------- Index of Articles

NUCLEAR
Japan seeks US go-ahead to return MOX fuel to UK
Pentagon Says Missile Killer Hit 'Sweet Spot'
Russia OKs test of shield
Nuke Plant Tax Break Criticized
Closer U.S. Ties Sought on Nuclear Disaster Plans
Plan Revised For Disposal Of Plutonium
Whereabouts Of U.'s Uranium Still Unknown
State Dept. Gains Access to Kissinger Transcripts
Directors on Board

MILITARY
Microbe Warfare Hides the Enemy
Egypt Denies Developing Ballistic Missiles
U.S. and British Warplanes Attack Air Defense Targets in Iraq
US - Iraq Chronology
Marines Face Charges in Osprey Case

OTHER
World Reacts to U.S. Stem Cell Plan
Bush Backs Partial Stem Cell Funding
Text of President Bush's Speech
THE BASIC RESEARCH
Paris, Berlin press crusade for global cloning ban




-------- NUCLEAR

-------- japan

Japan seeks US go-ahead to return MOX fuel to UK

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
JAPAN: August 10, 2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/11984

TOKYO - Tokyo has asked Washington for a green light to ship to Britain a consignment of MOX nuclear fuel, part of which originated in the United States, a Japanese power company said yesterday.

Under a bilateral agreement, Washington must approve the transfer of any nuclear fuel containing US-made material, in this case uranium.

The MOX - a blend of uranium and plutonium recycled from spent nuclear fuel - was initially shipped in 1999 from British Nuclear Fuels Ltd (BNFL) to Kansai Electric Power Co Inc for use at one of its reactors.

But BNFL agreed last July to take back the fuel after Kansai Electric discovered accompanying data had been falsified. It also agreed to pay compensation of 40 million pounds ($56.62 million). Masahiro Takasugi, Kansai Electric's deputy general manager, told reporters the company hoped US approval would come by the end of the year.

The utility aims to return the MOX between April and December, although no schedule has been set, he said.

"The shipment cannot be made in winter because the sea is too rough then," Takasugi said.

Kansai Electric could not comment on future MOX contracts until the consignment was returned to Britain, he said.

The Japanese utility had initially planned to load the MOX fuel at its Takahama nuclear power plant in Fukui prefecture on the Sea of Japan coast.

The revelation that MOX data had been falsified coincided with Japan's worst nuclear incident and the two incidents ignited smouldering public distrust of the nuclear industry.

In September 1999, an accident at a uranium reprocessing plant operated by JCO Co Ltd in Tokaimura, about 140 km (90 miles) northeast of Tokyo, killed two workers and exposed hundreds of residents to radiation.

No Japanese power plant has used MOX despite industry plans to begin loading the fuel in 1999.

The government and nuclear industry say they will continue to seek the public's understanding on the use of MOX, which they argue is an important resource for energy-hungry Japan.

A third of Japan's electricity comes from nuclear power.

-------- missile defense

Pentagon Says Missile Killer Hit 'Sweet Spot'

By Vernon Loeb
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 10, 2001; Page A05
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54462-2001Aug9?language=printer

Pentagon officials yesterday provided new details on last month's successful test of a possible missile defense system, saying the interceptor launched from the Marshall Islands hit the "sweet spot" of a dummy warhead and pulverized it, producing no debris bigger than six inches.

Army Maj. Gen. Willie B. Nance Jr. said the "kill vehicle" launched from Kwajalein Atoll on July 14 hit the dummy warhead in a spot that would have ensured destruction of a real nuclear warhead, about a foot and a half below its tip. A less "lethal" point of impact, Nance told reporters at the Pentagon, could produce larger debris that might fall to Earth rather than burn up in the atmosphere.

Nance portrayed the test as further confirmation of the feasibility of "hit-to-kill" technology, which has worked in two of four flight tests. He also dismissed media reports that the test essentially was rigged by a homing beacon.

