerging “Beijing Consensus” (i.e., innovation mercantilism). In fact, as evidence of this,
the World Trade Organization reported that the number of technical barriers to trade reached an all-time high
in 2012. And as this emerging “Beijing Consensus” gains strength, it comes at the expense of the
long-dominant, but now exhausted, “Washington Consensus” which has believed in the unalloyed
benefits of free trade, even when it is one-sided, and that has fretted that robust enforcement of trade rules may ignite a
trade war . As such, we need a new consensus, one that holds that trade and globalization remain poised
to generate lasting global prosperity, but only if all countries share a commitment to playing by a strong set of rules that foster shared, sustainable
growth. And that’s what the United States is doing in seeking to negotiate TPP and T-TIP agreements as
model, 21st century compacts that set the bar and lay the foundation upon which a stronger set of
future global trade rules can be built. If America doesn’t successfully conclude and pass through Congress these nextgeneration trade agreements—and let’s be clear, it will be much more difficult, if not impossible , to accomplish this without TPA—America risks
1. Regarding the first point, make no mistake:
losing out on the ability to set the agenda and standards for a more robust and liberalized global trade system going forward. 2. The logic of
TPA is sound, and TPA actually helps make U.S. trade agreements better, in several ways. First, TPA is an effective mechanism for Congress to delegate its Constitutional
authority to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” as stipulated by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. Through TPA, Congress outlines high-standard objectives and
priorities for U.S. negotiators to pursue in trade agreements, a process which helps build consensus on U.S. trade policy. Moreover, the TPA increases transparency in U.S.
trade policy, for it establishes consultation and notification requirements for the President and USTR to follow throughout the trade agreement negotiation process—ensuring
that Congress, interested stakeholders, and the general public are closely involved before, during, and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations. In addition, having
given USTR direction in its negotiation of U.S trade agreements, TPA expedites the process of Congressional debate on trade agreements, as each chamber suspends ordinary
legislative procedures and considers implementing legislation subject to time-limited debate with no (or limited) amendments. And given the importance of the two massively
transformational agreements currently being negotiated in the TPP and T-TIP, it’s essential that we have a streamlined, easily managed framework for reviewing, analyzing, and
ultimately approving these trade agreements quickly and efficiently. Yet perhaps even more importantly, Trade Promotion Authority recognizes that U.S. trade
partners would be reluctant to negotiate agreements that would be subject to unlimited Congressional debate and amendments. As U.S.
Trade Representative Mike Froman wrote in a Foreign Affairs article, The Strategic Logic of Trade, last week, “ By ensuring that Congress will consider trade
agreements as they have been negotiated by the executive branch, TPA gives U.S. trading partners the necessary confidence to
put their best and final offers on the table.” And as Inside U.S. Trade wrote in an article on Friday, October 24, the timing of Froman’s Foreign Affairs piece
calling for TPA is likely because he’s “received a clear signal from one or more TPP countries that they need to see TPA passed before they will
put their best offer on the table.” In short, TPA helps make the trade agreements the U.S. signs better by compelling our trade partners
to put their best offer on the table.
Extinction
Panzer 8 Michael J. Panzner, Faculty – New York Institute of Finance.
Specializes in Global Capital Markets. MA Columbia,
Financial Armageddon: Protect Your Future from Economic Collapse, Revised and Updated Edition [Paperback], p. 137-138
protectionist
legislation like the notorious Smoot-Hawley bill. Introduced at the start of the Great Depression, it
triggered a series of tit-for-tat economic responses, which many commentators believe helped turn a serious
economic downturn into a prolonged and devastating global disaster . But if history is any guide, those lessons
will have been long forgotten during the next collapse. Eventually, fed by a mood of desperation and growing public
anger, restrictions on trade, finance, investment, and immigration will almost certainly intensify .
Continuing calls for curbs on the flow of finance and trade will inspire the United States and other nations to spew forth
Authorities and ordinary citizens will likely scrutinize the cross-border movement of Americans and outsiders alike, and lawmakers
may even call for a general crackdown on nonessential travel. Meanwhile, many nations will make transporting or sending funds to
other countries exceedingly difficult. As desperate officials try to limit the fallout from decades of ill-conceived, corrupt, and reckless
policies, they will introduce controls on foreign exchange. Foreign individuals and companies seeking to acquire certain American
infrastructure assets, or trying to buy property and other assets on the cheap thanks to a rapidly depreciating dollar, will be stymied
by limits on investment by noncitizens. Those efforts will cause spasms to ripple across economies and markets, disrupting global
payment, settlement, and clearing mechanisms. All of this will, of course, continue to undermine business confidence and consumer
spending. In a world of lockouts and lockdowns, any link that transmits systemic financial pressures across markets through
arbitrage or portfolio-based risk management, or that allows diseases to be easily spread from one country to the next by tourists
and wildlife, or that otherwise facilitates unwelcome exchanges of any kind will be viewed with suspicion and dealt with accordingly.
The rise in isolationism and protectionism will bring about ever more heated arguments and
dangerous confrontations over shared sources of oil, gas, and other key commodities as well as
factors of production that must, out of necessity, be acquired from less-than-friendly nations. Whether
involving raw materials used in strategic industries or basic necessities such as food, water, and energy, efforts to secure adequate
supplies will take increasing precedence in a world where demand seems constantly out of kilter
with supply. Disputes over the misuse, overuse, and pollution of the environment and natural resources will
become more commonplace. Around the world, such tensions will give rise to full-scale military
encounters , often with minimal provocation . In some instances, economic conditions will serve as a
convenient pretext for conflicts that stem from cultural and religious differences . Alternatively, nations
may look to divert attention away from domestic problems by channeling frustration and populist
sentiment toward other countries and cultures . Enabled by cheap technology and the waning threat of American retribution,
terrorist groups will likely boost the frequency and scale of their horrifying attacks, bringing the threat of
random violence to a whole new level. Turbulent conditions will encourage aggressive saber rattling and
interdictions by rogue nations running amok. Age-old clashes will also take on a new, more heated sense of urgency. China will
likely assume an increasingly belligerent posture toward Taiwan, while Iran may embark on overt colonization of its neighbors in the
Mideast. Israel, for its part, may look to draw a dwindling list of allies from around the world into a growing number of conflicts. Some
observers, like John Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, have even speculated that an “intense
confrontation” between the United States and China is “inevitable” at some point. More than a few disputes will turn out to be almost
wholly ideological. Growing cultural and religious differences will be transformed from wars of words to battles soaked in blood.
resentments could also degenerate quickly , spurring the basest of human instincts
and triggering genocidal acts . Terrorists employing biological or nuclear weapons will vie with conventional forces using
Long-simmering
jets, cruise missiles, and bunker-busting bombs to cause widespread destruction. Many will interpret stepped-up conflicts between
Muslims and Western societies as the beginnings of a new world war.
OFF
Counterplan: The United States Congress should amend the Dickey-Wicker
amendment to legalize the research and production of human organs
produced through human embryonic stem cell regenerative research.
Counterplan does all of the aff but doesn’t legalize the SALE of human organs
Allowing compensation for organs necessarily shifts common law toward
recognition of property rights in the body
Laurel R. Siegel 2K, JD candidate @ Emory University School of Law, Sumer 2000 “RE-ENGINEERING THE LAWS OF
ORGAN TRANSPLANTATION,” 49 Emory L.J. 917, lexis
Compensation systems would change the nature of altruistic organ donation. The theory states that people may be more willing to provide organs if they
receive compensation. n283 Several types of compensation systems have been proposed, each attacking the organ shortage in a slightly different way, but with the same ultimate goal - to provide
remuneration. Compensation systems require development of common law to increase the property rights of individuals after death.
Additionally, a compensation system could only go into effect if NOTA and the 1987 UAGA amendments are repealed or
amended. n284 NOTA, however, allows all other participants in the organ procurement and transplantation process, except the donor, to receive compensation. Arguably, the donor should receive
compensation as well.¶ Compensation systems have several advantages. First, they help to make up for the organs wasted under the donative system. n285 Second, if a person sells his organs, there may be
less emotion and tension involved than if an altruistic donation was made out of love or guilt. n286¶ Primarily, dissatisfaction with the proposed compensation systems concerns the lack of the customary altruism.
n287 Critics fear that the lack of altruism would upset society as well as reduce the organ supply. n288 Selling organs would take away from the traditional notion of providing a generous act in the face of tragedy.
n289 Allowing sales of organs encroaches into a sacred area where such sales are controversial. The notion of profiting from the sales of body parts is repulsive to many. Critics of compensation systems have a
serious concern with coercion of the poor. n290 Destitute people, who otherwise might not chose to donate organs, might feel compelled to sell their organs. n291 Another concern involves the allocation of
organs. Under a compensation [*951] system, those who could afford organs would have a greater chance of receiving them. n292 Finally, allowing sales of organs could promote family strife due to pressure to
sell organs. n293¶ a. Inter Vivos Market for Organs¶ In an inter vivos organ market, organs would be considered an ordinary commodity to be sold for a profit. System regulators would have to decide where to
draw the line - selling non-essential organs such as kidneys versus selling essential organs such as the heart. The theory for such a system is based on the notion that all parties in the organ donation process are
compensated, thus the donor should be included as well. n294¶ Creating a market for organs may actually fail to increase the supply because otherwise altruistic donations may be curtailed. n295 It also risks
offending many citizens and takes advantage of the poor who may not otherwise choose to donate or sell organs.¶ b. Futures Market¶ A less controversial version of a compensation system is a futures market.
A futures market would allow healthy individuals during life to contract for the sale of their body tissue for delivery after
their death. n296 Under this regime, if the donor's organs are successfully harvested and transplanted, the donor's estate would receive payment. n297 Like the current donation system, people would
sign donor cards, but unlike the current system, the donor or vendor would receive compensation. n298 Proponents of this system claim it avoids ethical problems. First, by not using live donors, proponents claim
it does not exploit the poor. n299 Second, the system does not deal with allocation so the [*952] rich will not have greater access to organs than the poor. n300 Third, people will be selling their own organs, so
relatives will not have to participate. n301¶ This
system requires creating and legally enforcing property rights in the decedent's body . This
system is only hypothetical and has not yet been attempted in any jurisdiction. If implemented in the current system, it would clearly violate NOTA, because it involves sales of organs. In addition, it might exploit
the poor because only the poor would have incentive to sell their organs, unless the price was high enough for moderately wealthy individuals to be interested. Even though the system does not deal with
allocation, the poor will naturally be discriminated against because they may be unable to afford the organs if Medicaid or other government assistance does not cover them.¶ c. Death Benefits¶ A death benefits
system, while not market-based, is a third type of compensation system. Such a system would merely provide incentives to relatives of the decedent in exchange for donating the decedent's organs. n302
Examples of incentives include estate tax deductions, funeral expense allow-ances, and college education benefits. n303 As illustrated above, Pennsylvania is experimenting with a death benefits system in its
newly enacted legislation. n304¶ Proponents argue that a death benefits system does not conflict with the current altruistic system. n305 Proponents also assert that a death benefits system does not violate
NOTA's prohibition of organ sales, because Congress did not intend to include this kind of compensation. n306 With respect to the Pen-nsylvania law, proponents claim funeral expenses could be a reasonable
expense exempted from the NOTA prohibition. n307 They claim that because money does not go directly to donors or beneficiaries, the payment is not technically for organs. n308 Opponents claim that a death
benefits system con-stitutes the sale of organs; indirect compensation is given in exchange for one's [*953] organs. This proposal, set up as a pilot program administered by individual states, is promising.¶ B.
Suggestions¶ First, solutions must be found for the problems of the current system, in which an outright market is inappropriate, but in which incentive programs and public health education could serve as
successful boosts to the organ supply. For the second stage, after technology alters the status and supply of organs, society can plan a solution for the future. Only at that point could a full-fledged market be an
acceptable, ethical medium to exchange organs.¶ 1. The Current System¶ As illustrated above, problems are inherent in the current organ transplantation system. Society must cope with the problems as they
exist today, using currently available technology and resources. The best way to address the immediate organ shortage is to administer pilot programs providing incentives for organ donations, following the lead
of Pennsylvania. Congress should propose an Amendment to NOTA that would allow the Department of Health and Human Services to oversee pilot programs. Compensation would rise incrementally, beginning
with small payments, such as funeral expenses or hospital bills. The prohibition of sales of organs should remain in place for live organs because allowing sales of live organs jeopardizes existing life and brings
into play many ethical issues. Thus, the amendment would only apply to organs of decedents.¶ In addition to avoiding the ethical problems inherent in a market for organs, allowing an incentive system would
probably increase awareness of donation, increase actual donation, and fairly and tactfully compensate the donor. The approach is an important bridge to the future when engineered organs will make
compensation systems viable. Most importantly, more patients, who would otherwise die, will benefit from receiving life-saving organs.¶ Organ donation does not have to be perceived as a grim, avoidable topic;
donating organs transforms death into a positive experience - essentially bestowing the gift of life. In addition to the pilot programs, governmental efforts should focus on public health education. If the public is
made more aware of the plight, the decision to donate organs would be made prior to death. This tactic would avoid difficult, uncomfortable situations for families and doctors, which often prevent donation. Many
states already have [*954] implemented organ donor awareness funds, funded through donations when renewing driver's licenses or filing taxes. n309 Similar programs must be established. Public health officials
should talk to high school students about organ donation. Special task forces could explain the organ transplant system to people, in the form of television commercials or advertisements in magazines. The
erection of billboards with organ donation messages would implant the seed in people's minds.¶ 2. The Future System ¶ The current solution only affects organs from decedents. In the foreseeable future,
technology will create live organs from existing cells and biodegradable scaffolds. When that occurs, the organ shortage will no longer be a problem. But in order to have potentially unlimited organs, cell donation
must occur. This may eventually be done individually at birth, but phased in by adults contributing to a generic pool. Will these donors be compensated for their pre-organ donation? The donation of cells differs
from a functioning organ and probably lies outside of organ transplantation laws. Most likely, providing compensation for this stage would be allowable and beneficial. An individual donating his cells would face no
risk to his health by donating. Fewer ethical issues are involved. Therefore, for the organ system of the future, allowing
incentives to donors is a sound idea. This can only
become a reality if the common law develops, allowing a property right in live tissue and organs . This will be established
in the marketplace as long as common law and statutory law do not prohibit sales.
that wrecks medical research---researchers will scrap projects for fear of
lawsuits
IBA 87, Industrial Biotechnology Association, Amicus Curiae brief in Moore v. Regents of the University of California,
Biotechnology Law Report 8(2): 83-143, http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/blr.1989.8.83?journalCode=blr
Faced with potential liability for conversion, researchers will undoubtedly shrink from using or transferring any human
tissue , cell line or DNA for which clear title cannot be established . Existing research might have to be scrapped , and years
of effort and development time lost. For the future, hospitals would either have to present every patient with a complicated consent or release form
transferring title for all purposes, or adopt special forms to be executed before each use of an actual specimen. In either event it would become
necessary to establish a comprehensive nationwide recording system to track and verify each cell line's chain of title each
time a preserved specimen is desired for research, and to inform former patients of newly discovered commercial possibilities.¶ Such
requirements will obviously be difficult to meet given the transient nature of modern society, and the fact that the commercial potential of any given cell
line may not be discovered until years after an initial excision from the source individual. (Human Tissue Research, p. 251.) Moreover, there are likely
to be many instances in which the need for identification and record-keeping will conflict with the duty of patient confidentiality .
The likely result will undoubtedly be that many hospitals will withdraw from participation in research involving excised
tissue due to the cost and potential liability associated with nonconsensual use of human tissue.¶ Altogether, it is difficult to estimate how
damaging the lower court's decision will be to medical and scientific research, but the prospect of significant damage is certain .
