NOAA Official Shakes Up the Climate Change Debate

     It was reported yesterday that “a top official at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) rejected claims” that the violent weather that has decimated parts of the southern United States are a result of global warming. This news could be a blow to environmentalists who, for years, have warned of the violent storms that will inevitably be brought about by global warming. While some liberals and environmentalists are still maintaining that global warming is the cause of the recent storms, it would appear that the evidence pretty clearly refutes this. Conservatives have, of course, held up these new findings to support the cause of global warming skepticism as liberals have sought to deny or downplay them.

     It’s been interesting to see the ideologues change sides on the issue of science. Suddenly conservatives are championing scientific experts and their infallible research while liberals take up the mantle of skeptics and doubters. While this report isn’t likely to change the global warming debate in the long run, it is producing some amusing responses from climate change pundits. If nothing else, this news is helping to demonstrate how ideologically entrenched both sides are in this debate. When people are picking and choosing which scientific evidence they’ll believe based on how it affects their ideological goals reasoned debate has ceased to exist.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

GOP intransigence on transit funding

As gas prices continue to soar, more and more people are turning to public transportation as an alternative to the gas-eating car.

Yet, in the House budget proposal, Republicans are targeting public transportation for major cuts and seeking to eliminate new high-speed rail funding.  The liberal U.S. PIRG has condemned this strategy, arguing that "with gas prices shooting past $4 a gallon...we need to prioritize transportation projects that save oil, reduce traffic, and create jobs."  Instead, according to the PIRG, Chairman Paul Ryan's FY 12 legislative budget proposal "goes after successful transit and rail programs with a meat ax."

While conservative think tanks, such as the Heritage Foundation, tend to take the Republican line and generally oppose mass transit funding, centrist policy organizations do seem to support this type of funding.  Martin Wachs of the Rand Corp. has warned of the dangers of cost overruns in large mass transit projects,
but reportedly stated that the benefits of these projects outweigh the negatives.

Mark Muro of the centrist Brookings Institute has called for a "truly merit-based...federal transport program that put(s) transit and highway investments on the same footing."

The debate over public transporation, at least, doesn't appear to be a strictly Republican/Democrat one.  Centrists appear to support public transit funding; but it's the Republicans who may be painting themselves into an ideological corner on this one.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- Please pledge now


David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

In the Long Run, EPA Decision May Do More Harm than Good for Environmentalism

     As budget debates continue in Washington about what and where to cut, the EPA may have just shot itself in the foot. It was announced today that the EPA had ruled to deny Shell Oil the necessary permits to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska. This ruling is set to cost Shell almost 4 billion dollars and the public “an estimated 27 billion barrels of oil”. The ruling, meant to protect a village of less than 300 people 70 miles from the drill site, is already drawing harsh criticism from conservative groups.

     Mike Brownfield of the Heritage Foundation has already taken the opportunity to condemn the decision and call for an expansion of domestic oil production. Conservatives have attacked the EPA decision for its poor justification as well as its likely impact on oil production and gas prices in the future. While it’s no surprise that conservatives tend to oppose the EPA, this new ruling is likely to give them a great deal of momentum in selling the idea to the American people.

     Even liberal groups appear to be anticipating the unpopularity of the decision. While liberals and environmentalists have long been supporters of the EPA and its mission, liberals have been largely quiet about this ruling so far. It seems likely that liberal groups are not willing to waste political capital defending a decision that is likely to draw disdain from an American public that is desperate for some way to lower gas prices soon. Considering the major budget debates still to come, democrats may have decided to be careful about picking their battles and let this issue go. This is a lesson the EPA itself may want to take to heart.

     The Republican budget plan put forth by Paul Ryan has already called for significant defunding of the EPA. If the EPA continues to block oil drilling for dubious justifications, it will only make it harder for liberals to defend the agency to the American people. If the EPA wants to survive it should consider being more open to compromise and take a more moderate stance in the future. If the EPA continues to make such controversial decisions, it likely won’t survive long enough to do any good for its cause in the years to come.  