The beacon in the dummy warhead launched atop a Minuteman II missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California was necessary only to make up for the lack of a radar system that the Pentagon plans to build later, Nance said.

Data from the beacon was relayed to the interceptor missile in Kwajalein, 5,000 miles away, so that it would put the 4.5-foot, 120-pound kill vehicle in the approximate area of the incoming warhead. But once the kill vehicle separated from its booster rocket about 450 miles away from its target, Nance said, it relied solely on its own infrared sensors and computers to distinguish the dummy warhead from a 5.5-foot Mylar balloon decoy. No data, Nance said, ever went directly from the beacon to the kill vehicle.

Theodore A. Postol, a leading missile defense critic at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agreed that the beacon was merely a substitute for a missing radar and did not detract from the test.

But Postol said in an interview yesterday that he still considered the test "meaningless." The Pentagon's Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, he said, has no technology that can discriminate between a warhead and the dozen or more balloon decoys that adversaries could reasonably be expected to use in a real attack.

"They were basically demonstrating that they have the guidance and the control to hit a cooperating target," Postol said, adding that the kill vehicle was programmed with the shape, brightness and orientation of the dummy warhead and decoy, information no adversary would provide in advance.

Nance acknowledged that the kill vehicle's computers had been programmed with the shape and other physical characteristics of its target. He also conceded that last month's test, as well as four similar experiments scheduled between now and September 2002, "are not stressing discrimination" of warheads from decoys.

But administration officials have said they believe the discrimination problem, though difficult, is surmountable. That challenge, they say, will be met in future years as the Pentagon expands its test facilities and further refines the hit-to-kill technology, allowing for more realistic tests involving multiple decoys.

--------

Russia OKs test of shield

August 10, 2001
By Ben Barber
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010810-192011.htm

Russia gave the United States the go-ahead yesterday to test a missile-defense system, saying testing alone would not violate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty as long as Washington notifies Moscow beforehand.

Even one of the more provocative measures suggested by the Bush administration -- a permanent base in Alaska to test rockets and other devices needed to build a missile shield -- could be within ABM treaty limits, said Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, deputy chief of the General Staff.

"Automatically, it would not mean violation of the treaty," Gen. Baluyevsky told reporters at the Russian Embassy, when asked about the Alaska proposal. "Under the treaty, testing can be carried out, but only with notification."

The remarks by Gen. Baluyevsky, who headed a 10-member Russian delegation to security talks with Pentagon officials this week, indicated Russia is continuing to ease its objections to U.S. efforts to develop a system capable of hitting incoming nuclear warheads.

Until recently, Russia had been bitterly opposed to President Bush's plans to develop a missile shield.

But Moscow opened the door to a possible shift when Mr. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed last month in Genoa, Italy, to link U.S. missile defense with large cuts that the Kremlin wants in both nations' nuclear arsenals.

This week's talks were to provide details of the U.S. program to the Russians in advance of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's talks in Moscow next week with Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov.

Gen. Baluyevsky said the U.S. side gave no indication it planned to either abrogate the ABM treaty or attempt to change it.

He also said he doubted if it were possible to build an effective missile shield.

"Today, the technical level does not allow us to assure 100 percent efficiency of the [missile-defense] system," Gen. Baluyevsky said.

"[Even] in the very distant future, we will not be able to solve the problem of providing 100 percent effectiveness of the system.

"I don't have to explain to you what is the result of the explosion of one single warhead over your own city.

"I am convinced that future generations will arrive at a different conclusion, a simpler conclusion, than building such a [missile-defense] system," said the general.

He said that Russian technical observations of a July 14 missile test, in which a U.S. missile shot down a dummy warhead over the Pacific, cast doubt on whether it was the clear success described by Washington.

"There is no precise data which would show there was a direct hit of the payload against the dummy," he said.

His remarks came as the Pentagon announced it is on track to conduct another missile-defense test in October and three more next year.

In announcing the tests, Army Maj. Gen. Willie Nance told a news conference that last month's successful "hit-to-kill" U.S. test over the Pacific Ocean was almost flawless.