Medical research and innovation is key to solve environmental pathogens
Gerard A. Cangelosi 5, Prof of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences and Adjunct Prof of Epidemiology and of
Global Health at the University of Washington, PhD in Microbiology from UC Davis, Nancy E. Freitag, PhD, Prof in the Dept of
Microbiology and Immunology at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Medicine, and Merry R. Buckley, Ph.D. in environmental
microbiology at Michigan State University, “From Outside to Inside: Environmental Microorganisms as Human Pathogens,”
http://academy.asm.org/index.php/environmental-microbiology-ecology-evolution/553-from-outside-to-inside-environmentalmicroorganisms-as-human-pathogens
The key difference between environmental pathogens and other human pathogens is their ability to survive and thrive
outside the host . Their widespread occurrence in the environment makes them difficult to monitor and control. Inroads have been made to understand the persistence
of these organisms in the environment, the reservoirs they inhabit, the ways they exchange virulence factors, and their diversity, but
a great deal more research is
needed . By grouping together phylogenetically diverse organisms under the umbrella of "environmental pathogens," it is hoped that the
topic can gain the critical mass needed for sustained progress. ¶ Colloquium participants examined other research needs for the field, including the
diagnostic and environmental technologies that will be necessary for taking the next steps. It was agreed that because of the complex nature of studying organisms that can
exist in the environment and in human hosts, work in this area is best carried out in an interdisciplinary fashion with coordinated input from medical, molecular, and
environmental microbiologists, specialists in host responses, epidemiologists, ecologists, environmental engineers, and public health experts. The development of
improved diagnostic techniques is critical for accurate assessment of health risks and potential human or animal
population impact associated with environmental pathogens. ¶ If the impacts of these diseases are to be effectively controlled ,
the techniques used to monitor and control infections by environmental pathogens—including interventions, exposure
controls, drugs, and vaccines— require improvement . The processes surrounding drug and vaccine development must be tailored to the special
problem of environmental pathogens, which often strike small numbers of individuals or individuals in less developed areas of the world and, therefore, offer less potential for
drug development profit than more common diseases. A challenge exists, therefore, in meeting the need for targeted, specific interventions, including development of drugs and
vaccines for infections by environmental agents, in the face of a lack of financial incentive for development of these tools.
Causes extinction---disease defense doesn’t apply
Arturo Casadevall 12, M.D., Ph.D. in Biochemistry from New York University, Leo and Julia Forchheimer Professor and
Chair of the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, former editor of the ASM journal
Infection and Immunity, “The future of biological warfare,” Microbial Biotechnology Volume 5, Issue 5, pages 584–587, September
2012, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-7915.2012.00340.x/full
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the known existential
threats. At this time this writer can identify at three major existential threats to humanity: (i) large-scale thermonuclear war
followed by a nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid impact and (iii) infectious disease . To this trio might be added climate
change making the planet uninhabitable. Of the three existential threats the first is deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of
nuclear war. For the second there is geological evidence for the association of asteroid impacts with massive extinction (Alvarez,
1987). As to an existential threat from microbes recent decades have provided unequivocal evidence for the ability of certain
pathogens to cause the extinction of entire species. Although infectious disease has traditionally not been associated with
extinction this view has changed by the finding that a single chytrid fungus was responsible for the extinction of
numerous amphibian species (Daszak et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 2006). Previously , the view that infectious diseases
were not a cause of extinction was predicated on the notion that many pathogens required their hosts and that some
proportion of the host population was naturally resistant. However, that calculation does not apply to microbes that are
acquired directly from the environment and have no need for a host, such as the majority of fungal pathogens . For those
types of host–microbe interactions it is possible for the pathogen to kill off every last member of a species without harm to
itself, since it would return to its natural habitat upon killing its last host. Hence, from the viewpoint of existential threats
environmental microbes could potentially pose a much greater threat to humanity than the known pathogenic microbes,
which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2001), especially if some of these species
acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of natural evolution or bioengineering.
OFF
Patient-doctor trust is high
Giroux, 14 -- Bloomberg reporter
[Greg, "Doctors Running for Congress Ditch Suits for White Coats," Bloomberg, 7-13-14, www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-0714/doctors-running-for-congress-ditch-suits-for-white-coats.html, accessed 8-24-14]
On the 2014 campaign trail, white is the new olive drab. After the 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S., political candidates
with military ties showed up in their ads in uniform. This year, those with medical backgrounds are attacking Obamacare wearing
their white coats. It’s no accident: polls show nurses and doctors are among the most trusted people in
America. Politicians are among the least trusted. All three commercials for Monica Wehby, an Oregon Republican seeking to
unseat Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley, have shown her in a hospital setting. “As a pediatric neurosurgeon, I know firsthand how
devastating Obamacare is for Oregon families and patients,” Wehby said in one of her ads, which was interspersed with footage of
the candidate in surgical scrubs. The “Grey’s Anatomy” backdrop comes as Republicans seek to gain control of the U.S. Senate
and, with their House majority counterparts, pass a law repealing 2010’s Affordable Care Act. The quest is gaining urgency as
Americans become more accepting of the law. Republicans need a net gain of six seats for a Senate majority. Fifty-three percent of
Americans oppose the law, though just 32 percent say it should be repealed, according to a Bloomberg National Poll last month.
Fifty-six percent say they want to keep Obamacare with “small modifications.” Wardrobe Messaging The latest wardrobe
preferences for political ads also put distance between some candidates and the unpopular Congress they are seeking to join.
About 82 percent of Americans say nurses have a “high or very high level” of honesty and ethical
standards, the top spot among 22 professions rated in a December Gallup survey. Pharmacists were tied for second at
70 percent, and medical doctors were tied with military veterans for fourth at 69 percent. Medical
professionals have high approval ratings because people view them as “primary care-givers,” said
Frank Newport, Gallup’s editor-in-chief.
Organ sales collapse doctor-patient trust
Caplan, 14 – NYU bioethics division head and professor
[Arthur, Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science from Columbia, Drs. William F and Virginia Connolly Mitty Professor and head
of the Division of Bioethics at New York University Langone Medical Center in New York City, "Reply to Cherry," Contemporary
Debates in Bioethics, google books, 70-71, accessed 8-18-14]
Medicine is a business, but it is also a profession: one that relies on trust. If commercial concerns are
seen as overwhelming the protection of patient interests, then medicine will no longer be able to
function. If doctors do useless tests on patients solely¶ to make money, then patients come to distrust recommendations for
tests. If doctors will remove your kidney, cornea, lobe of liver, or limbs solely so that you and they may turn a
buck, patients soon will come to completely distrust their doctors . Transplantation depends upon
trust-to obtain organs such as hearts¶ and lungs, people must believe their loved ones are truly dead
before removal. Trust in that the surgeon will not give you an inferior or infected organ just to get a
paycheck. Trust in that you cannot bribe your way to access to an organ ahead of those in greater¶ need.
There is nothing that will destroy trust more in transplant than showing that doctors are quite
willing to harm their patients-especially those who are poor or vulnerable solely and only for
money.
Key to solve bioterror- research, response and treatment
Jacobs, 5 – MD; Boston University professor of medicine
[Alice, director of Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory and Interventional Cardiology, "Rebuilding an Enduring Trust in Medicine,"
Circulation, 2005, circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/25/3494.full#xref-ref-3-1, accessed 8-18-14]
To be sure, we will learn about the emerging science and clinical practice of cardiovascular disease over the next four days. But
there is an internal disease of the heart that confronts us as scientists, as physicians, and as healthcare
professionals. It is a threat to us all—insidious and pervasive—and one that we unknowingly may spread. This threat is
one of the most critical issues facing our profession today. How we address this problem will shape the future of
medical care.¶ This issue is the erosion of trust.¶ Lack of trust is a barrier between our intellectual
renewal and our ability to deliver this new knowledge to our research labs, to our offices, to the bedside of
our patients, and to the public. Trust is a vital, unseen, and essential element in diagnosis, treatment, and
healing. So it is fundamental that we understand what it is, why it’s important in medicine, its recent decline, and what we can all
do to rebuild trust in our profession. Trust is intrinsic to the relationship between citizens around the world and the institutions that
serve their needs: government, education, business, religion, and, most certainly, medicine. ¶ Albert Einstein recognized the
importance of trust when he said, “Every kind of peaceful cooperation among men is primarily based on mutual trust.”1 In our time,
trust has been broken, abused, misplaced, and violated. The media have been replete with commentaries, citing stories of
negligence, corruption, and betrayal by individuals and groups in the public and private sectors, from governments to corporations,
from educational institutions to the Olympic Organizing Committee. These all are front-page news. Perhaps the most extreme
example is terrorism, in which strangers use acts of violence to shatter trust and splinter society in an ongoing assault on our shared
reverence for human life.¶ Unfortunately, we are not immune in our own sphere of cardiovascular medicine. The physicianinvestigator conflicts of interest concerning enrollment of patients in clinical trials, the focus on medical and nursing errors, the highprofile medical malpractice cases, the mandate to control the cost of health care in ways that may not be aligned with the best
interest of the patient—all of these undermine trust in our profession. At this time, when more and more public and private
institutions have fallen in public esteem, restoring trust in the healthcare professions will require that we understand the importance
of trust and the implications of its absence.¶ Trust is intuitive confidence and a sense of comfort that comes from the belief that we
can rely on an individual or organization to perform competently, responsibly, and in a manner considerate of our interests.2 It is
dynamic, it is fragile, and it is vulnerable. Trust can be damaged, but it can be repaired and restored. It is praised where it is evident
and acknowledged in every profession. Yet it is very difficult to define and quantify. ¶ Trust is easier to understand than to measure.
For us, trust may be particularly difficult to embrace because it is not a science. Few instruments have been designed to allow us to
evaluate it with any scientific rigor. Yet, trust is inherent to our profession, precisely because patients turn to us
in their most vulnerable moments, for knowledge about their health and disease. We know trust when
we experience it: when we advise patients in need of highly technical procedures that are associated with
increased risk or when we return from being away to learn that our patient who became ill waited for us to make a decision and
to discuss their concerns, despite being surrounded by competent colleagues acting on our behalf. ¶ Many thought leaders in
the medical field understand the importance of trust.3 When asked whether the public health
system could be overrun by public panic over SARS and bioterrorism, C enters for D isease C ontrol and
Prevention Director Julie Gerberding replied, “You can manage people if they trust you. We’ve put a
great deal of effort into improving state and local communications and scaled up our own public affairs capacity…we’re
building credibility, competence and trust.”4¶ Former H ealth and H uman S ervices Secretary Donna Shalala
also recognized the importance of trust when she said, “If we are to keep testing new med icine s and
new approaches to curing disease, we cannot compromise the trust and willingness of patients to
participate in clinical trials.”5¶ These seemingly intuitive concepts of the importance of trust in 21st century medicine
actually have little foundation in our medical heritage. In fact, a review of the early history of medicine is astonishingly devoid of
medical ethics. Even the Codes and Principles of Ethics of the American Medical Association, founded in 1847, required patients to
place total trust in their physician’s judgment, to obey promptly, and to “entertain a just and enduring sense of value of the services
rendered.”6 Such a bold assertion of the authority of the physician and the gratitude of the patient seems unimaginable today.¶ It
was not until the early 1920s that role models such as Boston’s Richard Cabot linked patient-centered medical ethics with the best
that scientific medicine had to offer,6 and Frances Weld Peabody, the first Director of the Thorndike Memorial Laboratory at the
Boston City Hospital, crystallized the ethical obligation of the physician to his patient in his essay “The Care of the Patient.”7 In one
particularly insightful passage, Peabody captures the essence of the two elements of the physician’s ethical obligation: He must
know his professional business and he must trouble to know the patient well enough to draw conclusions, jointly with the patient, as
to what actions are indeed in the patient’s best interest. He states: “The treatment of a disease may be entirely impersonal: The
care of the patient must be completely personal. The significance of the intimate personal relationship
between physician and patient cannot be too strongly emphasized, for in an extraordinarily large
number of cases both diagnosis and treatment are directly dependent on it.” Truly, as Peabody said, “The
secret to the care of the patient…is in caring for the patient.”7¶ This concept that links the quality of the physicianpatient relationship to health outcomes has indeed stood the test of time. Trust has been shown to
be important in its own right. It is essential to patients, in their willingness to seek care, their willingness
to reveal sensitive information, their willingness to submit to treatment, and their willingness to
follow recommendations. They must be willing for us to be able.
Case
Solvency – 1NC
Tech is not ready- their 1AC solvency ev
Gwinn 14 (James Gwinn is a rising senior at the University of Kentucky – Paducah Campus, where he will graduate with
dualdegrees in Economics and Mechanical Engineering. ASME helps the global engineering community develop solutions to real
world challenges. Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME is a not‐for‐profit professional
organization that enables collaboration, knowledge sharing and skill development across all engineering disciplines, while promoting
the vital role of the engineer in society. ASME codes and standards, publications, conferences, continuing education and
professional development programs provide a foundation for advancing technical knowledge and a safer world. ASME’s mission is
to serve diverse global communities by advancing, disseminating and applying engineering knowledge for improving the quality of
life; and communicating the excitement of engineering*. “Bioprinting: Organs on Demand” pg. 15)
[THEIR CARD BEGINS]
Breakthroughs in bioprinting are being made regularly, but there is currently no clearly defined regulatory framework in place to
ensure the safety of these products. (8) Many of the best and brightest minds in the world are working to bring bioprinted products to
the marketplace; however, the potential and functional limitations of bioprinting are not yet fully understood. The technology, as a
whole, is so new that public policy has not had the opportunity to catch up to the current state of the industry. (9) Products made via
bioprinting technology span a number of product review divisions within the FDA due to the wide range of potential applications. (10)
Additionally, FDA regulations for biosimilar biologics† do not yet address biosimilarity between human embryonic stem cells
(hESCs) and induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells). The FDA evaluates all devices, including any that utilize 3‐D printing
technology, for safety and effectiveness, and appropriate benefit and risk determination, regardless of the manufacturing
technologies used. In the US, a number of regulatory and legislative hurdles must be cleared before the first lab‐printed kidney, liver,
or heart implant will make it to market. As it is with all biologics, the critical regulatory challenges with bioprinted organs will revolve
around demonstrating the safety of the final product and establishing consistent manufacturing methods. (11) There are also a
number of technological advancements: software needs refinement; advances in regenerative medicine must be made; more
sophisticated printers must be developed; and thorough testing of the products must be conducted.(12)
Biotech Adv
resil and it’s a global industry
PR Newswire 10, citing Ernst Young Life Sciences division, Biotech Industry Showing Resilience Despite Challenging
Conditions, www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/biotech-industry-showing-resilience-despite-challenging-conditions-92279809.html
Key regional findings¶ United States¶ The US industry's net income skyrocketed from about US$400 million in 2008
to a record US$3.7 billion in 2009. The improvement in industry profitability was driven by revenue growth,
cost cutting and a change in the accounting rules for acquisitions. The 2009 figures exclude the net income
of Genentech, which was acquired by Roche.¶ Revenues of US public companies fell to US$56.6 billion in 2009, a 13% drop
compared to 2008. When adjusting for the acquisition of Genentech, industry revenues would have instead increased by 9.5%,
comparable to 2008 industry growth.¶ The value of merger and acquisition (M&A) transactions involving US-based biotech
companies (excluding the Roche-Genentech transaction) decreased by half in 2009 to a total of US$14.1 billion. Only three
transactions had a value in excess of US$1 billion.¶ Total US capital raised by the industry increased by 39% in 2009 to an
aggregate of US$18.0 billion.¶ Venture capital raised in the US reached US$4.6 billion in 2009 -- the second-highest total in history,
behind only the record US$5.5 billion raised in 2007.¶ Europe¶ Revenues of European public biotechs grew 8% to
euro 11.9 billion, well below the 17% growth seen in 2008.¶ The combined net loss for biotechs in the region fell from euro 913
million in 2008 to only euro 288 million in 2009, driven by cost cutting, the elimination of unprofitable companies and strong net
income growth at some large European biotechs.¶ The value of M&A activity in Europe declined from euro 3.1 billion in 2008 to euro
1.8 billion in 2009¶ Total funding for the European industry increased 48% in 2009, to euro 2.9 billion. ¶ Venture capital raised in
Europe totaled euro 800 million, a 21% decrease from the previous year, and the lowest level since 2003. ¶ Canada/Australia ¶ The
Canadian biotechnology industry raised more than US$733 million in 2009, an increase of $US255
million.¶ Revenues of the Australian publicly traded biotech industry reached US$3.72 billion, a 7%
increase from 2008 but significantly lower than the 26% growth rate achieved in 2008.