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Is Geothermal Energy the Future?

 It seems that the use of geothermal energy is on the rise in the United States. Geothermal energy, which produces power from the natural heat in the earth, is being touted by its supporters as the next great leap in energy production. It is being described as cheaper and cleaner than traditional energy sources and more reliable than other green energy sources. It’s not surprising that liberals and environmentalists have already jumped on the geothermal bandwagon.

     From U.S. PIRG to the Center for American Progress, liberal groups have, at one time or another, listed geothermal power as one of the major energy sources of the future which will save us from global warming. It’s not surprising that geothermal energy is getting this support. As far as green energy sources go, geothermal energy appears to be the most efficient and reliable. Even conservatives are acknowledging that geothermal energy could have a place in America’s energy future.

     In the past, Nicolas Loris of the Heritage Foundation has acknowledged that green energy sources like geothermal power “can make a small contribution” to America’s energy needs. However, like many conservatives, Loris has argued that geothermal energy and its green cousins will never produce the massive amounts of energy needed to keep this country running. Loris may have a point.

     While geothermal energy development may be on the rise, we are a long way from production growing to a point where it could have a significant impact on energy consumption in the United States. Furthermore, there are considerable obstacles to expanded geothermal energy production. Experts admit that geothermal sites are “expensive and it's risky to develop”. Until now, geothermal energy producers have overcome these obstacles with a little help from the government and the American taxpayer. Even geothermal proponents have acknowledged that the industry has been able to expand because “federal and state government have put in place laws and policies to really promote clean energy”.

     These obstacles make it unlikely that geothermal energy will grow much more in the near future. Any industry that needs to rely on government support probably isn’t strong enough to sustain itself in the long run. This is especially true now, when the name of the game in Washington is spending cuts and reduced government regulation. In the years ahead, geothermal energy will probably have to sink or swim on its own. The industry certainly seems to have potential, but I won’t be expecting a geothermal plant in my area anytime soon.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Departing from the script -- an update

Is it possible that Republicans and Democrats no longer know what to make of Richard Muller, the Berkelely professor, who reportedly did an about-face on the issue of climate change?

We noted last week that prior to a March 31 congressional hearing on global warming, Muller had been treated as a hero by conservative organizations for his skepticism of global warming.  He had been roundly denounced by liberal organizations for the same reason.

But then Muller appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on March 31 and announced that preliminary results from his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project supported a global warming trend.

Since then, liberal commentator Joseph Romm of the Center for American Progress, who had called Muller an author of "debunked books" and a "liar" as late as four days before the March 31 hearing, seems to have had nothing further to say about him.

And conservative commentator Conn Carroll of the Heritage Foundation was blogging as late as March 17 that Muller had exposed left-wing "duplicity" on climate change by the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration.   Carroll too does not appear to have had anything further to say about Muller since March 31.

In fact, a Google search of "Richard Muller" and "climate change" over the last month turns up relatively little after the March 31 hearing.  It all may go to show that once you depart from your political script, even on scientific issues, people are no longer going to be quite as interested in what you have to say.

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Rising Gas Prices Give Conservatives Political Ammo Against Obama Administration

     As gas prices approach record highs the Obama administration is taking more hits regarding its energy policy. Last month, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour accused the administration of deliberately driving up oil prices as a means of promoting environmental goals such as reducing carbon emissions and increasing the use of hybrid cars. While the Obama administration has denied these charges, there is no denying that the administration has not been a friend of the oil industry and has promoted energy policies (ie the moratorium on oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico) that have, arguably, helped to drive up gas prices.

     This isn’t the first time the administration has had to deflect charges of this kind. Prior to becoming Obama’s Energy Secretary, Steven Chu openly called for a significant increase in gas prices to force Americans to buy more fuel efficient vehicles. While the Obama administration distanced itself from these comments and Chu backpedaled to some degree, the political fallout has lingered over Obama ever since.