The United States is attempting to convince the Russians that the proposed missile shield is not a threat to Russia or to world security but only intended to defend against launches by rogue states, such as North Korea, Iran and Iraq.

While developing the system, the United States is also prepared to make deep cuts in its current nuclear arsenal.

Gen. Baluyevsky said yesterday that unilateral U.S. cuts in nuclear missiles are not acceptable without verification and without guarantees the warheads won't be used on other launch vehicles.

Mr. Bush has pledged to build the system even it requires modification or abandonment of the ABM treaty.

That treaty allowed each side to build missile defense only around its capital or a single military command center.

Russia built a system around Moscow, but the United States did not build one.

The heartland and all other cities of each country remained vulnerable to missile attacks -- a policy that sought to guarantee peace through mutually assured destruction, or MAD, in Cold War jargon.

-------- u.s. nuc facilities

Nuke Plant Tax Break Criticized

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Nuclear-Tax-Break.html?searchpv=aponline

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration wants to change the tax code to make sure all owners of nuclear power plants can write off the cost of decommissioning.

Utilities that have rates set by government agencies already can deduct the money they must set aside in special funds for decommissioning, typically hundreds of millions of dollars. The tax break is not automatically transferred, however, when a plant is bought by a company without regulated rates.

In those cases, the Internal Revenue Service must approve a tax break. The IRS has done that routinely since a flurry of nuclear plant sales began two years ago. Even so, opponents who don't want to see the tax break written into law contend it will do nothing but guarantee more revenue for plant owners.

``This won't produce a single more megawatt of electricity to meet summer reliability needs,'' said Howard Learner of the Chicago-based Environmental Law and Policy Center. ``All it will do is transfer hundreds of millions of dollars from consumers' wallets to nuclear plant owners'.''

Supporters say it makes no sense for a tax break already in place for a plant not to be automatically transferred to a new owner.

``There's absolutely no reason for any distinction to be made here,'' said David Brown, lobbyist for Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the largest private nuclear operator in the United States.

The issue is growing in importance because more nuclear power plants are likely to be sold as electricity is increasingly deregulated across the country. New Orleans-based Entergy Corp., for example, has said it plans to spend up to $1.5 billion to acquire as many as a dozen plants in the next five years.

Like private companies, most ``public'' utilities are owned by investors. The difference is they are obligated to provide power to everyone in their service areas. In exchange for their monopoly status, their rates and earnings are regulated by states.

The tax break was vetoed in 1999 by President Clinton but was revived by the Bush administration and approved last week as part of the House energy bill. It faces an uncertain future in the Senate, which will consider its own energy package this fall.

Now, when nuclear power plants are sold from rate-regulated to nonregulated owners, the decommissioning money doesn't retain the ``qualified'' tax status and thus are no longer tax deductible.

The new owners still are required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to maintain the funds to ensure that money is on hand to close and clean the plants safely after they stop generating power.

Electric companies, which contributed more than $18.5 million to Democratic and Republican candidates and parties in the 1999-2000 election cycle, say it's a case of tax law not keeping up with changes in the electricity marketplace.

Since Entergy bought the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station in Plymouth, Mass., from Boston Edison Co. in July 1999, eight nuclear reactors have been sold from rate-regulated to nonregulated owners.

The biggest deal was closed four months ago, when Richmond, Va.-based Dominion Resources Inc. bought the Millstone nuclear power complex in Waterford, Conn., for $1.3 billion.

A change in the law, said Ron Clements, a power industry lobbyist, would help facilitate deals that might otherwise fall through, keeping nuclear plants online to churn out much-needed electricity for homes and businesses.

In cases where deals go through anyway, customers will end up paying more for power, he said.

``Rates will go up,'' said Clements, of the Edison Electric Institute, the main trade association of private power companies.

Critics say it's wrong to give a tax break to corporations that want to maximize their profits and thus could bear the costs of decommissioning.