Biotech fails
Freese 8 (Bill Freese, International Monitor, OCA, “Biotech snake oil”, September-October 2008
http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_14755.cfm)
Most revealing, however, is what the biotech industry has engineered these crops for. Hype
and promises of future
innovations notwithstanding, there is not a single commercial GM crop with increased yield,
drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition or other attractive-sounding traits touted by
the industry. Disease-resistant GM crops are practically non-existent. "We have yet to see
genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better," says Hope Shand, research
director for the Ontario-based ETC Group. "Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or
socially useful." The industry's own figures reveal that GM crops incorporate one or both of just two "traits" - herbicide
tolerance and insect resistance. Insect-resistant cotton and corn produce their own "built-in" insecticide to protect against certain,
but far from all, insect pests. Herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to withstand direct application of an herbicide to kill nearby
weeds. These crops predominate, with 82 percent of global biotech crop acreage. Herbicide-tolerant crops (mainly soybeans) are
popular with larger farmers because they simplify and reduce labor needs for weed control. They have thus helped facilitate the
worldwide trend of consolidating farmland into fewer, ever bigger farms, like Argentina's huge soybean plantations. According to a
2004 study by Charles Benbrook, former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences,
herbicide-tolerant crops have also led to a substantial increase in pesticide use. Benbrook's study found that adoption of herbicidetolerant crops in the United States increased weed-killer use by 138 million pounds from 1996 to 2004 (while insect-resistant crops
reduced insecticide use by just 16 million pounds over the same period). The vast majority of herbicide-tolerant crops are
Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" varieties, tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is sold under the brand-name Roundup. The
dramatic rise in glyphosate use associated with Roundup Ready crops has spawned an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds,
just as bacteria evolve resistance to an overused antibiotic. Farmers respond to resistant weeds by upping the dose of glyphosate
and by using greater quantities of other herbicides, such as the probable carcinogen 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) and the
endocrine-disrupting weed killer atrazine, recently banned in the European Union. Glyphosate-resistant weeds and rising herbicide
use are becoming serious problems in the United States, Argentina and Brazil. "Roundup continues to be the cornerstone of weed
management for farms today and provides a lot of value to farmers," responds Darren Wallis, a Monsanto spokesperson. "We have
some online tools to help farmers manage any weed control issues that they might have. There have been some documented cases
of weed resistance, but Roundup continues to control hundreds of weeds very effectively." Critics retort that resistant weeds
are spreading despite Monsanto's efforts, and that a technology often promoted as moving
agriculture beyond the era of chemicals has in fact increased chemical dependency and
accelerated the pesticide treadmill of industrial agriculture. And, of course, expensive inputs like
herbicides (the price of glyphosate has doubled over the past year) are beyond the means of most
poor farmers.
Stem cells cant be transplanted – immunology.
Tullis et al 14 (¶ Immunological Barriers to Stem Cell Therapy in the Central Nervous System¶ Gregory E. Tullis,1 Kathleen
Spears,2 and Mark D. Kirk1 Stem Cells International¶ Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 507905, 12 pages¶
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/507905 1Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, 102 LeFevre Hall, Columbia, MO
65211, USA¶ 2Department of Natural Sciences, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville, MO 64468, USA)
The central nervous system is vulnerable to many neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease that result in the
extensive loss of neuronal cells. Stem cells have the ability to differentiate into many types of cells, which make them ideal for
treating such disorders. Although stem cell therapy has shown some promising results in animal models for
A major hurdle to the translation of stem cell therapy
into the clinic is the immune response faced by stem cell transplants . Here, we focus on
immunological and related hurdles to stem cell therapies for central nervous system disorders.
Transplantation of cells, tissue, or organs between different individuals (allogeneic grafts) invariably
leads to the rejection of the donor material due to a combination of humoral and cellular immune
responses. In contrast, grafts from the same individual or an identical twin (autologous grafts) are rarely rejected. There are over 40 genes
many brain disorders it has yet to translate into the clinic.
involved in graft rejection in humans. By far the most important are those encoding the major histocompatibility complex I and major histocompatibility
complex II (MHC I and MHC II).
In humans, MHC I and MHC II are also known as human leukocyte antigens (HLAs). MHC I and MHC II
proteins are expressed on the surface of cells and contain small clefts in their extracellular
domain that binds to small peptides. MHC I is comprised of one transmembrane, MHC protein, and one non-MHC protein called 2microglobulin. MHC II is composed of two transmembrane, MHC proteins. MHC I molecules can only bind to peptides of 8 to 11 residues in length [1–
3], whereas MHC II molecules have an open-ended groove that bind to larger peptides that are 10–30 residues long [4, 5]. However, 18–20 residues
are the optimal peptide length for binding to MHC II [6]. Although they can only bind to one peptide at a time, both MHC I and MHC II can bind a variety
of peptides in their clefts. MHC I proteins are expressed on almost all cells in the body including the central nervous system (CNS), where they are
expressed on both glia and neurons in vivo. MHC I proteins are found on the surface of both axons and dendrites and are located in synapses both
pre- and postsynaptically where they are involved in regulating neurite outgrowth [7]. MHC I proteins are also expressed on microglia following their
activation by inflammatory stimuli, and they bind to peptides from the cytosolic proteosome in the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) where MHC I is
synthesized (Figure 1). The MHC I-peptide complexes are transported to the cell membrane in exocytotic vesicles via the Golgi apparatus. The MHC Ipeptide complexes can bind to T cell receptors (TCRs) on Cluster of Differentiation 8 (CD8) positive cytotoxic T cells and activate them. Unlike MHC I,
MHC II proteins are only expressed in professional antigen presenting cells (APCs). These include dendritic cells, mononuclear phagocytes, B cells,
endothelial cells, and thymic epithelial cells. Although MHC II proteins are expressed in the ER like MHC I, they do not usually bind to peptide
fragments from the cytosol, because the peptide-binding sites in MHC II proteins are blocked by an inhibitor protein (Figure 2). MHC II proteins are
transported through the Golgi complex and into exocytotic vesicles where they become exposed to peptides that derive from extracellular antigens
taken up previously by endocytosis. The
MHC II-peptide complexes are then expressed on the surface of the
APCs where they can bind to TCRs on Cluster of Differentiation 4 (CD4) positive helper T cells.
Bioweapons 1NC
No threatening programs and current defenses solve bioweapons
Orent 9 [Wendy, Ph.D. in anthropology from the University of Michigan, leading freelance science writer, and author of Plague:
The Mysterious Past and Terrifying Future of the World's Most Dangerous Disease, "America's Bioterror Bugaboo." Los Angeles
Times (Los Angeles, CA) 17 Jul 2009: A.29. SIRS Researcher. Web. 29 January 2010]
After the anthrax letter attacks of October 2001, the Bush administration pledged $57 billion to keep the
nation safe from bioterror. Since then, the government has created a vast network of laboratories and
institutions to track down and block every remotely conceivable form of bioterror threat. The Obama
administration seems committed to continuing the biodefense push, having just appointed a zealous bioterror
researcher as undersecretary of science and technology in the Department of Homeland Security. But is the threat really as great
as we've been led to believe? Last summer, the FBI concluded that the anthrax letters that killed five Americans came not from
abroad but from an American laboratory, the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases. Meanwhile, the
Russian bioweapons program was officially shut down in 1992, and it's unlikely that anything remaining of it
could pose much of a threat. Iraq, it has turned out, had no active program. And Al Qaeda's rudimentary
explorations were interrupted, according to an Army War College report, by the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan.
Warming 1NC (:45
Timeframe is 200 years and adaptation solves
Mendelsohn 9 – Robert O. Mendelsohn 9, the Edwin Weyerhaeuser Davis Professor, Yale School of Forestry and
Environmental Studies, Yale University, June 2009, “Climate Change and Economic Growth,” online:
http://www.growthcommission.org/storage/cgdev/documents/gcwp060web.pdf
These statements are largely alarmist and misleading . Although climate change is a serious problem that deserves
attention, society’s immediate behavior has anextremely low probabilityof leading tocatastrophic
consequences. The science and economics of climate change is quite clear that emissions over the
next few decades will lead to only mild consequences. The severe impacts predicted by alarmists require
a century (or two in the case of Stern 2006) of no mitigation. Many of the predicted impacts assume there
will be no or little adaptation. The net economic impacts from climate change over the next 50 years will be small
regardless. Most of the more severe impacts will take more than a century or even a millennium to
unfold and many of these “potential” impacts will never occur because people will adapt. It is not
at all apparent that immediate and dramatic policies need to be developed to thwart long‐range
climate risks. What is needed are long‐run balanced responses.
Food--1NC
Food insecurity won’t cause war
Allouche 11 The sustainability and resilience of global water and food systems: Political analysis of the interplay between
security, resource scarcity, political systems and global trade ☆
UK
Available online 22 January 2011.
Jeremy Allouche
Institute of Development Studies, Brighton,
At sub-national scales (i.e. the intra-state level and the local level), the link between scarcity and conflict is
more complex. At the intra-state level, recent research on civil wars shows that countries suffering from
environmental degradation (soil degradation, deforestation and freshwater supply linked to high population density) were
indeed more likely to experiance civil war, but that the magnitude of the effects was secondary to
political and economic factors (see for example [Urdal, 2005] and [Hauge and Ellingsen, 1998]). The same is true
for hunger and food insecurity as a cause of conflict. The work of Collier and the US State Failure Task Force
seems to suggest a possible correlation between food insecurity and civil wars. Collier found a strong relationship between
indicators of deprivation (such as low per capita income; economic stagnation and decline; high income inequality; and slow growth
in food production per capita) and violent civil strife (Collier, 1999). The US State Failure Task Force found that infant mortality, a
surrogate measure of food insecurity and standard of living, was one of three variables most highly correlated with civil war
a number of specialists have challenged the notion that food
insecurity is a proximate cause of conflict and prefer to emphasize ethnic and political rivalry
(Goldstone et al., 2003). However,
(Paalberg, 1999). Nonetheless, most analysts would agree that structural conditions of inequality and hunger are among the
resource scarcity’ is not in most cases the result of
insufficient production or availability but is usually linked to the politics of inequality.
underlying causes of conflict. But again, ‘physical
Volcanos aren’t a threat
Natalie Wolchover, Staff Writer | June 02, 2012 11:42am ET “What If the Yellowstone Supervolcano Erupts?”
http://www.livescience.com/20714-yellowstone-supervolcano-eruption.html
A rough estimate based on geologic records indicates there's a 1-in-10,000 chance of a "supereruption " at
Yellowstone during our lifetimes. However, given the erratic nature of volcanoes, that number doesn't mean much. The bulging
pocket of magma swishing around beneath Old Faithful might never blow its lid again. Or, it might put on a surprise fireworks show
next Independence Day. Scientists just don't know.¶ But if or when it blows, what will actually happen? Will it be the end of us all, or
just a big knock to the tourism industry in Wyoming?¶ Each of the three past supereruptions of the Yellowstone hotspot spewed
more than 1,000 cubic kilometers of magma into the environment — the benchmark of a "supervolcano." According to Jacob
Lowenstern, scientist-in-charge at the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory, that's a large enough eruption to cover much of North
America in an ash blanket of varying thickness.¶ "The ash is thick (more than about 30 centimeters of ash) near the eruption source
and a small fraction of a millimeter once you move 2,000 miles away. It's fair to say that a trace of ash would be found over most of
the United States, though it would only be thick enough to collapse roofs in the states closest to Yellowstone," Lowenstern told Life's
Little Mysteries.¶ With enough warning, the states near Yellowstone could be evacuated, which would largely avoid a tremendous
loss of life caused by the downpour of ash, the scientists said. But that's just in the short term; the aftermath would be the rub. For
several days, ash would hang in the air, making it difficult to breathe. And that blanket of ash covering the country would smother
vegetation and pollute the water supply, quickly leading to a nationwide food crisis. "A lot of people would perish," said Stephen Self,
director of the Volcano Dynamics Group at the Open University in the U.K. He envisions American refugees lining up at the Mexican
border. [5 Ways the World will Radically Change This Century]¶ Perhaps foreign governments would come to our aid
and embark on a major ash cleanup operation, but without such an effort, inhospitable conditions would persist in
the midwestern U.S. for about a decade. "The records show that [new] vegetation starts to take hold about 10 years
after supereruptions. It depends on how much rainfall the area receives, as rainfall is the main way you clear ash off the
land," Self said.¶ As for the
rest of the world, it would face a few years of mild climate change caused by
the supereruption's ash cloud, which would wrap around the globe, casting Earth in shadow for
several days and altering the chemical composition of the atmosphere for a decade or so.
However, recent research shows the global impacts of supervolcanoes are less severe than
scientists once thought, and a Yellowstone supereruption might be especially unimposing
because its magma contains minimal sulfur. Sulfur gas produces particles called aerosols, which can cool the
climate by blocking sunlight.¶ "The huge volume of magma means there would still be some sulfur injected into the atmosphere, but
work has shown that you reach a sort of limit in the amount of aerosols you can produce with sulfur
gas. It means that our earlier suggestions that there would be a severe temperature change is not
right ," Self said. [What If Earth's Magnetic Poles Flip?]¶ Based on the new models , the scientists now think
the vast majority of Earth's species would weather a Yellowstone supereruption just fine (except, of
course, for those knocked out due to proximity of the initial blast). They don't see any evidence in the geologic
record of mass extinctions coinciding with supereruptions, and they don't predict extinctions to
result from such geologic events in the future.¶ "The last time Yellowstone erupted, no extinctions took place," said
Michael Rampino, a biologist and geologist at New York University. " Supereruptions are not extinction-level
events ," he said, but added that they can obviously cause problems for civilization.¶ These are scientists' best
guesses, but they probably won't be around to check their answers. Yellowstone's last full-scale
outburst occurred 640,000 years ago, and the ones before that occurred 1.3 million and 2.1 million
years ago — but each of these events was a tad smaller than the one before it. This geologic hotspot could be growing cold. Or
it might have one last hurrah.
Scidip adv
No brain drain
Teitelbaum 14, Michael S, senior research associate with the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, “The Myth
of the Science and Engineering Shortage,” March 19th, http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-thescience-and-engineering-shortage/284359/
Everyone knows that the United States has long suffered from widespread shortages in its science and engineering
workforce, and that if continued these shortages will cause it to fall behind its major economic competitors. Everyone knows that
these workforce shortages are due mainly to the myriad weaknesses of American K-12 education in science and
mathematics, which international comparisons of student performance rank as average at best. Such claims are now well
established as conventional wisdom. There is almost no debate in the mainstream. They echo from
corporate CEO to corporate CEO, from lobbyist to lobbyist, from editorial writer to editorial writer. But what if what everyone knows
is wrong? What if this
conventional wisdom is just the same claims ricocheting in an echo chamber ?
is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S.
science and engineering workforce. How can the conventional wisdom be so different from the empirical evidence?
The truth is that there
There are of course many complexities involved that cannot be addressed here. The key points, though, are these: Science and
engineering occupations are at the leading edge of economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalized world, and science and
engineering workforces of sufficient size and quality are essential for any 21st century economy to prosper. These professional
workforces also are crucial for addressing challenges such as international security, global climate change, and domestic and global
health. While they therefore are of great importance, college graduates employed in science and engineering
occupations (as defined by the National Science Foundation) actually comprise only a small fraction of the
workforce. A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading academic researchers
and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic Research, the RAND
Corporation, and the Urban Institute. No one has been able to find any evidence indicating current widespread labor market
shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require bachelors degrees or higher, although some are
forecasting high growth in occupations that require post-high school training but not a bachelors degree. All have concluded
that U.S. higher education produces far more science and engineering graduates annually than
there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or 200 percent more. Were there to be
a genuine shortage at present, there would be evidence of employers raising wage offers to attract the
scientists and engineers they want. But the evidence points in the other direction: Most studies report that
real wages in many—but not all—science and engineering occupations have been flat or slowgrowing, and unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations.