     It certainly doesn’t help Obama that the concept of purposefully driving up gas prices has been adopted by some liberals and environmentalists. There is a real debate occurring in some circles right now over whether or not rising gas prices are a good thing for the long term interests of the United States and the world. Unfortunately for President Obama, most Americans don’t see it that way. With many families struggling financially now, few working Americans want to hear that rising gas prices are a good thing. What the average American wants to hear is that the government is doing everything it can to reduce gas prices for the country. Regrettably, this is not the message that is coming out of the White House.

     At the moment, there is no conclusive evidence that Obama supports rising oil prices. Much like the Van Jones fiasco, Obama has distanced himself from the radical comments of his subordinates and has sought to project a politically moderate image. However, at the very least, Obama has once again demonstrated his poor judgment in selecting people for political positions. And while the administration can deny it desires higher gas prices, gas prices are still going up and the administration has failed to take clear, deliberate action to counter this trend. Regardless of Obama’s motives, the reality of rising gas prices coupled with Barbour’s accusations should be a real concern for the President as we approach the 2012 election.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Energy and Environmental Policy Dominate Budget Debates

As the budget battle rages in Congress and a government shutdown looms closer, energy and environmental policy are becoming the central issue in the budget debate. The newly released GOP budget is aimed at cutting government spending and reducing energy prices through a combination of cuts to the EPA and an easing of regulations on domestic energy producers. The proposal also calls for cuts to government funding of energy related research.  All of these cuts have met with great approval among conservatives but are, of course, angering liberals and environmental advocates.

     The Republican proposed budget is the antithesis of the budget President Obama proposed earlier this year. Obama’s budget, which was praised by liberal groups, called for large increases in government funding of clean-energy research and greater regulation on oil and coal producers. These diametrically opposed views of energy policy are making it less likely that a compromise can be reached and a government shutdown prevented.

     Ultimately, Obama and the Democrats are going to have a difficult time selling their proposal to the American people. Boehner and the Republicans have done an excellent job of taking the initiative and shaping the debate. This new budget proposal puts Democrats on the defensive while helping Republicans to appear proactive. Furthermore Republicans took the House of Representatives by running a platform of smaller government and spending cuts. With concern over the poor economy and American debt growing, the American people, for the most part, want to hear that spending will be slashed and taxes will be reduced. The Republican budget captures the sentiments that they ran on and that got them elected.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Departing from the script on climate change

It's always interesting when the political scripts aren't followed in scientific issues.  And Berkeley professor Richard Muller's about-face last week on the issue of climate change may be one of the most notable departures from the script in recent years.

If you haven't heard yet, Muller, a noted skeptic of climate change, delivered the preliminary results of his Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project at a congressional hearing last week.  To the chagrin of conservative critics of the global warming theory, Muller announced that the preliminary results of the project support a global warming trend "very similar to that reported by prior groups."  It hasn't been missed by liberal commentators, such as the New York Times' Paul Krugman, that the Berkeley project has been partly financed by the Koch foundation, the deep-pocket supporter of conservative causes, including climate change denial.

Just a couple of weeks ago, conservative commenter Conn Caroll was extolling Muller as exposing "left's duplicity on climate change" on the Heritage Foundation's blogsite. 

Perhaps just as predictably, Joseph Romm at the liberal Center for American Progress, was denouncing Muller as an author of "widely debunked books," just three days before the March 31 hearing by the House Committee on Science Space and Technology, at which Muller did his about-face on climate change.

We'll stay tuned to this one to see just what the new impressions of Muller from the right and left will be over the next few weeks.

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Japan's Nuclear Crisis Benefits the Coal Industry

     While the nuclear crisis in Japan may have set back the nuclear power industry in the United States, another major player in the energy industry is getting an unexpected boost. With public reticence of nuclear power growing and Japan searching for a new energy source to replace its lost nuclear plant, the coal industry is stepping up to fill the void.