``Fair is fair,'' Learner said. ``It's part of the cost of doing business.''

The congressional Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that the change, and other tax changes related to nuclear decommissioning, would cost the federal government $1.93 billion in revenue from 2002-2011.

-------- new york

Closer U.S. Ties Sought on Nuclear Disaster Plans

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/10/nyregion/10NUKE.html?searchpv=nytToday

WHITE PLAINS, Aug. 9 - Two federal agencies responsible for ensuring the public's safety in the event of a radioactive accident at the Indian Point 2 nuclear plant need to coordinate better with local officials drawing up emergency plans, the federal General Accounting Office has concluded.

The G.A.O., in a report made public today, said that bureaucratic entanglements had kept officials in Westchester, Putnam, Rockland and Orange Counties from direct contact with the federal agencies as they prepared disaster drills and the like for any emergencies at the plant.

Instead, the agencies - the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency - tend to share information on training and technical matters with the state's Emergency Management Office, which in turn passes it on to the county governments. As a result, the report said, some county officials were unaware of new federal regulations used as a guide.

Westchester County officials say they cannot call the Federal Emergency Management Agency directly to consult on plans for evacuation exercises. The agency, a spokeswoman for the county government said, insists that the county relay questions through the Emergency Management Office.

"It's ridiculous," said Susan Tolchin, the spokeswoman.

Mike Beeman, a spokesman for FEMA, said the agency was reviewing the report and was open to improving communications.

A spokeswoman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said that communication with the counties had already been stepped up, and that she had met several times with officials in Westchester County, where the plant is situated. Ms. Tolchin agreed that there were improvements.

The General Accounting Office report was requested by Representatives Benjamin A. Gilman of Rockland County and Sue W. Kelly and Nita M. Lowey, both of Westchester. They asked for it because of communication gaps found to exist between Con Edison, which operates the plant, the N.R.C. and the county after a February 2000 accident that caused a small radioactive leak.

The leak did not pose a health risk to the public, federal officials said. But in the hours after the accident, conflicting reports were issued by the utility and the nuclear commission about the severity of the problem, the G.A.O. said, suggesting a broader communications problem.

-------- south carolina

Plan Revised For Disposal Of Plutonium

Associated Press
Friday, August 10, 2001; Page A06
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57194-2001Aug10?language=printer

The Energy Department is revamping a Clinton-era plan to dispose of 50 metric tons of surplus plutonium amid cost overruns, prompting threats from South Carolina's governor to block shipments into the state.

An Energy Department report, made public yesterday by a private group, concludes that the cost of disposing of the plutonium will be at least $6.6 billion over 22 years, about 50 percent more than estimated two years ago.

At the same time, the Bush administration has put on hold part of the program that called for some plutonium to be put in glass logs for burial at the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository in Nevada, once that facility is approved.

That decision has brought complaints from South Carolina officials. They are concerned that the department will ship tons of plutonium from its weapons facilities into the state for processing, with no assurance the material will leave the state.

"When South Carolina agreed to accept plutonium . . . DOE agreed that there would be a clear exit strategy," South Carolina Gov. Jim Hodges (D) said recently.

Hodges said the "shifting nature" of the government's plutonium disposition strategy suggests that the Energy Department "plans to renege on many of its prior commitments" to the state.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham talked with Hodges this week, and department spokesman Joe Davis said Abraham is eager to resolve the dispute.

-------- utah

Whereabouts Of U.'s Uranium Still Unknown

Saturday, August 11, 2001
BY GLEN WARCHOL
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE
http://www.sltrib.com/08112001/utah/121423.htm

A two-pound shipment of recycled uranium, possibly contaminated with "hot" nuclear isotopes such as plutonium, was shipped to the University of Utah in 1970.

Thirty years later, neither the university, the state, nor the U.S. Department of Energy, which says the danger of such contamination is low, can account for it.

The U.'s kilogram (2.2 pounds) of radioactive material, mentioned in an inventory from the DOE's Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado, was a tiny part of the thousands of tons of recycled uranium shipped around the world beginning in the 1950s.