Because labor markets in science and engineering differ greatly across fields, industries, and time
periods, it is easy to cherry-pick specific specialties that really are in short supply, at least in
specific years and locations. But generalizing from these cases to the whole of U.S. science and engineering is
perilous. Employment in small but expanding areas of information technology such as social media may be booming, while other
larger occupations languish or are increasingly moved offshore. It is true that high-skilled professional occupations almost always
experience unemployment rates far lower than those for the rest of the U.S. workforce, but unemployment among scientists and
engineers is higher than in other professions such as physicians, dentists, lawyers, and registered nurses, and surprisingly
high unemployment rates prevail for recent graduates even in fields with alleged serious
“shortages” such as engineering (7.0 percent), computer science (7.8 percent) and information systems (11.7 percent). Over
time, new technologies, price changes, or sharp shifts in the labor market can create rapid rises in demand in a particular
occupation. When that happens, the evidence shows that the market seems to adjust reasonably well. Entire occupations that were
previously unattractive and declining, such as petroleum engineering in the 1980s and 1990s, have rather suddenly become
attractive and high-paid—due to increased energy prices and new technologies for domestic extraction of oil and gas. Others, such
as those linked to manufacturing and construction—industries in which well over half of all engineers are employed—have declined
over the same period. Surprisingly, some of the largest and most heavily financed scientific fields, such as biomedical research, are
among those with the least attractive career prospects, as a recent blue-ribbon advisory committee reported to the Director of the
National Institutes of Health. Biomedical Ph.D.s are unusually lengthy and often require additional years of postdoctoral training, yet
after completion those with such degrees experience labor market demand and remuneration that are relatively low. Labor markets
for scientists and engineers also differ geographically. Employer demand is far higher in a few hothouse metropolitan areas than in
the rest of the country, especially during boom periods. Moreover recruitment of domestic professionals to these regions may be
more difficult than in others when would-be hires discover that the remuneration employers are offering does not come close to
compensating for far higher housing and other costs. According to the most recent data from the National Association of Realtors,
Silicon Valley (metro San Jose) has the highest median house prices in the country, at $775,000—nearly four times higher than the
national median. Far from offering expanding attractive career opportunities, it seems that many, but
not all, science and engineering careers are headed in the opposite direction: unstable careers,
slow-growing wages, and high risk of jobs moving offshore or being filled by temporary workers
from abroad. Recent science Ph.D.s often need to undertake three or more additional years in low-paid and temporary
“postdoctoral” positions, but even then only a minority have realistic prospects of landing a coveted tenure-track academic position.
Among college-educated information technology workers under age 30, temporary workers from abroad constitute a large majority.
Even in electrical and electronic engineering—an occupation that is right at the heart of high-tech innovation but that also has been
heavily outsourced abroad—U.S. employment in 2013 declined to about 300,000, down 35,000 and over 10 percent, from 2012, and
down from about 385,000 in 2002. Unemployment rates for electrical engineers rose to a surprisingly high 4.8 percent in 2013.
Claims of workforce shortages in science and engineering are hardly new. Indeed there have been
no fewer than five “rounds” of “alarm/boom/bust” cycles since World War II. Each lasted about 10
to 15 years, and was initiated by alarms of “shortages,” followed by policies to increase the
supply of scientists and engineers. Unfortunately most were followed by painful busts—mass layoffs, hiring freezes, and
funding cuts that inflicted severe damage to careers of both mature professionals and the booming numbers of emerging graduates,
while also discouraging new entrants to these fields. Round one from the decade immediately following World War
II, waning a decade later. Round two following the Sputnik launches in 1957 but waning sharply by the late 1960s,
leading to a bust of serious magnitude in the 1970s. Round three from the 1980s Reagan defense buildup, alarming
Federal reports such as “A Nation at Risk” (1983), and new Federal funding for the “war on cancer.” Most of these had waned by the
late 1980s, contributing to an ensuing bust in the early 1990s. Round four from the mid-1990s, driven by concurrent
booms in several high-tech industries (e.g. information technology, internet, telecommunications, biotech), followed by
concurrent busts beginning around 2001. Round five from the rapid doubling of the N ational Institutes of Health
budget between 1998 and 2003, followed by a bust when subsequent funding flattened. Each of these rounds was accompanied
by excessive claims, and a notable lack of credible evidence. Rounds one through three were motivated by existential Cold War
concerns, with advocates focused on expanding the numbers of US students pursuing higher education and careers in science and
engineering. As I discovered while researching my book, during rounds four and five, after Cold War security concerns had waned,
shortage claimants focused on visa policies that enabled U.S. employers and universities to recruit large numbers of temporary
workers and graduate students from countries (especially China and India) that had rapid growth in science and engineering
graduates but much lower income levels. One thing we might reasonably conclude is that over the past six decades there has
been no shortage of shortage claims. But what about the present and foreseeable future? Since 2005 a series of
influential reports have been produced by respected organizations and individuals, once again pointing to alarming current (or more
commonly “looming”) shortages due to failing K-12 education. Three such reports were published in 2005 alone, by the Council on
Competitiveness, by a special committee appointed by the National Research Council, and by a group of 15 business and
technology organizations. Were these the opening salvos of the “alarm” stage of another 10-15 year cycle of alarm/boom/bust, the
sixth such cycle since World War II? A deep recession with high unemployment has intervened, and in any case we would not be
able to know for sure until another 5 or more years have passed. These publications report correctly that the average performance
of American K-12 students is middling in international testing. These data also show that this average performance results from
large numbers of both high-performing and low-performing US students. The average national scores reflect both ends of the scale,
yet there continues to be a large pool of top science and math students in the U.S. OECD data on “high-performing” students
suggests that the U.S. produces about 33 percent of the world total in this category in the sciences, though only about 14 percent in
mathematics. No one should conclude from this that American K-12 science and math education does not need major improvement.
Emphatically to the contrary: Every high school graduate should be competent in science and mathematics—essential to success in
almost any 21st century occupation and to informed citizenship as well. But there is a big disconnect between this broad educational
imperative and the numerically limited scope of the science and engineering workforce. Editorial writers in respected
publications continue to assert that American student interest in these fields is low and declining. Yet
according to a recent report from ACT, the college admissions testing service, “student interest in STEM
[Science,Technology, Engineering, Mathematics] is high overall,” characteristic of some 48 percent of high school graduates
tested in 2013. American high-school students are taking more math and science courses than ever
before. Meanwhile UCLA’s respected annual surveys of entering college freshmen show that over the past several years nearly
40 percent have been reporting intentions to major in a STEM subject, not only a large fraction but also a substantial increase from
past decades—this percentage was about 32 to 33 percent from 1995 to 2007. Some of these students do change their minds and
complete their degrees in different fields, but others shift into science and engineering majors. As noted earlier, the outcome is that
the numbers of science and engineering graduates is at least double those being hired into such occupations each year. The
evidence all points to high levels of student interest, high-performance levels among the students
most likely to pursue majors and careers in science and engineering, and large numbers of
graduates in these fields.
ONE, they can’t solve—visas, bureaucracy, diplomatic incompetence
David Dickson, Director, SciDev, “US ‘Science for Development’ Promises: It’s Time to Act,” Science and Development
Network, 7—30—10, http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/science-diplomacy/editorials/us-science-fordevelopment-promises-it-s-time-to-act.html
But while the speakers offered encouragement for Obama's vision of scientific partnership, they also highlighted
the challenges of turning these aspirations into reality.
One particular obstacle is the tough entry restrictions now faced by students and scientists
wishing to study or work in the United States. This, said the envoys, was encouraging many countries to
form scientific partnerships with either European or Asian countries as easier alternatives.
Zerhouni identified the fragmented approach of federal agencies' in Washington to building
science-based collaboration as another limitation.
He called for a focal point to coordinate activities, urging Holdren's Office of Science and Technology Policy to take on
the task of working out how to do this.
And Zewail pointed to the decline of science attachés in the US foreign service. As a result, he
complained, US embassies across the developing world lack adequate scientific expertise, making it
harder to facilitate effective scientific partnerships.
Data disproves heg impacts
Peace is not because of the U.S. – only logical explanation is states want peace – the fact there is peace without hegemony
proves other factors outweigh – empirics only prove our claim
Theoretically if other people wanted war – us couldn’t stop them, thus people just don’t want war
There is peace where the u.s. isn’t which means there is obvi something else at play
Even when hegemony decreased, war still decreased which means that they’re not related
Fettweis 10 – Professor of national security affairs @ U.S. Naval War College (Chris, Georgetown University Press, “Dangerous
times?: the international politics of great power peace” Google Books) Jacome
Simply stated, the hegemonic stability theory proposes that international peace is only possible when there is one country strong
enough to make and enforce a set of rules. At the height of Pax Romana between 27 BC and 180 AD, for example, Rome was able
to bring unprecedented peace and security to the Mediterranean. The Pax Britannica of the nineteenth century brought a level of
stability to the high seas. Perhaps the current era is peaceful because the United States has established a de facto Pax Americana
where no power is strong enough to challenge its dominance, and because it has established a set of rules that a generally in the
interests of all countries to follow. Without a benevolent hegemony, some strategists fear, instability may break out around the
globe. Unchecked conflicts could cause humanitarian disaster and, in today’s interconnected world economic turmoil that would
ripple throughout global financial markets. If the United States were to abandon its commitments abroad, argued Art, the world
would “become a more dangerous place” and, sooner or later, that would “rebound to America’s detriment.” If the massive spending
that the United States engages in actually produces stability in the international political and economic systems, then perhaps
internationalism is worthwhile. There are good theoretical and empirical reasons, however, the belief that
U.S. hegemony is not the primary cause of the current era of stability. First of all, the hegemonic
stability argument overstates the role that the United States plays in the system. No country is
strong enough to police the world on its own. The only way there can be stability in the
community of great powers is if self-policing occurs, ifs states have decided that their interest are
served by peace. If no pacific normative shift had occurred among the great powers that was filtering down
through the system, then no amount of international constabulary work by the United States could
maintain stability. Likewise, if it is true that such a shift has occurred, then most of what the hegemon spends to bring stability
would be wasted. The 5 percent of the world’s population that live in the United States simple could
not force peace upon an unwilling 95. At the risk of beating the metaphor to death, the United States may be
patrolling a neighborhood that has already rid itself of crime. Stability and unipolarity may be
simply coincidental. In order for U.S. hegemony to be the reason for global stability, the rest of the world would have to
expect reward for good behavior and fear punishment for bad. Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has not always
proven to be especially eager to engage in humanitarian interventions abroad. Even rather incontrovertible evidence of genocide
has not been sufficient to inspire action. Hegemonic stability can only take credit for influence those
decisions that would have ended in war without the presence, whether physical or psychological ,
of the United States. Ethiopia and Eritrea are hardly the only states that could go to war without the
slightest threat of U.S. intervention. Since most of the world today is free to fight without U.S.
involvement, something else must be at work. Stability exists in many places where no hegemony
is present. Second, the limited empirical evidence we have suggests that there is little connection
between the relative level of U.S. activism and international stability. During the 1990s the United
States cut back on its defense spending fairly substantially, By 1998 the United States was spending $100
billion less on defense in real terms than it had in 1990. To internationalists, defense hawks, and other believers in hegemonic
stability this irresponsible "peace dividend" endangered both national and global security "No serious analyst of American military
capabilities," argued Kristol and Kagan, "doubts that the defense budget has been cut much too far to meet Americas
responsibilities to itself and to world peace."" If the pacific trends were due not to U.S. hegemony but a
strengthening norm against interstate war, however, one would not have expected an increase in
global instability and violence. The verdict from the past two decades is fairly plain: The world
grew more peaceful while the United States cut its forces. No state seemed to believe that its
security was endangered by a less-capable Pentagon, or at least none took any action that would
suggest such a belief. No militaries were enhanced to address power vacuums; no security dilemmas drove
mistrust and arms races; no regional balancing occurred once the stabilizing presence of the U.S.
military was diminished. The rest of the world acted as if the threat ofinternational war was not a
pressing concern, despite the reduction in U.S. capabilities. The incidence and magnitude of global conflict
declined while the United States cut its military spending under President Clinton, and it kept declining as the Bush Administration
ramped spending back up. No complex statistical analysis should be necessary to reach the conclusion
that the two are unrelated . It is also worth noting for our purposes that the United States was no less safe.
Heg is inevitable
Nuno P. Monteiro is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches International Relations
theory and security studies. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago in 2009. “ Theory of Unipolar
Politics” (Cambridge University Press) April 2014 Chapter 3, p. 80-112
Primacists, in contrast, predict no change in the basic structure of international politics for the
foreseeable future. They argue that, for a variety of reasons, balancing against the United States is unlikely ,
making room for the continuation of U.S. power preponderance at least for as far as our analytic lenses can
see.18 Brooks and Wohlforth, perhaps the most prominent IR theorists upholding the primacist view, argue that the power
differential between the United States and all other states is so wide that there is no possibility of balancing
against U.S. power any time soon: "the unprecedented concentration of power resources in the
United States generally renders inoperative the constraining effects of the systemic properties
long central to research in i nternational r elations."19 More strictly, primacists do not find any causal
chain that might lead balancing to occur. So although they stop short of arguing that unipolarity will be the perpetual
state of world affairs, there is not much in their arguments that would prompt a different conclusion.
According to the primacist view, the
durability of a unipolar world is supported by a panoply of mutually
reinforcing factors. First of all, there is the overwhelming advantage the United States enjoys in
relative power , which as noted earlier creates virtually insurmountable obstacles to other states that
try to balance against it." In addition, since the end of the Cold War, the United States has played an
important role as a global security provider - a role from which other countries benefit and that they therefore do not
want to undermine.11 Finally, the United States is seen as the ultimate guarantor of a liberal international
order, which is based on widely shared values. Other liberal states, which make up the majority of today's
international system, do not want to risk the stability of that liberal order by undermining the United
States' role as its linchpin." In sum, primacists argue that, given the United States' great advantage
in relative power and the benevolent, liberal fashion in which it plays the role of unipole, other
states have no incentive to undermine U.S. unipolarity, which is therefore primed to last .
competitiveness durable and free riding solves
Fallows 10 – correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, studied economics at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. He has
been an editor of The Washington Monthly and of Texas Monthly, and from 1977 to 1979 he served as President Jimmy Carter's
chief speechwriter. His first book, National Defense, won the American Book Award in 1981; he has written seven others (James.