     The debate over coal power has been raging for a long time in the United States. Liberal groups have largely condemned coal power as a major environmental hazard and a dead-end for job creation.  Meanwhile, conservatives have rallied behind coal; calling for an expansion of coal mining in the name of fostering American energy independence and strengthening the economy.  In light of the present circumstances, liberals will likely be unable to hold back the expansion of the coal industry.

     With nuclear power taking a PR hit and oil still reeling from the BP incident, coal and its supporters are getting a boost to their cause. As the Obama Administration continues to work against the expansion of oil drilling and nuclear power loses traction in the wake of Japans nuclear crisis, coal is the only major energy source left available. In the years to come, we will likely see a major expansion of the American coal industry as demand for cheap energy grows both at home and abroad.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Obama's political energy calculus

President Obama's energy speech on Wednesday at Georgetown University continues his middle-road approach to reducing  U.S. dependence on foreign oil.  The president called for a mix of left-leaning approaches -- greater production of biofuels and higher energy efficiency standards for heavy trucks -- and right-leaning approaches -- greater use by oil companies of federal onshore and offshore drilling leases.

The problem may be that this approach isn't really satisfying either side. But this may reflect his political calculation that it is better to risk alienating both core Republican and Democratic constituencies in hopes of keeping the vast, moderate middle in his camp.  These, he hopes, are largely independent voters, with enough Democrats sprinkled in to maintain a majority of support for the course he's following. 

The conservative Heritage Foundation commended the president's call for more domestic drilling, but says the administration's actions haven't matched its rhetoric.  The administration needs to "stop dragging its feet" in approving new leases in places like the Gulf of Mexico, Nicholas Loris of the Heritage Foundation said, with no mention, of course, of last year's BP oil spill there.  Needless to say, Loris is not high on subsidies for biofuels and electric cars.  Electric cars, high-speed rail and similar initiatives are expensive "pet projects," Loris maintains, while biofuels subsidies will only hurt consumers and taxpayers.

On the left, the U.S. PIRG called one day before Obama's speech for a freeze on the construction of new nuclear reactors and a suspension on re-licensing of the oldest plants in the nation, in the wake of the ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan.  In his speeach on Wednesday, Obama acknowledged the new nuclear safety concerns caused by Japan's crisis, and said he will commission a review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure the safety of this country's reactors.  But he also said he remains committed to building a new generation of nuclear power plants in the U.S.  It's all part of the political calculus.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting

What's Really Behind Rising Gas Prices?

     One of the biggest economic concerns for Americans today is the continued rise of gas prices. In already difficult economic times, many families are being pushed to their financial limit by rising gas prices. According to the Brookings Institution, in 2008 “Americans earning less than $15,000 a year were spending as much as 15 percent of their household income on gasoline”. This should demonstrate the how central gas prices are to the financial well-being of Americans and especially the poor. Furthermore, beyond the direct hit to our wallets, rising gas prices can have other consequences.

     As gas prices rise, they will inevitably drive up prices of other goods. We are already seeing a rise in food prices which is being caused, at least in part, by increased shipping costs as a result of higher gas prices. This is a source of great concern for all Americans and both sides of the political spectrum are quick to offer their own explanations and solutions.

     Members of the Political Right are quick to argue for an expansion of drilling for oil as the solution to our problems. Conn Caroll, of the Heritage Foundation has recently written an article which lays the blame for rising gas prices on the Obama administration’s failure to increase oil production in the United States.

     On the Left, the solution is often presented as a reduction in U.S. demand for oil.  A new article from the Center for American Progress is calling for investment in more fuel efficient vehicles and more public transportation. This reduction in oil demand, according to the Left, will drive down gas prices and make Americans less dependent oil in general.