The sketchy records on the shipments make it difficult for officials to determine if the uranium is a serious threat.

"We haven't been in contact with the university yet, but we are planning to do that," said Bill Sinclair, director of the state Division of Radiation Control. "My suspicion is that they haven't received anything that would be harmful. But we'll check it out."

Sinclair said the uranium is "probably not very dangerous in terms of radiation exposure," depending on the level of contamination of other isotopes.

This week, U. officials were hard pressed to find a paper trail on the old radioactive shipment or its purpose.

Faculty and staff, including David M. Slaughter, director of the Center for Excellence in Nuclear Technology, scoured records and picked the brains of colleagues for leads. As of Friday, they had no success.

No one was much interested in accounting for the recycled uranium shipments until 1999 when workers at the DOE's Paducah, Ky., uranium processing plant filed a lawsuit alleging illnesses from exposure to the plutonium and other contaminants in the uranium. The government acknowledged that federal plants in Paducah; Portsmouth, Ohio; and Oak Ridge, Tenn., had concentrated the impurities in the uranium during recycling -- significantly increasing health risks.

In June, a report in USA Today found that the recycled uranium had circulated much further than the 13 government facilities first believed. More than 250,000 tons of recycled uranium had moved between hundreds of government plants, private manufacturers and university labs, the newspaper found.

Misplacing a tiny amount of uranium does not concern local nuclear watchdog groups as much as the poor accounting does.

"We are not pushing any 'sky is falling' buttons -- at the same time we'd like to know what happened to it," said Steve Erickson, a spokesman for Downwinders. "Unfortunately, in this business of bomb making there has been bad accounting.

"These materials are far more far-flung than people are led to believe and that leads one to be very skeptical and cautious of what the government says."

Because the uranium required to build nuclear weapons was costly, the government turned to recycling. The contamination of other, more radioactive, isotopes, including plutonium, neptunium and technetium was not thought to be significant.

"It's one more of those radioactive problems that afflict us," said Erickson. "It's entirely possible that this is one mystery that won't be solved."

glenwarchol@sltrib.com

-------- us nuc politics

State Dept. Gains Access to Kissinger Transcripts

By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 10, 2001; Page A04
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57156-2001Aug10?language=printer

The State Department has finally obtained unfettered access to the transcripts of former secretary of state Henry Kissinger's telephone conversations with presidents, heads of state, bureaucrats and reporters. They could be made public within a few months.

The 10,000 pages of records have been tightly guarded at the Library of Congress since 1976 under a controversial deed in which Kissinger said the papers could not be made public until five years after his death. In recent years, Kissinger's staff has made selected portions available to State Department historians under restrictive conditions that drew steady complaints.

"This rights a 25-year-old wrong," said Thomas S. Blanton, executive director of the National Security Archive, a private group that threatened to sue the government if it did not retrieve the papers. He said the courts have held that Kissinger "improperly removed them" but that only the government could take action to get them back.

State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher said yesterday that, at the department's request, Kissinger this week provided the department with copies of all the transcripts made while he was secretary. Kissinger "happily consented" to the request, Boucher said, adding that the documents would be reviewed to remove personal information and then "looked at under the normal declassification schedule."

Under current rules, which provide for automatic declassification after 25 years, most of the papers, covering the years 1973 through 1976, are now ripe for release to the public under Freedom of Information Act requests. All of them will be released by year's end, Blanton said.

Sometimes called the "Dead Key Scrolls," the transcripts were made at Kissinger's behest by secretaries using "a dead key" on an extension so they could not be heard. They taped some of the conversations, took others down in shorthand, then typed up transcripts or summaries.

Kissinger has said that the Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that the transcripts were "private." But the court held only that private parties could not sue to see them under the Freedom of Information Act because the government no longer had them. A federal court had held that the records were "property of the United States" since they were "produced on government time with the aid of department employees, equipment, materials, and other public resources."