“How America Can Rise Again”, Jan/Feb edition, http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/201001/american-decline)
This is new. Only with America’s emergence as a global power after World War II did the idea of
American “decline” routinely involve falling behind someone else. Before that, it meant falling short of
expectations—God’s, the Founders’, posterity’s—or of the previous virtues of America in its lost, great days. “The new element in
the ’50s was the constant comparison with the Soviets,” Michael Kazin told me. Since then, external falling-behind
comparisons have become not just a staple of American self-assessment but often a crutch. If we are concerned about our
schools, it is because children are learning more in Singapore or India; about the development of clean-tech jobs, because it’s
happening faster in China. Having often lived outside the United States since the 1970s, I have offered my share of falling-behind
analyses, including a book-length comparison of Japanese and American strengths (More Like Us) 20 years ago. But at this point in
America’s national life cycle, I think the exercise is largely a distraction, and that Americans should concentrate on what are, finally,
our own internal issues to resolve or ignore. Naturally there are lessons to draw from other countries’ practices and innovations; the
more we know about the outside world the better, as long as we’re collecting information calmly rather than glancing nervously at
our reflected foreign image. For instance, if you have spent any time in places where tipping is frowned on or rare, like Japan or
Australia, you view the American model of day-long small bribes, rather than one built-in full price, as something similar to
baksheesh, undignified for all concerned. Naturally, too, it’s easier to draw attention to a domestic problem and build support for a
solution if you cast the issue in us-versus-them terms, as a response to an outside threat. In If We Can Put a Man on the Moon …,
their new book about making government programs more effective, William Eggers and John O’Leary emphasize the military and
Cold War imperatives behind America’s space program. “The race to the moon was a contest between two systems of government,”
they wrote, “and the question would be settled not by debate but by who could best execute on this endeavor.” Falling-behind
arguments have proved convenient and powerful in other countries, too. But whatever their popularity or utility in
other places at other times, falling-behind concerns seem too common in America now. As I have thought
about why overreliance on this device increasingly bothers me, I have realized that it’s because my latest stretch out of the
country has left me less and less interested in whether China or some other country is
“overtaking” America. The question that matters is not whether America is “falling behind” but
instead something like John Winthrop’s original question of whether it is falling short—or even falling apart. This is not
the mainstream American position now, so let me explain. First is the simple reality that one kind of “decline” is inevitable
and therefore not worth worrying about. China has about four times as many people as America
does. Someday its economy will be larger than ours. Fine! A generation ago, its people produced, on average,
about one-sixteenth as much as Americans did; now they produce about one-sixth. That change is a huge achievement for China—
and a plus rather than a minus for everyone else, because a business-minded China is more benign than a miserable or rebellious
one. When the Chinese produce one-quarter as much as Americans per capita, as will happen barring catastrophe, their economy
will become the world’s largest. This will be good for them but will not mean “falling behind” for us. We
know that for more than a century, the consciousness of decline has been a blight on British
politics, though it has inspired some memorable, melancholy literature. There is no reason for
America to feel depressed about the natural emergence of China, India, and others as world
powers. But second, and more important, America may have reasons to feel actively optimistic
about its prospects in purely relative terms. The crucial american advantage Let’s start with the more modest claim,
that China has ample reason to worry about its own future. Will the long-dreaded day of reckoning for Chinese development finally
arrive because of environmental disaster? Or via the demographic legacy of the one-child policy, which will leave so many parents
and grandparents dependent on so relatively few young workers? Minxin Pei, who grew up in Shanghai and now works at
Claremont McKenna College, in California, has predicted in China’s Trapped Transition that within the next few years, tension
between an open economy and a closed political system will become unendurable, and an unreformed Communist bureaucracy will
finally drag down economic performance. America will be better off if China does well than if it flounders. A
prospering China will mean a bigger world economy with more opportunities and probably less
turmoil—and a China likely to be more cooperative on environmental matters. But whatever happens to
China, prospects could soon brighten for America. The American culture’s particular strengths could conceivably be
about to assume new importance and give our economy new pep. International networks will matter
more with each passing year. As the one truly universal nation, the United States continually refreshes its
connections with the rest of the world—through languages, family, education, business—in a way no other
nation does, or will. The countries that are comparably open—Canada, Australia—aren’t nearly as large; those whose
economies are comparably large—Japan, unified Europe, eventually China or India—aren’t nearly as open. The simplest measure
of whether a culture is dominant is whether outsiders want to be part of it. At the height of the British Empire, colonial subjects from
the Raj to Malaya to the Caribbean modeled themselves in part on Englishmen: Nehru and Lee Kuan Yew went to Cambridge,
Gandhi, to University College, London. Ho Chi Minh wrote in French for magazines in Paris. These days the world is full of
businesspeople, bureaucrats, and scientists who have trained in the United States. Today’s China attracts outsiders too, but in a
particular way. Many go for business opportunities; or because of cultural fascination; or, as my wife and I did, to be on the scene
where something truly exciting was under way. The Haidian area of Beijing, seat of its universities, is dotted with the faces of
foreigners who have come to master the language and learn the system. But true immigrants? People who want their children and
grandchildren to grow up within this system? Although I met many foreigners who hope to stay in China indefinitely, in three years I
encountered only two people who aspired to citizenship in the People’s Republic. From the physical rigors of a badly polluted and
still-developing country, to the constraints on free expression and dissent, to the likely ongoing mediocrity of a university system that
emphasizes volume of output over independence or excellence of research, the realities of China heavily limit the appeal of
becoming Chinese. Because of its scale and internal diversity, China (like India) is a more racially open society than, say, Japan or
Korea. But China has come nowhere near the feats of absorption and opportunity that make up much
of America’s story, and it is very difficult to imagine that it could do so—well, ever. Everything we
know about future industries and technologies suggests that they will offer ever-greater rewards to flexibility, openness,
reinvention, “crowdsourcing,” and all other manifestations of individuals and groups keenly attuned to their surroundings. Everything
about American society should be hospitable toward those traits—and should foster them better and more richly than other societies
can. The American advantage here is broad and atmospheric, but it also depends on two specific policies that, in my view, are the
absolute pillars of American strength: continued openness to immigration, and a continued concentration of universities that people
around the world want to attend.
2NC
CP
A2 PERV (Disease)
No PERV- MMR proves, empirics prove, expert opinion, drugs solve
Ferrara, 1 -- Medical and science writer / editor
[Adi, "Should xenotransplants from pigs raised at so-called organ farms be prohibited because such organs could transmit pig
viruses to patients—and perhaps into the general population forum," Science Clarified, Vol 2, www.scienceclarified.com/dispute/Vol2/Should-xenotransplants-from-pigs-raised-at-so-called-organ-farms-be-prohibited-because-such-organs-could-transmit-pig-virusesto-patients-and-perhaps-into-the-general-population.html, accessed 8-29-14]
Animals who routinely carry an infectious agent are called hosts for the agent (virus, bacteria, or parasite). Endogenous retroviruses
are viruses whose DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) sequence is integrated into the host's DNA in each cell of the host. We as humans
carry our own endogenous viral sequences in our DNA. Because the viral sequence is integrated into the host's DNA, it is extremely
difficult, and often impossible, to eliminate the virus from the host. There is concern that by transmitting PERV to humans, especially
immunosuppressed individuals, the virus can become "hot" and cause infection. Or perhaps a PERV particle, or even an unknown
virus that has not yet been detected in pigs, might combine with some of the human endogenous viral DNA to form a new, possibly
infectious, virus. The concern is a valid one and should be investigated. This concern also makes a good case for strict follow-up of
xenotrans-plant patients and their families. But the PERV situation is not unique. The current MMR (measles,
mumps, rubella) vaccine, made with chicken cells, contains particles of an endogenous avian (bird)
retrovirus. Because the vaccine is a live one, there is a possibility of combination between the avian virus and the MMR
infectious particles. To date, no infections of any kind have been reported as a result of the MMR vaccine.
The chance of a recombination event between retrovirus particles is far less likely to occur between nonhomologous sequences (sequences that share little similarity to one another) such as pig and human
retroviruses. A study of 160 patients who were exposed to living pig tissues or organs for lengthy
periods showed no evidence of PERV infection, or infection with any other known pig viruses.
Patients in this study, many of whom were immunosup-pressed during their treatment periods, were followed for more than eight
years post-treatment. The study is not a guarantee that such infections have not or will not occur, especially in individuals who
receive heavy doses of immunosuppression drugs. Nonetheless, this study is an encouraging sign. Dr. Robin Weiss, a virologist
specializing in retroviruses, estimated in an interview for Frontline's Organ Farm that the chances of a human
PERV epidemic infection are remote. Other scientists support his view. In addition, Dr. Weiss noted that a
currently available anti-HIV (human immunodeficiency virus) drug has proven very effective against PERV.
In a worst-case scenario, scientists already have at least one drug that can fight PERV infection,
should one occur. Drs. Walter H. Günzburg and Brian Salmons, in a 2000 paper assessing the risk of viral infection in
xenotransplants, pointed out that safety techniques used in gene therapy today can be successfully
adapted to control a "hot" PERV in humans.
Zero risk- would have seen it already, would require improbable mutations,
monitoring and drugs solve
Beschorner, 12 -- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine professor of medicine in the departments of pathology
and oncology
[William Edward, University of Nebraska Medical Center president, "Xenotransplantation Has Potential," Organ Donation, Ed. By
Laura Egendorf, Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 10-1-12, http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1014080-overview#aw2aab6b5,
accessed 8-29-14]
The viral zoonotic agents can be divided into endogenous and exogenous viruses. The endogenous viruses are encoded within the genome and,
therefore, cannot be eliminated from the herd using conventional technology. In 1997, coculture of human and porcine cells led to porcine
endogenogenous retroviruses (PERV) appearing within the human cells. Speculation about PERV progressed to a concern that it could potentially
become a public health hazard. Despite
considerable research, no pathology has ever been observed related
to PERV. Indeed, although a major portion of the world’s population either consumes or prepares
pork, no known PERV-related disease has ever been described. In a retrospective study of patients transplanted or
transfused with viable pig tissue, no evidence of infection was observed. A few subjects had detectable PERV RNA, but it was consistent with RNA
from circulating pig cells. In humanized mouse models infused with porcine cells, a few mice were described in which the human cells were initially
thought to contain PERV. However, subsequent studies attributed this apparent infection to murine leukemia virus. The
risk of PERV
becoming a public health hazard is infinitesimal . PERV would need to undergo a series of
improbable transformations to make it both a pathogen and contagious. Many herds of pigs have been
described in which PERV is not passed to human cells in coculture. Some strains of pigs have very limited copies of PERV in their genome. The
risk is further reduced by the extensive monitoring of patients and cohorts required and by the sensitivity
of PERV to antiviral agents. The minimal potential risk of PERV is far outweighed by the potential medical value of xenotransplants and
should not be a barrier to xenotransplantation.
New strains are PERV free
Beschorner, 12 -- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine professor of medicine in the departments of pathology
and oncology
[William Edward, University of Nebraska Medical Center president, "Xenotransplantation Has Potential," Organ Donation, Ed. By
Laura Egendorf, Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 10-1-12, galegroup, accessed 8-29-14]
In addition to the stringent requirements for monitoring recipients, companies were concerned about the liability of pursuing a
technology perceived to be a potential hazard to the public health. However, since PERV was initially described,
numerous studies have shown no evidence of PERV becoming contagious or being pathological.
Many strains fail to pass PERV to human cells in coculture. The molecular virology of PERV passage
is now understood. Swine strains have been produced that are free of the PERV-C that is needed
for passage. Indeed, in the near future, swine strains will likely be produced with no genomic PERV.
Monitoring solves- empirics prove
Yong, 12 -- The Scientist staff writer
[Ed, "Replacement Parts," The Scientist, 8-1-12, www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32409/title/Replacement-Parts/,
accessed 8-29-14]
There are also concerns that pig organs will spread animal diseases to their recipients. But surgeon Jeffrey Platt at the
University of Michigan argues that the risks are no greater than for any other form of animal
contact, especially since genetically modified pigs are housed in pristine conditions and regularly
checked for infections. “Swine flu would be no more or less likely in a society that carried out xenografts,” he says. But pig
genomes also contain the remnants of viruses that stowed away millions of years ago. These porcine endogenous retroviruses
(PERVs) are impossible to eradicate, and the worry is that they might become activated in a new host, as researchers have
observed with other endogenous retroviruses. “The virologists I’ve spoken to don’t seem to be that concerned,”
says Cooper. “When we transplant pig organs to baboons, we haven’t detected the transfer of the
[PERVs], even when the baboons are immunosuppressed .”
XENO
US science leadership unparalleled now
Xie, 14 -- University of Michigan Otis Dudley Duncan Distinguished University Professor of Sociology, Statistics, and Public
Policy
[Yu, “Is U.S. Science in Decline?” Issues in Science and Technology, 5-2-14, issues.org/30-3/yu_xie/, accessed 9-2-14]
Needless to say, Yuasa’s prediction was wrong.
By all measures , including funding, total scientific output,
highly influential scientific papers, and Nobel Prize winners, U.S. leadership in science remains
unparalleled today. Containing only 5% of the world’s total population, the United States can consistently claim
responsibility for one- to two-thirds of the world’s scientific activities and accomplishments. Presentday U.S. science is not a simple continuation of science as it was practiced earlier in Europe. Rather, it has several distinctive
new characteristics: It employs a very large labor force; it requires a great deal of funding from both government and
industry; and it resembles other professions such as medicine and law in requiring systematic training for entry and compensating
for services with financial, as well as nonfinancial, rewards. All of these characteristics of modern science are the result of dramatic
and integral developments in science, technology, industry, and education in the United States over the course of the 20th century.
In the 21st century, however, a debate has emerged concerning U.S. ability to maintain its world leadership in the future.
US science workforce strong now
Teitelbaum, 14 -- Harvard Law School Labor and Workforce Program senior research associate
[Michael, "The Myth of the Science and Engineering Shortage," The Atlantic, 3-19-14,
www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/03/the-myth-of-the-science-and-engineering-shortage/284359/, accessed 9-5-14]
The truth is that there is little credible evidence of the claimed widespread shortages in the U.S. science
and engineering workforce. How can the conventional wisdom be so different from the empirical evidence? There are of course
many complexities involved that cannot be addressed here. The key points, though, are these:¶ Science and engineering
occupations are at the leading edge of economic competitiveness in an increasingly globalized
world, and science and engineering workforces of sufficient size and quality are essential for any
21st century economy to prosper . These professional workforces also are crucial for addressing challenges such as
international security, global climate change, and domestic and global health. While they therefore are of great importance, college
graduates employed in science and engineering occupations (as defined by the National Science Foundation) actually comprise
only a small fraction of the workforce.¶ A compelling body of research is now available, from many leading
academic researchers and from respected research organizations such as the National Bureau of Economic
Research, the RAND Corporation, and the Urban Institute. No one has been able to find any evidence indicating
current widespread labor market shortages or hiring difficulties in science and engineering occupations that require
bachelors degrees or higher, although some are forecasting high growth in occupations that require post-high school training but not
a bachelors degree. All have concluded that U.S. higher education produces far more science and
engineering graduates annually than there are S&E job openings—the only disagreement is whether it is 100 percent or
200 percent more. Were there to be a genuine shortage at present, there would be evidence of employers
raising wage offers to attract the scientists and engineers they want. But the evidence points in the other
direction: Most studies report that real wages in many—but not all—science and engineering occupations have been flat or
slow-growing, and unemployment as high or higher than in many comparably-skilled occupations.