     While the arguments of both the Left and Right have merit and may work in the short term, they both seem to overlooking the major cause of rising gas prices which is an increased global demand for oil. As nations like India and China modernize and industrialize their demand for oil will only increase. Regardless of what we do in America, the rest of the world will only demand more oil in the years to come and this will have a profound impact on oil and gas prices. In the long run, our best hope is find alternatives to oil for our energy needs through technological innovation.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Obama's Mixed Message on Energy Policy

     Events in Libya and Japan may have overshadowed President Obama’s recent trip to South America but the political consequences of this trip certainly deserve greater attention from the media and the American public. Perhaps the most important event of President Obama’s visit was his statement of support regarding the Brazilian government-owned oil company Petrobras. President Obama “expressed interest in helping Petrobras develop”  deep sea oil and natural gas reserves.  This statement coming after recent controversies regarding deep sea oil drilling in U.S. waters is sure to become a major issue when the events in Japan and the Middle East settle down.

     President Obama has taken a strong stand against deep sea oil drilling in the past; issuing, and defending in court, a moratorium on deep sea drilling following the BP disaster last year. This pro-environmentalist stance has predictably been praised by the Left while it is condemned by the Right. Obama’s stance against deep-water drilling does not seem to apply to the rest of the world however. There has already been some controversy regarding American loans to Petrobras for deep-water exploration and now the U.S. government has given Petrobras permission to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Defenders of President Obama have been quick to argue that these decisions have been made by various agencies and that the President cannot be held responsible. Such arguments, however, cannot explain the President’s statements of support for the Brazilian oil company.

     These recent decisions appear to be a major political misstep on the part of the President. By opposing deep-water drilling by American companies while he supports the same endeavors on the part of Petrobras he appears hypocritical and will ultimately upset both sides of the political spectrum. At a time when American’s are calling for greater energy independence, attacking America oil companies while supporting their foreign competitors can only harm the Presidents image.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Crisis in Japan Reignites Nuclear Debate in U.S.

     The recent devastation in Japan and its aftermath have reignited energy policy debates in the United States. The most immediate effect was the brief reduction in oil prices as the disaster reduced demand in Japan for oil. At a time when oil prices are only going up, this brief respite has, if anything, called more attention to the almost inevitable rise in oil prices in the years to come. Perhaps more significant, however, was the meltdown of a Japanese nuclear reactor following the disaster. As concerns of radiation leaks continue to persist in Japan, the mainstream media has, for the most part, stoked the flames of fear and paranoia in the United States. With the inhabitants of California bracing for nuclear fallout, debate over the use of nuclear power in the United States has begun anew.

          On the Left, opponents of nuclear power have not let this crisis go to waste. U.S. PIRG released a statement last week calling the crisis in Japan a warning to Americans about nuclear power. This statement, complete with statistics about how many people live near a given power plant and how old these plants are, unambiguously labeled nuclear power as “unacceptable”.

Conservatives, it would seem, have not been daunted by the situation in Japan and continue to call for an expansion of nuclear power in the United States. Writing for the Heritage Foundation, Jack Spencer has dismissed the concerns raised by the Japan incident as “hype” and has accused anti-nuclear power advocates on the left of “politicizing” a disaster which has no bearing on conditions in the United States.

     While the pundits and politicians of both sides seem to be keeping to the old talking points, the public has clearly been affected by the situation in Japan. A new Gallup poll shows that American support for new nuclear plants has dropped by more than ten percent since the crisis in Japan and supporters of expanding nuclear power are now in the minority. This has put supporters of nuclear power on the defensive, but it has done little to change their opinions or talking points.

     As the nuclear crisis is resolved and the media turns to new crises, supporters of nuclear power will likely go on the offensive. If Japan’s nuclear crisis turns out to be more hysteria than real danger then Conservatives may even win back support as oil prices continue to rise. Ultimately, the crisis in Japan will not change the debate on nuclear power. It has, however, brought that debate to the foreground of American discourse.