Kissinger's other records remain in storage at the library, but many are duplicated in government files and a large number have been declassified. By contrast, Blanton estimated, 98 percent of the telephone transcripts existed only in the collection controlled by Kissinger's deed of gift.

Still untouched are 20,000 pages reflecting Kissinger's phone calls from 1969 to 1973, when he was President Richard M. Nixon's national security adviser. Blanton said these are next on his list.

--------

Directors on Board

By Al Kamen
Friday, August 10, 2001; Page A23
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57152-2001Aug10?language=printer

Stephen M. Younger, the associate director for nuclear weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, has been picked to be director of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Younger has also been in charge of the lab's Stockpile Stewardship Program.


-------- MILITARY

-------- biological weapons

Microbe Warfare Hides the Enemy

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By CHRISTOPHER F. CHYBA
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/10/opinion/10CHYB.html?searchpv=nytToday

STANFORD, Calif. -- For the past seven years, the United States has been negotiating a verification protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, hoping to put teeth into the convention's ban on biological weapons production. The Bush administration recently rejected the latest draft of the protocol, viewing it as irredeemably flawed. This is a good time to ask what a new American strategy should be for security against biological threats. It is difficult to predict the likelihood or scale of biological attack. The right policy will provide benefits whether or not an attack occurs.

The first step is conceptual: we must stop thinking about biological security in the way we think about nuclear security. Few aspects of the United States strategy for nuclear security carry over cleanly to the biological case. Security against nuclear attack has relied upon nonproliferation and deterrence, with comparatively little role, so far, for defense. Security against biological- weapons threats should lean primarily on defense.

Nonproliferation, for example, is far more difficult in the biological case. Biological agents are microscopic organisms that can be grown with equipment readily available all over the world - although the resulting weapons have proved difficult for terrorists to master. Many of the organisms can be acquired during naturally occurring outbreaks. Controls remain valuable, but they will never play the central role that they do in nuclear security. And as biotechnology explodes in the coming decades, nonproliferation will face ever greater challenges.

Deterrence may likewise be of limited use in preventing attacks with biological weapons. While the use of battlefield biological weapons may be deterred by threats, biological terrorism could remain largely immune. The incubation times of most diseases - for example, seven to 17 days for smallpox - may lead terrorists to hope they can cover their tracks through covert releases of biological agents. Deterrence relies on the threat of punishment. An attacker who cannot be identified cannot be threatened.

When the Aum Shinrikyo cultists sprayed an anthrax organism in Tokyo - they did so unsuccessfully several times before their deadly 1995 nerve-gas attack - they made no announcements and the attacks went unnoticed. When followers of the Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh infected 750 Oregonians in 1984 with salmonella, it took over a year for the attack to be distinguished from a natural outbreak.

Rather than nonproliferation and deterrence, biological security must emphasize civil defense. Civil defense in the biological realm means improving the public health system. Most important, it requires improving disease surveillance. Unusual disease outbreaks must be recognized quickly, so that a rapid response is possible. Health care workers in clinics, hospitals and private practice must know how to identify such outbreaks and be ready and able to pass their information rapidly to city, state and national authorities.

This kind of preparedness would also help to prevent unintentional outbreaks of disease. Because infected passengers can travel the world in less time than it takes for a disease to incubate, it is crucial, for the national interest as well as for humanitarian reasons, to improve disease surveillance overseas. The United States welcomes 50 million visitors every year and imports $40 billion worth of food. Disease cannot be stopped at the border. The United States must act internationally as well as nationally.

Because biological security would offer protection against both natural and nefarious transmission of disease, a sound policy would directly benefit society even if no attack ever happened. Effective biological security requires that we fit the cure to the disease.

Christopher F. Chyba, co-director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation, served on the staff of the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton.

-------- egypt

Egypt Denies Developing Ballistic Missiles

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-egypt-m.html?searchpv=reuters

CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters) - Egypt's Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher Friday denied U.S. accusations his country was developing ballistic missiles in cooperation with North Korea.