Xeno is key to the knowledge economy- barriers collapse science
leadership- New Zealand proves
Hutchison & Rich, 5 – former health professional and New Zealand politician
[Paul, consulting specialist in obstetrics and Katherine, served as a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives for the
National Party, "Hansard (debates)," 4-12-5, www.parliament.nz/ennz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20050412_00000910/medicines-specified-biotechnical-procedures-amendment, accessed 8-2914]
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Health) : I move, That the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I
will move that the bill be referred to the Health Committee for consideration, that the committee present its final report on or before 28 May 2005, and that the committee have
the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and
Xenotransplantation is the
implantation of living biological material from animals into humans. The Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures)
Amendment Bill extends the period of the current controls on xenotransplantation until 31 December 2006, with the ability for this state to be
on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 191 and 194(1)(b) and (c).
extended by Order in Council if necessary. The current controls were introduced in response to concerns about the potential of threats of xenotransplants transmitting new
infections to recipients and to the wider community; the adequacy of regulatory review processes; and the cultural, social, and ethical issues associated with
xenotransplantation. The current controls allow xenotransplantation trials to be considered and approved by the Minister of Health but require strict criteria to be met before an
approval is given. No applications have been made to the Minister of Health under the current provisions. Without this bill, the existing additional controls on xenotransplantation
will end on 30 June 2005 with the expiry of Part 7A of the Medicines Act. After this state the scientific and ethical oversight will return to the controls utilised for clinical trials of
medicines contained in section 30 of the Medicines Act. Section 30 controls were previously identified as being inadequate, and, despite further information on
xenotransplantation being published, I am advised there is still a need for additional oversight of this controversial emerging technology. Existing controls cannot be extended
further under existing legislation, hence the need for this bill. Ongoing controls are needed on xenotransplantation because it is still only an experimental technique. It is unclear
whether this technique would be successful within humans. There is also a risk of transmitting viruses from animals to humans. There are only a small number of animal or
human studies of possible efficacy, and it is far from clear whether a transplanted animal organ would function properly in a human. Evidence indicates that xenotransplantation
may be associated with an increased risk of transmission of a wide range of viral, bacterial, and other infections known to occur in the sourced animals. There is a theoretical
risk that xenotransplantation could increase the risk of new infections jumping the species barrier from animals to humans. In view of concerns about the safety and efficacy of
xenotransplantation, similar jurisdictions—including Australia, Canada, and the UK—have stringent controls on xenotransplantation. To my knowledge there are currently no
clinical trials under way in those countries. In December 2004 the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council announced a 5-year moratorium on clinical trials of
xenotransplantation. New Zealand would be going out on a limb if we allowed these controls to lapse. I commend this bill to the House. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port
Waikato) : Thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important bill, the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill. Opposition Members: This is the
This bill is a serious indictment on this Labour
Government’s integrity and its attitude towards science . In essence, this bill is the continuation of a blunt instrument that
the Labour Government put on science in order to stop xenotransplantation in New Zealand back in 2001—now the Government
next Minister of Health! Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Those members are absolutely right.
wants to continue it until 2006. This bill is a serious indictment on Labour. The Prime Minister, her health Minister, and her science Minister all say they are committed to science
and are committed to economic growth. We have a classic situation in which they have said: “Let’s focus on biotechnology as one of the main strands of economic growth in
New Zealand.”, yet they have created in this country some of the most difficult hurdles to the carrying out of biotechnology in the Western World. We know that the
Government’s own biotechnology task force has said exactly that—that the regulatory regime in New Zealand is very difficult and that
it is forcing top New
Zealand scientists to do their work overseas or to leave. I shall give two examples. The first is the Huntington’s chorea trial that was,
basically, founded at the Auckland School of Medicine. The reason it did not continue in New Zealand was that it cost too much and would take too long. Consequently, it has
It is hugely important to have a
complement of scientists in New Zealand who are capable in the new genetics. If we do not, we will not
even recognise the problems until they have got here, and an example of that scenario was the varroa bee mite. We had only one bee
scientist at the time, and the disease was endemic in New Zealand before it was recognised. It is vital that we have a complement of
scientists who are competent and capable in the various biotechnology techniques involved with
genetics, in order to be able to pick up on things at the time and also to be able to use the huge
gone to Adelaide. That is a tragedy for New Zealand science, a tragedy for New Zealand biotechnology.
power of the new genetics and genomics to the betterment of New Zealand. There is no doubt that in areas such as agriculture and horticulture it is vital,
but also it is vital in the area of medicine. Yet we have seen this Government putting on a blanket stop, using the crudest and only method it knows—that is, a moratorium. In the
order of six cases of xenotransplantation have been carried out in New Zealand, until the abrupt stop was put to it by Labour and the Greens. I note that there was an
application going through the process—a fairly stiff regulatory process that we had in New Zealand at the time—but it was turned down by an amendment of this Labour
Government. As it turned out, Mai Chen, a very well-known lawyer, and a submitter to the select committee at the time, believed that the Supplementary Order Paper brought in
by this Government was literally a constitutional outrage. The firm Diatranz did not even have the opportunity to have its application heard. It is extraordinary that only last week
it was revealed in the newspapers that one of the individuals who had a transplant of pig islet cells intra-abdominally by way of laparoscope had, of his own volition, a further
laparoscopy in February this year. It was fascinating to hear that the islet cells were still producing insulin. He was thrilled by it. The scientific community was thrilled by it, but it
has been deeply disturbed by the fact that right around the world other such cases have been replicated and are showing huge promise. The major problem this Government
was worried about was the pig endogenous retrovirus, which is inherent in the line of cells that was being used. We heard last week in Parliament, through the Royal Society
lectures on science, that there is now a pig islet cell strain that is free of the retrovirus, giving huge hope for this area. We also heard from Dr Bruce Scoggins, the chief
executive officer of the Health Research Council of New Zealand. He now says that there is undoubtedly a place for xenotransplantation in New Zealand. There is no reason
why we should not at least have the opportunity for people to apply for xenotransplantation experiments in New Zealand, where we do have a very rigorous regulatory regime,
so that at least we can get in place the decision as to whether the risk management is appropriate. But this Government has said that it is not interested in science; it will just put
down a blank, blunt instrument. I can see members of the Government over there shaking their heads. This is the Government that says it is interested in economic growth, in
biotechnology, and in moving New Zealand along—and what does it do? It puts in place massive hurdles that have prohibited progress in one of the most potentially important
areas for New Zealand, and the recent Huntington’s chorea trail is not the only example of that. There was—I think it was in 2001—the AgResearch application for transgenic
cows. That in itself cost AgResearch something like $600,000 and took 2 years before it was finally able to get on with it. Again, the Government has unnecessarily placed a
huge inherent hurdle on New Zealand science, almost certainly because it has listened to the Greens, taken notice, and taken an absolutely Luddite approach to an area that is
There is no doubt that the technology here is innovative, clever, and can be used for a
whole variety of reasons. There is no doubt that New Zealand should be at the forefront of this sort of innovative, clever biotechnology. The very
wrong thing to do is to put in a moratorium. One would hope that any Government that professes to be
so important for New Zealand.
interested in the knowledge economy would at least put in place a regime whereby any applicant can
go through a rigorous risk management process and then have the experts decide—not politicians such as this Labour
Government has produced—whether this very important technology can occur in New Zealand. What happened to Diatranz? It had to go offshore—it
literally went to Australia. I accept the fact that the Australians have also had a somewhat Luddite approach to their regulatory regime in this particular instance. But in a vast
variety of other areas, their regime around biotechnology and genomic research is much more enlightened than what we have seen under this Labour Government. That is why
many of our scientists are going over there. That is why the Huntington’s chorea trial has gone to Adelaide, and that is why I am saying that this particular moratorium is totally
unnecessary and an indictment on the Labour Government. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) : I am pleased to speak on this bill. I am appalled, actually, at the rather
arrogant attitude of the Opposition spokesman on health. The moratorium in this bill is very clear. If the member had listened to the Minister, he would know that the provisions
that allow for the extension of the moratorium for 1 year are for two reasons—and the member needs to listen to this. The provisions here for xenotransplantation will be covered
under the Human Tissue Bill, which is yet to be referred to the Health Committee. Also, we want to conclude the consultation from the Bioethics Council. It is for those two
reasons alone that we seek an extension to the current moratorium. I support this bill and I know that the member for the Opposition realises that it was incredibly important that
we set up the Bioethics Council. It would be disgusting to pre-empt any decision just because they are scientists and just because this technology is sorely needed, and not go
through the consultation under the Bioethics Council. We are a Government that is prepared to wait. The scientific research is going on overseas, and for that reason I support
this bill. DAIL JONES (NZ First) : I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. We have had a very interesting debate from all parties. As far New Zealand First is concerned, we will
support the Medicines (Specified Biotechnical Procedures) Amendment Bill going to the Health Committee. Quite obviously, a high-powered debate is being undertaken at
technological levels. We recognise that biotechnology is one of the most important economic aspects for New Zealand’s future, and we must be involved in the biotechnology
economy. This is a relatively short bill and the matter can be considered by the select committee relatively quickly. We look forward to all those interested parties making
submissions to the select committee, and New Zealand First will take note of what they have to say. So in the meantime, we support the bill going to the select committee.
KATHERINE RICH (National) : The National Party, as my colleague said, will not support the bill because we do not see the need for a moratorium. We believe that we already
science will
continue to progress and to provide solutions for many New Zealand families that are waiting for
xenotransplantation technologies to be developed and to be available here. We have seen Willie Terpstra and her family go offshore to get the treatment she
know a lot about the science, and that this is a very blunt attempt to hold back the sea. The Government can pretend all it likes to be King Canute, but
could not get here. Many New Zealanders watched that story and saw how much that technology made a difference to that New Zealander’s life. Who are we to stand in the
way of that? Four members of my family have been on renal dialysis. Three of them have had transplants, and one is currently waiting for a transplant. I can tell members on the
Government side of the House that if the technology existed to transplant a pig kidney, a baboon kidney, or any kind of kidney that would keep my family member alive and off
renal dialysis, then that would be fine by me. We need to remember the human face of this argument. Labour can pontificate about the cultural issues and sensitivities, yet
people are waiting for life-changing treatments. We need to trust the scientists, who are very careful, sensible, and ethical in the work that they have done and are doing. We
know that the
that
moratorium will not stop the work being done. It will just send our scientists offshore so
the work can be done there . Is it any wonder that we are seeing a brain drain of scientists right now? There are simply too many hurdles and
barriers in their way when it comes to New Zealand science to do leading-edge work. There is no logic behind this decision. There is no reasoning or detailed scientific analysis
for the extension of this moratorium. In fact, there is no indication that it will work at all, except to shut down an area of work and opportunity in New Zealand, when a lot of New
Zealand families are waiting for the technologies that can arise as a result of this kind of work. It was interesting to hear the member opposite talk about arrogance. I think it is
arrogance to stand in the way of some life-saving technologies that can make a difference to some New Zealanders’ lives. Unless one is in that situation and really knows what
it is like to face those sorts of family difficulties, one does not know what one is talking about when pontificating about cultural sensitivities. I have had a look at some of the work
put out by the Bioethics Council, and I have to say that it is an absolute load of tripe. Constituents of mine have been involved in the consultation process in Dunedin, and have
been subjected to handholding exercises where people ask questions about what happens if someone takes on a pig kidney and suddenly starts to behave like a pig. That is
absolute rubbish. There is no scientific base to that sort of discussion. There is no knowledge or detailed understanding of this extremely high-tech scientific area. So I think that
holding back the tide here does not do the best for New Zealanders. It does not do the best for the many Kiwi families who are waiting for all sorts of solutions to very many
debilitating diseases and health conditions that keep people from living full and active lives. It is very easy, I think, for the Government to bring up some basically extremely
spurious reasons why this moratorium should be continued, but there is no logic to it. There is no reason or scientific base. I do not think the Government has listened to a lot of
the groups—the patients and the families—who are waiting for some of these lifesaving techniques and technologies. I worry that so many of our best scientists are going
scientists
in those areas have brains that are easily exportable. They can go offshore and get better salaries and greater
continuity in their incomes and careers, rather than stay here and see artificial barriers put in place that disallow
them from doing good scientific work. I do not think there are any mad scientists in New Zealand. There is a group of scientists who want to do
offshore. There are a lot of areas where one cannot do leading-edge research now, because of the regulations and hurdles that have been put in place. The
some studies in an area that I think will make a huge difference to the lives of a lot of New Zealanders. Hon Maurice Williamson: A lot of them are under stress, though.
KATHERINE RICH: My colleague says that some are under stress. That is no surprise. I think some members opposite wish that John Tamihere would be xenotransplanted into
another party. But as he says that he will die a Labour man, despite apparently humbling himself before the caucus today—although he does not retract any of his comments—it
seems that that will not be the case either, so they should think about putting a moratorium on John Tamihere. That might do them a better service than trying to put up artificial
barriers that will just cause loss of life and remove opportunities for New Zealanders to have access to some of these technologies that will make a difference to their lives.
Darren Hughes: Is this the same woman who got sacked? KATHERINE RICH: Until Darren Hughes faces a parent on dialysis or a family member who is looking for a transplant
of some kind, he should keep his mouth shut because he has no idea what it is like. He can pontificate about the cultural sensitivities of xenotransplantation, but just wait until he
sees a dialysis patient in his constituency office, who says: “Your rules are standing between me having a life and not being able to continue.” Then, I think, he might change his
It is quite Luddite to pretend that
science will stop its work in this area. It is only New Zealand that will stop work in this area, while the rest of the world will
continue to provide opportunities for science. Science will march on and provide some life-giving solutions to a lot of people who
tune—once he understands the human face of these decisions. The Government is trying to hold back the tide of science.
are waiting for these opportunities—who are waiting for the second chance at life that might come from a pig kidney, a pig liver, or some other transplanted organ. So it is all
very well for members opposite to be theoretical about this moratorium and pretend that it will not have an impact. W e know that it will. Many, many New Zealanders will be
worse off because the Labour Government thinks it can hold back the scientific tide and deny a lot of New Zealanders many lifesaving solutions that will make a difference to
their lives and allow them to continue—if, of course, we have any scientists to continue this work once this moratorium is over. As we know, not many scientists who go to the
United States or to the UK make the transition back into New Zealand. A few have, but not many come back once they get used to research grants, good salaries, better
We are worse off because we lose those brains—those people
who could do a huge amount of work within our Crown research institutes here in New Zealand.
conditions, continuity in their work, and better opportunities.
Xeno is key to stop brain drainA. Anti-science signal
Roy, 5 – Medicines New Zealand non-executive chair
[Heather, former New Zealand politician who served as an ACT Member of Parliament from 2002 until 2011, "Hansard (debates),"
4-12-5, www.parliament.nz/en-nz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20050412_00000910/medicines-specified-biotechnicalprocedures-amendment, accessed 8-29-14]
New Zealand First is worried. I am pleased to hear its members are worried about something. No, we do not worry about tourists or
about immigrants, so why are we worried when we have to jump through hoops in order to do research in this
country about xenotransplantation and the spread of retroviruses? We should undertake absolutely rigorous, watertight risk
analysis before we proceed with that research, and we should put some trust and some faith in the experts. Many members will
remember the fiasco about the environment surrounding the issue of transgenic cows. It took 2 years of jumping through hoops,
getting approval, and doing the right things—and it was $500,000 later—before anything could happen. That sent a very
pertinent signal to the scientific world with regard to genomic research in New Zealand. It was a
very powerful signal that said: “Don’t bother coming to do any research here . You guys, you scientists
whom we have trained, we will train you for export just as we are doing with our doctors, our nurses, and our health professionals.
We are training you here in this country, and giving you a very good training, and we want you to go overseas”— The ASSISTANT
SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will please not refer to the Speaker.
B. Quality researchers
Cooper, 2 -- MD, PhD in surgical research from the University of London, University of Pittsburgh Transplantation Institute
professor of surgery
[David, and Christoph Knosalla, MD, PhD, German Heart Institute Department of Cardiothoracic & Vascular Surgery, "The
Immunology of Xenotransplantation," Immunology for Surgeons, ed. by Andrew Zbar, 2-20-2002, google books, 179-180, accessed
8-29-14]
It would be essentially unethical, in fact, to proceed with xenotransplantation research without putting in place strict principles which
limit these new risks as much as possible. In this context, given all the clinical implications, the issue of xenotransplantation
needs to be discussed in the social arena, in order to reach the widest agreement on such a delicate matter, involving
philosophical, cultural, religious and scientific themes [29,30]. Such a debate will effectively parallel the recent debate which has
been carried out on the legislative and parliamentary floors in many countries concerning stem cell and human embryonic cloning
research. The outcomes of such legislation will not only affect the direction of approved research
activity, (a restriction hitherto little experienced by researchers), but also the make-up of high quality personnel
involved. The wrong decisions here will simply drive researchers to other countries or to other fields of
endeavor. Indivi- dual and collective informed consent for xenotransplantation will thus require public dialogue, a process that has
so far been somewhat wanting on the runaway train of legislation [31,32].