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

Steve Michaels

Twitter: SteveMichaels5

Nuclear crisis in Japan may take N-power option off the table in U.S.

The nuclear power crisis in Japan has resulted in predictable political responses in the U.S., but it may take nuclear power off the table, at least for the time being, as a likely option in moving this country toward an agreed-upon goal of energy independence.

When it comes to energy independence, Republicans and conservatives tend to argue in favor of more nuclear power and loosening restrictions on drilling for oil in the U.S., while Democrats and others on the left have renewed calls for reducing our reliance on fossil fuels altogether and shifting to renewable sources of energy.

President Obama has tried to chart a middle course in the debate, although even he hasn't been playing up his previously stated support of the nuclear power option.

In response to a speech by Obama on energy independence earlier this month, Republicans recited some familiar lines.  House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, countered that this nation's energy problems can be dealt with by increasing drilling leases in the Gulf of Mexico and other domestic locations and by reducing EPA and other regulations on businesses. 

Boehner's position stems from the long-held positions of conservative organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, which has maintained that energy independence can be achieved through more domestic production and that peak oil is not an imminent problem.

David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation has argued, for instance, that the technology for extracting oil from hard-to-reach areas has been improving rapidly and that the real obstacles standing in the way of that domestic oil extraction and its contribution toward energy independence are federal regulations and moratoria on off-shore drilling.

At the same time, the Democratic calls for renewable technology reflect positions such as that of Robert Lempert of the RAND Corporation, who has suggested a strategy under which nations "would invest towards a clean energy revolution," which would involve international negotiations over carbon tariffs and other measures to promote "zero emissions economies." 

Why we need CredoMatrix -- please pledge now

David Kassel
Accountable Strategies Consulting, LLC

Situation in Libya renews debate over energy independence

The contribution of the unrest in Libya and other countries in the Middle East to rising oil prices have renewed the debate in this country over energy independence, with Republicans and Democrats proposing their own differing opinions of just what energy independence means.

In a defense of his energy policy on March 11, President Obama tried to take a middle course in the debate, calling both for new investment in clean energy and technology, and for more domestic oil production, although he didn't specifically repeat his calls for loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants in the U.S.  He also said the U.S. was prepared to tap into its Strategic Petrolueum Reserve.

That impetus for clean energy as a means toward energy independence was reflected in The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 , whose stated purpose is “to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security,” and to increase the production of clean renewable fuels.  According to Wikipedia, the legislation originally sought to cut subsidies to the petroleum industry in order to promote oil independence and different forms of alternative energy.  However, those tax changes were dropped as a result of Senate opposition, and the final bill focused on automobile fuel economy, development of biofuels, and energy efficiency in public buildings and lighting.

Why we need CredoMatrix - please pledge now

David Kassel

Accountable Strategies Consulting, LLC

A possible setback for one stem cell alternative

Scientists developing stem cell therapy have wandered into a minefield of controversy. While embryonic stem cells may eventually be developed into treatments for currently incurable conditions, some portion of the population will always have ethical concerns about the cells' source. But in 2006, it appeared that a compromise had been struck: cells that are derived from adult tissues and treated to revert them to their versatile embryonic state. Even pro-life groups which oppose research into embryonic stem cells have generally embraced this particular alternative. Since then, research into the induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) has furiously tried to turn theory into therapy.

However, two papers published in Nature earlier this month show how much we have to learn about the process of making iPSCs. The first group of these cells was created by using viruses to insert genes into adult skin cells--and one of those genes is known to be involved in cancer. Since then, researchers have tried to make their methods safer, and it seemed to be working. But even now, iPSCs still carry a substantial amount of risk, as Ed Yong explains in Discover magazine:

It’s a notoriously inefficient technique. If you start with 100,000 skin cells, you’d only get a handful of iPSCs at the end of it. Scientists pick these lonely successes and grow them into a large colony again, in which all the cells came from a single ancestor. They repeat the process again and again until they get enough cells.