C. Tech spillover
Ardern, 5 – New Zealand politician
[Shane, "Hansard (debates)," 5-18-5, www.parliament.nz/en- http://www.parliament.nz/ennz/pb/debates/debates/47HansD_20050518_00001146/medicines-specified-biotechnical-procedures-amendment, accessed 8-2914]
I suggest that the members talk to the likes of Professor Bob Elliott and Professor Roger Morris, a well-known expert who is hired all
around the world. He spends more time out of New Zealand than he does in New Zealand. Although Professor Morris’ skills are
recognised internationally, back here the Labour Government does not need the advice of somebody like him; it already has its own
advisers, who just say “Yes sir, no sir, and what do you want us to do next sir?”. I ask members to listen to the likes of Professor
Morris, who is a world-renowned expert. He will tell us that pig-tissue transplantation—xenotransplantation as it is known—is
something that could hold the key to a range of problems, in terms of the medical fraternity. He will also tell us
that having a very healthy pig herd in this country is the best way to detect any kind of disease that potentially may infect the human
population, because pigs are the closest species to humans in terms of that kind of detection. So I ask members to have a talk to
him. It is as simple as that. If members ring him up, I am sure he will give them a briefing on some of this stuff. He has said that the
kind of technology that is being proposed in terms of xenotransplantation—and it is not some loony field of new development—is
safe, and there is no science at all that can tell us that it is not. That is the interesting question. The test that has to be measured is
whether it is unsafe. That is what the debate is about. Are we sure that it is unsafe? How can one tell that it is unsafe if there is no
science to say that it is unsafe? We know that motorcars are unsafe, but we all drive them. We know that an earthquake can kill
thousands of people, but we still live and work in the capital of New Zealand, which is on a fault line. We know a range of things that
are unsafe, but in this case there is no science and no evidence to say that it is unsafe. Yet tonight we are debating the
extension of a moratorium so that scientists can, presumably, go offshore and carry out experiments to
develop our technology somewhere else. One of the worst things happening in this country at the moment is that some
of the best inventions in the world, in a range of scientific areas, are being taken offshore, because they simply cannot work and
survive under the regulatory framework in this country—whether it be tax or whether it be moratoriums on this kind of experiment.
So I say to members that xenotransplantation is not new. It has been around for a long, long time, as I have said in every debate in
this discussion so far. The first xenotransplantation took place in 1682 on a Russian nobleman who had a fractured skull. That is
going back a bit. The first successful organ xenotransplant took place in 1963. The problem has always been, as has been
mentioned throughout the debate, that the human immune system rejects the new material. That is the problem.
To allow science to find a way around that problem, I would have thought, would be hugely beneficial
not only for medical science but for a range of other potential science experiments , as well as
producing potential intellectual property that could be worth millions of dollars to New Zealand. But, no, not with the socialists in
charge. If someone wants to muck around with that sort of stuff that does not sound as though it will fit into their little corner of
thinking, then that person must take it offshore. They will not allow it in this country.
Biomedical research drives talent and draws the best and brightest now
Hughes, 13 -- Woodrow Wilson Center’s Program on Science, Technology, America and the Global Economy director
[Kent, "Facing the Global Competitiveness Challenge," Issues in Science and Technology, 11-27-13, issues.org/21-4/hughes/,
accessed 9-5-14]
Support great missions that drive innovation. In the S&T world, great goals drive innovation and attract
talent. A generation of scientists and engineers that is nearing retirement was drawn to science by the challenge of Sputnik and
the lure of a pledge to put a man on the Moon.¶ We need to develop 21st-century missions that will meet key national goals, drive
innovation, and attract a new generation of scientists and engineers. There are a host of potential projects, including the following
three.¶ First, the United States should make a national commitment to develop new sources of energy that will support economic
growth, protect the environment, and achieve the foreign policy flexibility that comes with greater energy independence. Highlighting
the link between energy research and national security, reducing poverty around the world, and improving the environment will help
capture public support and the imagination of a new generation.¶ Second, the country should attack new and existing diseases on a
global basis. Every nation is only a plane ride away from any disease. The appearance of HIV/AIDS, Ebola, SARS, and,
more recently, the avian flu has highlighted the peril of the new. Statistics on deaths from tuberculosis and malaria
show the devastation that can be wrought by the old. To nature’s diseases have been added the threat of human-made pathogens.
Evaluations of U.S. homeland security consistently rank biological terrorism at or near the top of the list of
domestic threats. With the potential to save millions of lives around the world, a national
commitment to eradicate the threat posed by new and old diseases will kindle a spark of excitement
among young Americans choosing their professional futures.¶ Third, the nation should apply
technology to the challenge of an aging population. The creative use of information technology can help keep
seasoned workers active and reduce health care costs at the same time. New technologies can lead to early detection
of disease, added mobility, and new cures. The idea of better lives for grandparents will draw another
set of talented young people toward science and engineering.
Biotech
Bioweapons 2NC
No lashout.
Garfinkle 9 [Adam, PhD International Relations @ UPenn, former professor of foreign policy and Middle East politics @
UPenn and Johns Hopkins, and editor of The American Interest. “Does Nuclear Deterrence Apply in the Age of Terrorism?” Foreign
Policy Research Institute, http://www.fpri.org/footnotes/1410.200905.garfinkle.nucleardeterrenceterrorism.html, May 2009]
Indeed, it would probably be so much easier to hide and deliver than if there were a bioweapons attack, it would not
be obvious right away whether it was in fact an attack or a naturally occurring event—for example a smallpox,
anthrax or possibly an Ebola outbreak. In the event of a nuclear terrorist incident, we would probably be able to trace back to the
source of the attack and would thus probably be able to retaliate or in other ways ensure that those who struck us were never able
to do so again. But after a bioweapons attack, it is more likely that we would not be able to trace back
the source. Biotechnology, especially in conjunction with nanotechnology, is being conducted around the world
today, and we do not even have a database on the research that is going on. There is no international agreement to
build such a database either. We ought to have one, or we may in fact end up living one day in an age of WMD terror.
The worst case scenario happened – no extinction
Dove 12 [Alan Dove, PhD in Microbiology, science journalist and former Adjunct Professor at New York University,
“Who’s Afraid of the Big, Bad Bioterrorist?” Jan 24 2012, http://alandove.com/content/2012/01/whos-afraid-of-the-big-badbioterrorist/]
The second problem is much more serious. Eliminating the toxins, we’re left with a list of infectious bacteria and
viruses. With a single exception, these organisms areprobablynear- useless as weapons , and history
proves it.¶There have been at least three well-documented military-style deployments of infectious agents from the list,
plus one deployment of an agent that’s not on the list. I’m focusing entirely on the modern era, by the way. There are historical
reports of armies catapulting plague-ridden corpses over city walls and conquistadors trying to inoculate blankets with Variola
(smallpox), but it’s not clear those “attacks” were effective. Those diseases tended to spread like, well, plagues, so there’s no
telling whether the targets really caught the diseases from the bodies and blankets, or simply picked them up through casual
contact with their enemies.¶Of the four modern biowarfare incidents, two have been fatal. The first was the
1979 Sverdlovsk anthrax incident, which killed an estimated 100 people. In that case, a Soviet-built biological
weapons lab accidentally released a large plume of weaponized Bacillus anthracis (anthrax) over a major city. Soviet
authorities tried to blame the resulting fatalities on “bad meat,” but in the 1990s Western investigators were finally able to
piece together the real story. The second fatal incident also involved anthrax from a government-run
lab: the 2001 “Amerithrax” attacks. That time, a rogue employee (or perhaps employees) of the government’s main
bioweapons lab sent weaponized, powdered anthrax through the US postal service. Five people died.¶That gives
us a grand total of around 105 deaths, entirely from agents that were grown and weaponized in
officially-sanctioned and funded bioweapons research labs. Remember that.¶Terrorist groups
have also deployedbiological weapons twice, and these cases are very instructive. The first was the 1984
Rajneeshee bioterror attack, in which members of acult in Oregon inoculated restaurant salad bars with
Salmonella bacteria (an agent that’s not on the “select” list). 751 people got sick, but nobody died. Public
health authorities handled it as a conventional foodborne Salmonella outbreak , identified the
sources and contained them. Nobody even would have known it was a deliberate attack if a member of the cult hadn’t come
forward afterward with a confession. Lesson: our existing public health infrastructure was entirely
adequate to respond to a major bioterrorist attack.¶Thesecond genuine bioterrorist attack took
place in 1993. Members of the AumShinrikyo cult successfully isolated and grew a large stock of
anthrax bacteria, then sprayed it as an aerosol from the roof of a building in downtown Tokyo .
The cult was well-financed,and had many highly educated members, so this release over the
world’s largest city really represented a worst-case scenario .¶ Nobody got sick or died. From the
cult’s perspective, it was a complete and utter failure. Again, the only reason we even found out about it was a post-hoc
confession. Aum members later demonstrated their lab skills by producing Sarin nerve gas, with far deadlier results. Lesson:
one of the top “select agents” is extremely hard to grow and deploy even for relatively skilled
non-state groups. It’s a really crappy bioterrorist weapon.¶ Taken together, these events point to an
uncomfortable but inevitable conclusion: our biodefense industry is a far greater threat to us than any
actual bioterrorists.
dispersal problems, tech barriers, risk fo back spread—experts agree
John Mueller, Professor, Political Science, Ohio State University, OVERBLOWN: HOW POLITICIANS AND THE
TERRORISM INDUSTRY INFLATE NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS, AND WHY WE BELIEVE THEM, 2009, p. 21-22.
For the most destructive results, biological weapons need to be dispersed in very low-altitude
aerosol clouds. Because aerosols do not appreciably settle, pathogens like anthrax (which is not
easy to spread or catch and is not contagious) would probably have to be sprayed near nose level. Moreover,
90 percent of the microorganisms are likely to die during the process of aerosolization, and
their effectiveness could be reduced still further by sunlight, smog, humidity, and
temperature changes. Explosive methods of dispersion may destroy the organisms, and, except
for anthrax spores, long-term storage of lethal organisms in bombs or warheads is difficult: even if refrigerated, most of the
organisms have a limited lifetime. The effects of such weapons can take days or weeks to have full
effect, during which time they can be countered with medical and civil defense measures. And
their impact is very difficult to predict; in combat situations they may spread back onto the attacker. In the
judgment of two careful analysts, delivering microbes and toxins over a wide area in the form
most suitable for inflicting mass casualties—as an aerosol that can be inhaled—requires a delivery
system whose development "would outstrip the technical capabilities of all but the most
sophisticated terrorist" Even then effective dispersal could easily be disrupted by
unfavorable environmental and meteorological conditions." After assessing, and stressing,
the difficulties a nonstate entity would find in obtaining, handling, growing, storing,
processing, and dispersing lethal pathogens effectively, biological weapons expert Milton
Leitenberg compares his conclusions with glib pronouncements in the press about how
biological attacks can be pulled off by anyone with "a little training and a few glass jars," or
how it would be "about as difficult as producing beer." He sardonically concludes, "The less
the commentator seems to know about biological warfare the easier [they] he seems to think
the task is.""
No extinction
No extinction – their evidence is alarmist groupthink, and the IPCC report is
wrong – insiders agree
Torres 4/3/2014 (Richard, William F. Buckley Fellow at the National Review Institute, “IPCC Insider Rejects Global-Warming
Report,” http://www.nationalreview.com/node/374986/print)
Tol, a professor of economics at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom and an expert on climate
change, removed his name from the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. While he considers much of
Richard
the science sound and supports the underlying purpose of the IPCC, Tol says the United Nations agency’s inflammatory and alarmist claims delegitimize the IPCC as a credible
In the SPM [Summary for Policymakers], and much more largely in the media, we see all these scare
stories,” Tol tells National Review Online. “We’re all going to die, the four horsemen of the apocalypse . . . I felt
uncomfortable with the direction [the IPCC report] was going.” Tol, who has been working with the IPCC since 1994, was the lead
and neutral institution. “
author of Chapter 10 of the report, on key economic sectors and services. He was also a contributor to Chapters 17 and 19, on the economics of adaptation to climate change
felt the IPCC did not properly account for
human tech nological ingenuity and downplayed the potential benefits of global warming. “In the current SPM there are a number of
statements in there that are widely cited that are just not correct ,” Tol says. One prediction has it that
crop yields will begin to fall dramatically, a statement “that is particularly not supported by the chapter itself,” Tol says. “What it completely
forgets is technological progress and that crop yields have been going up for as long as we’ve
looked at crop yields.” Beyond misleading statements on agriculture, Tol says the IPCC report cites only the maximum estimate for how much it will cost to
protect against sea-level rise associated with current climate-change predictions. “Why do we show the maximum but not the average?” he says. Estimates say that
“for a tenth of a percent of [worldwide] GDP we can protect all vulnerable populations along all coasts .” The report also stresses that
and emergent risks, respectively. He took his name off of the final summary because he
global warming will cause more deaths due to heat stress, but ignores that global warming would reduce cold stress, which actually kills more people than heat stress each
Tol is far from a conspiracy theorist , but he nonetheless thinks the IPCC has built-in biases that keep
it from adequately checking alarmism . First, there is a self-selection bias: People who are most
concerned about the impact of climate change are most likely to be represented on the panel . Next,
most of the panelists are professors involved in similar academic departments, surrounded by
like-minded people who reinforce each other’s views. Those views are welcomed by the civil
servants who review the report, because their “departments, jobs, and careers depend on climate
being a problem ,” Tol says. “There are natural forces pushing these people in the same direction . I think
the IPCC should have safeguards against this tendency, but it does not .”
year.
Warming—Ext 1--Adaptation 2NC (:40
Adaptation solves—worst case scenario it takes 200 years plenty of time to
adapt—that’s Mendelson
Tech advances faster than feedbacks
Indur Goklany, PhD., “Misled on Climate change: How the UN IPCC (and others) Exaggerate the Impacts of Global
Warming,” POLICY STUDY n. 399, Reason Foundation, 12—11, 12.
The second major reason why future adaptive capacity has been underestimated (and the impacts
of global warming systematically overestimated) is that few impact studies consider secular
technological change .25 Most assume that no new technologies will come on line, although
some do assume greater adoption of existing technologies with higher GDP per capita and, much less frequently, a modest
generic improvement in productivity. Such an assumption may have been appropriate during the
Medieval Warm Period, when the pace of technological change was slow, but nowadays technological
change is fast (as indicated in Figures 1 through 5) and , arguably, accelerating . It is unlikely that we will
see a halt to technological change unless so-called precautionary policies are instituted that
count the costs of technology but ignore its benefits, as some governments have already
done for genetically modified crops and various pesticides.
Geoengineering solves
Kenny Hodgart, “Chop and Change,” SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST, 5—13—12, p. 28+.
Research is already being carried out on the viability of geoengineering - a catch-all term for
technologies that sequester CO2 or other greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or cool the
planet through solar radiation management - while more resources can and, for reasons quite apart
from rising sea levels, probably should be invested in sea and flood defences around the world. After
all, the Dutch mastered this aspect of hydraulics in the 16th century. Former British chancellor Nigel Lawson, who chairs the
London-based sceptic think tank The Global Warming Policy Foundation, has written that, " adaptation will enable us,
if and when it is necessary, greatly to reduce the adverse consequences of global warming, at far less
cost than mitigation [emissions reduction], to the point where for the world as a whole, these are unlikely
greatly to outweigh (if indeed they outweigh at all) the customarily overlooked benefits of global warming".
Scidip
Scidip D
FOUR, politicization—limits effectiveness, ensured by government rules
The Royal Society, NEW FRONTIERS IN SCIENCE DIPLOMACY, 1—10, p. 16.
In all forms of science diplomacy, it is important to be clear when science ends and politics
begins. At the Royal Society/ AAAS meeting, Professor John Beddington FRS, the UK’s Chief Scientifi c Adviser,
agreed that scientifi c collaboration could provide a ‘blueprint for international diplomacy’, but warned of possible
dangers for ‘scientists who wish to engage in the diplomatic game’ if this means that science
ends up being used for political ends. Similarly, Chris Whitty, the Chief Scientifi c Adviser at the
Department for International Development (DfID), endorsed scientifi c collaboration with developing countries if the goal
is ‘to transform the lives of the poor’. But he questioned whether using science to support social
stability or deliver broader political goals would prove effective (Royal Society/AAAS 2009). Some
governments have strict guidelines for how scientifi c advice is used in national
policymaking, which can also be applied to the international arena (Government Offi ce for Science
2005).
FIVE, can’t be transformative—science and diplomacy don’t mix
David Dickson, Director, SciDev, “The Limits of Science Diplomacy,” Science and Development Network, 6—4—09,
http://www.scidev.net/en/editorials/the-limits-of-science-diplomacy.html
Only so much science can do Recently, the Obama administration has given this field a new push, in its desire
to pursue "soft diplomacy" in regions such as the Middle East. Scientific agreements have been at the forefront of the
administration's activities in countries such as Iraq and Pakistan. But — as emerged from a meeting entitled New
Frontiers in Science Diplomacy, held in London this week (1–2 June) — using science for diplomatic
purposes is not as straightforward as it seems. Some scientific collaboration clearly demonstrates what
countries can achieve by working together. For example, a new synchrotron under construction in Jordan is rapidly
becoming a symbol of the potential for teamwork in the Middle East. But whether scientific cooperation can
become a precursor for political collaboration is less evident. For example, despite hopes that the
Middle East synchrotron would help bring peace to the region, several countries have been reluctant to support it until
the Palestine problem is resolved. Indeed, one speaker at the London meeting (organised by the UK's Royal Society
and the American Association for the Advancement of Science) even suggested that the changes scientific
innovations bring inevitably lead to turbulence and upheaval. In such a context, viewing science
as a driver for peace may be wishful thinking. Conflicting ethos Perhaps the most contentious area
discussed at the meeting was how science diplomacy can frame developed countries' efforts to help build scientific
capacity in the developing world. There is little to quarrel with in collaborative efforts that are put forward with a genuine
desire for partnership. Indeed, partnership — whether between individuals, institutions or countries — is the new
buzzword in the "science for development" community. But true partnership requires transparent relations
between partners who are prepared to meet as equals. And that goes against diplomats' implicit role:
to promote and defend their own countries' interests. John Beddington, the British government's chief
scientific adviser, may have been a bit harsh when he told the meeting that a diplomat is someone who is
"sent abroad to lie for his country". But he touched a raw nerve. Worlds apart yet co-dependent The truth is that
science and politics make an uneasy alliance. Both need the other. Politicians need science to achieve
their goals, whether social, economic or — unfortunately — military; scientists need political support to fund their
research. But they also occupy different universes. Politics is, at root, about exercising power by one
means or another. Science is — or should be — about pursuing robust knowledge that can be
put to useful purposes. A strategy for promoting science diplomacy that respects these differences deserves
support. Particularly so if it focuses on ways to leverage political and financial backing for science's more humanitarian
goals, such as tackling climate change or reducing world poverty. But a commitment to science diplomacy
that ignores the differences — acting for example as if science can substitute politics (or
perhaps more worryingly, vice versa), is dangerous. The Obama administration's commitment to "soft
power" is already faltering. It faces challenges ranging from North Korea's nuclear weapons
test to domestic opposition to limits on oil consumption. A taste of reality may be no bad thing.
1nr
Ext1—No Impact
– vague references to power vacuums won’t cut it – there is no scenario for
hegemony to keep peace – their evidence over-estimates the importance of the
US
Fettweis 11 [Christopher J. Fettweis - Department of Political Science Tulane University and Professor of National Security Affairs
at the US Naval War College, “Free Riding or Restraint Examining European Grand Strategy”, Comparative Strategy; Sep/Oct2011,
Vol. 30 Issue 4, p316-332, 17p]
Assertions that without the combination of U.S. capabilities, presence and commitments instability
would return to Europe and the Pacific Rim are usually rendered in rather vague language. If the United States
were to decrease its commitments abroad, argued Robert Art, “the world will become a more dangerous place and,
sooner or later, that will redound to America’s detriment.”53 From where would this danger arise? Who precisely
would do the fighting, and over what issues? Without the United States, would Europe really descend
into Hobbesian anarchy? Would the Japanese attack mainland China again, to see if they could fare better
this time around? Would the Germans and French have another go at it? In other words, where exactly is hegemony is
keeping the peace? With one exception, these questions are rarely addressed.
That exception is in the Pacific Rim. Some analysts fear that a de facto surrender of U.S. hegemony would lead to a rise of Chinese
influence. Bradley Thayer worries that Chinese would become “the language of diplomacy, trade and commerce, transportation and navigation, the internet, world sport, and global culture,” and that Beijing would come to “dominate science and technology, in all its forms” to the extent tha t soon
theworldwould witness a Chinese astronaut who not only travels to the Moon, but “plants the communist flag on Mars, and perhaps
other planets in the future.”54 Indeed Chin a is the only other major power that has increased its military spending since the end of
the Cold War, even if it still is only about 2 percent of its GDP. Such levels of effort do not suggest a desire to compete with, much
less supplant, the United States. The much-ballyhooed, decade-long military buildup has brought Chinese
spending up to somewhere between one-tenth and one-fifth of the U.S. level. It is hardly clear that
a restrained United States would invite Chinese regional, must less global, political expansion. Fortunately one
need not ponder for too long the horrible specter of a red flag on Venus, since on the planet Earth, where war is no longer the
dominant form of conflict resolution, the threats posed by even a rising China would not be terribly dire. The dangers contained in
the terrestrial security environment are less severe than ever before. Believers in the pacifying power of hegemony
ought to keep in mind a rather basic tenet: When it comes to policymaking, specific threats are more significant
than vague, unnamed dangers. Without specific risks, it is just as plausible to interpret U.S. presence as redundant, as
overseeing a peace that has already arrived. Strategy should not be based upon vague images emerging
from the dark reaches of the neoconservative imagination. Overestimating Our Importance One of the most
basic insights of cognitive psychology provides the final reason to doubt the power of hegemonic
stability: Rarely are our actions as consequential upon their behavior as we perceive them to be. A great
deal of experimental evidence exists to support the notion that people (and therefore states) tend to
overrate the degree to which their behavior is responsible for the actions of others. Robert Jervis has
argued that two processes account for this overestimation, both ofwhichwould seem to be especially relevant in theU.S. case. 55
First, believing that we are responsible for their actions gratifies our national ego (which is not small to
begin with; the United States is exceptional in its exceptionalism). The hubris of the United States, long appreciated and noted, has
only grown with the collapse of the Soviet Union.56 U.S. policymakers famously have comparatively little
knowledge of—or interest in—events that occur outside of their own borders. If there is any state
vulnerable to the overestimation of its importance due to the fundamental misunderstanding of
the motivation of others, it would have to be the United States. Second, policymakers in the United States are
far more familiar with our actions than they are with the decision-making processes of our allies. Try as we might, it is not
possible to fully understand the threats, challenges, and opportunities that our allies see from their
perspective. The European great powers have domestic politics as complex as ours, and they also have competent, capable
strategists to chart their way forward. They react to many international forces, of which U.S. behavior is only
one. Therefore, for any actor trying to make sense of the action of others, Jervis notes, “in the absence of strong evidence to the
contrary, the most obvious and parsimonious explanation is that he was responsible.”57 It is natural, therefore, for U.S.
policymakers and strategists to believe that the behavior of our allies (and rivals) is shaped largely by
what Washington does. Presumably Americans are at least as susceptible to the overestimation of their ability as any other
people, and perhaps more so. At the very least, political psychologists tell us, we are probably not as important to
them as we think. The importance of U.S. hegemony in contributing to international stability is
therefore almost certainly overrated . In the end, one can never be sure why our major allies have not gone to, and do
not even plan for, war. Like deterrence, the hegemonic stability theory rests on faith; it can only be falsified,
never proven . It does not seem likely, however, that hegemony could fully account for twenty years of strategic decisions made
in allied capitals if the international system were not already a remarkably peaceful place. Perhaps these states have no
intention of fighting one another to begin with, and our commitments are redundant. European great powers may
well have chosen strategic restraint because they feel that their security is all but assured, with or without the United
States.
Ext2—Heg Inev
No one can challenge the US
Nuno P. Monteiro is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, where he teaches International Relations
theory and security studies. He earned his Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Chicago in 2009. “Theory of Unipolar
Politics” (Cambridge University Press) April 2014 Chapter 5, p. 113--143
Other countries are unlikely to develop the latent power necessary to launch a military challenge
to U.S. preponderance any sooner.¶ Europe an states face a steep demographic decline that is likely
to hinder their ability to grow relative to the United States, at least for the next several decades .
Furthermore, it is unlikely that their economic integration will lead to a political union possessing
unified military capabilities.40 As such, a challenge to U.S. military power will be unlikely to emerge
out of Europe. Japan and Russia, for their part, face profound demographic challenges that
hinder their long-term ability to generate the necessary latent power for a military challenge to
U.S. power preponderance.41¶ Likewise, other emerging economies such as Brazil and India are likely
to take longer than China to catch up with the United States. Brazil, having grown at more than 3
percent per year for the previous five years (a period during which the U.S. economy remained stagnant)
produced one-seventh of the U.S. GDP in 2013. Even if Brasilia manages to implement policies that
enable it to maintain its current rate of 3 percent growth over the U.S. economy, it will take Brazil more
than a half-century to match the level of absolute U.S. GDP. As for India, its economy has been
growing even faster, at an average rate of more than 6 percent per year between 2008 and 2012. Still, by
the end of this period it represented only one-eighth of U.S. GDP.4* Furthermore, India faces
institutional roadblocks to economic growth at least as important as those encountered by
China.4
3 All
these states could, of course, pool their resources in a balancing coalition against the United
States, but the barriers to collective action by such a diverse group of states are remarkably
high. Some of them have historically been U.S. allies , whereas others have a past of mutual enmity
between them. Such a broad balancing coalition against the United States is therefore an
exceedingly unlikely prospect for as long as the United States continues to implement a strategy of defensive
accommodation toward major powers.'
2NC Kills Research
Undue burdens---forces researchers to follow up with every patient which deters
commercial applications
Jasper Bovenberg 5, lawyer and research fellow of the Netherlands NWO Genomics Initiative at the University of Leiden
Faculty of Law and the Centre for Medical Systems Biology, JD and PhD in law from the University of Leiden, “Whose tissue is it
anyway?” Nature Biotechnology 23, 929 – 933, http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v23/n8/full/nbt0805-929.html
Property model . The logic of this model rests on the assertion that people have a personal property right in
their tissue. Among other legally protected interests, a personal property right confers on its owner the power to sell
the object owned, in exchange for consideration. A property right in human tissue would enable a
tissue or cell donor to transfer tissue or cells by sale and, by way of consideration, claim a share in any profits that might accrue from
their use. If such a personal property right were recognized, a tissue donor would be able to sue
anyone using their tissue without their permission on the basis of conversion10. The tort of 'conversion' can be
defined as an intentional exercise of dominion and control over personal property, without the owner's consent and without lawful justification, that so seriously interferes with
the right of another to control that property that the tortfeasor (a person guilty of an act that gives rise to a right of action for damages) may justly be required to pay the other the
full value of the property10. Plaintiffs alleging conversion of their personal property must not only show a property interest in their tissue, but also that they suffered some injury
through interference with the property. In addition to restoration of ownership, plaintiffsalleging conversion may seek, by way of monetary damages, the fair market value of the
Apart from being a radical departure from current legal precedent , the
property model has several drawbacks. Perhaps most seriously, it would commoditize human body parts. It would also place undue burdens
on researchers by forcing them to check the pedigree of every tissue sample used in research, it
would deter commercial applications by creating uncertainty over who has legal title to inventions
and it would result in a tragic anticommons , by empowering millions of tissue contributors to
negotiate a benefit share for each use of their tissue11 . In addition, it would be hard to assess the relative contribution made by the
property at the time of conversion.¶
donation of a single sample to the resultant diagnostic or drug.
Negotiation breakdown---the current laws guarantee tissues go to the
researchers---property rights cause patients to hold out for higher prices which
researchers refuse
Marcella Bothwell 13, chair of the Pediatric Airway and Aero-Digestive team in Rady Children's Hospital and faculty member
at the UC San Diego Department of Surgery, and Erez Yoeli, economist at the Federal Trade Commission, lecturer at the Rady
School of Management, and visiting scholar at the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University, “Assigning Property
Rights to Human Tissue,” Rady Business Journal, Winter 2013, http://rady.ucsd.edu/rbj/2013/Winter/tissue-rights/
In the case of human tissue, the efficient outcome is for both parties to reach an agreement and
for the tissue to end up with the researchers , since it has already been extracted and at that point the
patient does not expect to incur further costs. The problem is that doctors and researchers have
substantially better information about the potential value of the tissue, and it is difficult for them to
credibly convey this value to patients. Doctors also have an incentive to downplay the potential
gains from the tissue during negotiations so that they avoid paying a high price for the samples. Recognizing this,
patients might not agree to small payments even though there is no cost to them to provide their already
extracted tissue, in hopes of holding out for higher payments. Because the value of the typical tissue
sample is actually quite low until it is developed by researchers, in many cases researchers would refuse to make
higher offers, and no trade would occur.¶ By assigning the property rights to the extracted tissue to
researchers , the courts have eliminated the possibility that negotiations will break down and ensured
that the tissue will end up with the researchers . This solution may not be fair to patients, but it is simple and socially efficient.
Until other alternatives develop, we can at least be satisfied that the courts have implemented a socially efficient solution - one that puts tissue to the most
economically productive use .
Sale is a term of art that requires ownership- means the aff establishes a
property right for organs
Fuentes, 8 -- US Court of Appeals Third Circuit judge
[Julio, THE BUSINESS EDGE GROUP, INC., Appellant, v. CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC., No. 07-1059, 3-11-8, l/n,
accessed 9-1-14]
C. Defining Sale
The District Court concluded that the 1999 Agreement was a contract for the sale of the Number and thus violated 47 C.F.R. § 52.107. We
disagree. First, we note that subscribers do not "own" toll free telephone numbers. In the Matter of Toll Free Service Access Codes, 20
F.C.C.R. 15089, 15090 P 4, 2005 WL 2138620, at *2 (F.C.C. Sept. 2, 2005) ("Telephone numbers are a public resource and neither carriers nor
subscribers 'own' their telephone numbers."). Because subscribers do not own their telephone numbers, they can never "sell"
them outright. [**10] Instead, they "sell" the interest that they have in the number; that is, the right to use it to provide toll free service. In order to
determine whether the 1999 Agreement constituted a sale for the purposes of 47 C.F.R. § 52.107, we review dictionary definitions of
"sale" and "sell" to assess whether the agreement falls within the definitions. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) ("Black's") defines "sale"
as "[t]he transfer of property or title for a price," id. at 1364, and defines "sell" as "[t]o [*155] transfer (property) by sale," id. at 1391. Black's defines
"transfer" as "[a]ny mode of disposing of or parting with an asset or an interest in an asset." Id. at 1535. Meanwhile, Merriam-Webster's Online
Dictionary defines "sale" as "the act of selling; specifically: the transfer of ownership of and title to property from one person to another for a price" and,
in relevant part, defines "sell" as "to give up (property) to another for something of value (as money)." Id. at http://www.merriam-websters.com (last
visited Feb. 12, 2008). Next, Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary ("Webster's") defines "sale," in relevant part, as a "transfer of property
for money or credit," id. at 1693, [**11] and "sell," in relevant part, as "to transfer (goods) to or render (services) for another in exchange for money;
dispose of to a purchaser for a price," id. at 1739. Webster's defines "dispose of," in relevant part, as "to transfer or give away, as by gift or sale." Id. at
568. Without exception, these definitions of "sale" and "sell" emphasize the transfer of property or ownership for a price and
the finality of the transaction. Here, the fundamental features of the 1999 Agreement were that Business Edge retained control of the Number,
preserving responsibility for paying toll charges, and that Business Edge would only perform routing services for a period of five years. We, therefore,
cannot conclude that the 1999 Agreement was a sale. Therefore, we vacate the District Court's decision that the 1999 Agreement should be invalidated
for violating the prohibition on selling toll free telephone numbers in 47 C.F.R. § 52.107.