This is a stressful process for cells. It churns out a lot of highly reactive molecules that charge around and damage DNA as they collide with it. This may explain why Hussein and Batada found a lot of new CNVs [copy number variations, where entire genes are duplicated or deleted] at particularly fragile and exposed parts of the genome.

There’s another problem – by repeatedly growing colonies from small groups of cells, scientists squeeze them through a genetic bottleneck. Any mutations that arose in the cherry-picked cells get a helping hand, and they soon dominate the new population. It might even be that iPSCs with mutations in cancer genes are better at growing, and more likely to be picked by eager geneticists.

This explains why iPSCs contained mutations even if they weren’t created using DNA-infiltrating viruses. Fortunately, this problem also suggests an obvious solution – it may be possible to avoid any genetic changes by creating iPSCs more efficiently. Many groups are on the case. Some are adding accelerating molecules to the mix, while others are changing the environment that they grow the cells in. Yet others are working on ways of screening iPSCs on their quality and usefulness, to pick the best and most-suited cells for the job.

Of course, possible pitfalls exist for all forms of stem cell therapy. The first human trial involving embryonic stem cells began in October 2010, after a months-long delay prompted by concerns over patients' safety, and it is too soon to say whether the trial was successful. For doctors and patients anxiously holding out hope for stem-cell derived cures, it seems that those cures are perpetually "just over the horizon."

Follow us at the following:
Facebook      http://www.facebook.com/pages/CredoMatrix/113016182087026?ref=ts
Twitter          http://twitter.com/credomatrix
YouTube       http://www.youtube.com/user/CredoMatrix
LinkedIn       http://www.linkedin.com/groups/CredoMatrix-3796294?mostPopular=&gid=3796294
IndieGoGo    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/20090
VenCorps      http://www.vencorps.com/Page/ViewIdea?ideaid=1913

by Matt Feltz (@mattfeltz)

Why CredoMatrix

I started working on CredoMatrix in the spring of 2010, when I got laid off from my last job.  CredoMatrix has come a long way since that gem of an idea.  Why am I continuing to work relentlessly on make it successful?  I got a new job, it's not the money.

Because at the end of the day, I believe CredoMatrix will make a difference.  While the news media is groping in high technology trying to understand how to use it without giving it away, they are at the wrong side of the technology pipe. It's like focusing on ink instead of the printing press, you don't try to provide news for television by panning over a newspaper.  You need a radically different model for the Internet.

There are lots of examples in high technology where data analysis is covers very sophisticated topics and markets.  I've seen and have been involved with countless product and market competitive analysis in my career.  Why not apply these methodologies to Politics?

When I started pitching the idea to people I know, groups I'm involved in.  I found some people think I'm crazy, or don't get it.  But there are people in a group where I'm discussing CredoMatrix and I see their eyes suddenly open wide, like a lightbulb just went on over their head. Other people come up to me after I done talking and ask me when it'll be ready.  I realize there is an audience for this.

We focus on "Long-Arc" issues.  Topics that never really go away, but come back in the daily news cycle as something else.  When I first started organizing the concept of CredoMatrix - Science, I wrote down the sub-topics within 15 minutes.  10 months later, those sub-topics are just as relevant.  That is the definition of Long-Arc issues. 
This is the CredoMatrix Survey below, how would you fill it out?

Why CredoMatrix?  Because it's worth doing.

Follow us at the following:
Facebook      http://www.facebook.com/pages/CredoMatrix/113016182087026?ref=ts
Twitter          http://twitter.com/credomatrix
YouTube       http://www.youtube.com/user/CredoMatrix
LinkedIn       http://www.linkedin.com/groups/CredoMatrix-3796294?mostPopular=&gid=3796294
IndieGoGo    http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/20090
VenCorps      http://www.vencorps.com/Page/ViewIdea?ideaid=1913

Dave Doucette
Founder, CredoMatrix