``There is no foundation for this talk and it is all a fabrication,'' Maher said in an interview broadcast on Egyptian television.

``There are people in the United States who always try to sow discord between the United States and Egypt,'' he said.

The United States said Tuesday it was keeping a close eye on Egypt's missile activities, but that it believed they were within acceptable limits.

The CIA had said in a report to Congress released in February that Egypt was continuing efforts to develop and produce ballistic missiles as part of a long-running cooperation program with North Korea.

The United States views Egypt, the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with Israel, as a strategic partner, but does not want Arab countries to acquire long-range missiles.

The United States set aside $1.3 billion in military aid for Egypt and $695 million in economic assistance this fiscal year, the biggest commitments in conventional military and economic aid to any country except Israel.

Technical publications say Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the region, is working on a missile with a range of 2,976 miles.

-------- iraq

U.S. and British Warplanes Attack Air Defense Targets in Iraq

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By REUTERS
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international/iraq-attack.html?searchpv=reuters

WASHINGTON, Aug 10 (Reuters) - Dozens of U.S. and British warplanes using guided missiles and bombs attacked three air defense sites in southern Iraq on Friday in a raid targeting Baghdad's increasingly sophisticated air defense network, the Pentagon said.

``About 50 coalition warplanes, 20 of which were strike aircraft, hit three targets. All aircraft returned safely to bases,'' Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman told Reuters.

The jets struck an air defense control center that uses fiber-optic communications cables to integrate Iraq's air defenses, an anti-aircraft missile site and a long-range radar station, all located southeast of Baghdad in a southern ``no-fly'' zone.

Whitman and officials at the British Defense Ministry in London said the strike occurred at 5:30 a.m. Washington time (0930 GMT) and about midday Iraqi time. A British official said the targets were hit and that exact damage was being assessed.

The attack, similar to a major raid against the same defenses in February, followed stepped-up efforts by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's military this year to shoot down U.S. and British warplanes that have been policing no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq since the 1991 Gulf War.

No western warplanes have been shot down over the years. But Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said in a recent news conference that Iraq was improving its air defenses ``both quantitatively and qualitatively'' with fiber-optic communications cabling.

``SELF-DEFENSE'' STRIKE

``The main aim of the strike was to protect our aircraft and our pilots - and obviously the way you do that is to degrade his (Saddam's) ability to target and hit us. Our focus and our reason for the strike was a self-defense measure,'' said Army Col. Rick Thomas, a spokesman for the U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

Asked whether the weapons had hit their targets, he said that ``battle damage assessment'' had not been completed.

Defense officials said the fiber-optic air defense control center is located near an-Numaniyah, southeast of Baghdad. The radar and anti-aircraft missile bases are farther southeast of Iraq's capital, near an-Nasiriyah.

It was the second time this week that allied planes struck Iraqi targets in the no-fly zones, although the earlier and smaller raid in the northern zone on Sunday was simply to hit back directly at anti-aircraft weapons that had fired on the planes.

Whitman told Reuters that the fiber-optic center struck on Friday was also bombed in February.

He said precision-guided munitions were used. Such weapons include missiles and bombs, which are guided to precise aiming points using satellites.

The United States had on Wednesday quickly rejected a warning from Saddam in a major speech to stop sending U.S. planes over the no-fly zones. U.S. officials said pilots would continue attacking Iraqi air defenses in response to attempts to shoot down their planes.

INCREASING ATTEMPTS BY IRAQ

At the same time, President George W. Bush said while on vacation in Texas that Saddam continued to be ``a menace'' to his neighbors and to stability in the region.

Pentagon officials said last month that the Iraqi military came close to hitting a high-altitude U.S. U-2 spy plane with a missile on July 24.

The United States also accused Iraq of apparently firing anti-aircraft missiles into both Kuwaiti and Saudi airspace on two recent occasions.

Rumsfeld said last month that Iraq had made major improvements in its air defenses since the February raid on the southern air defense network. Both Friday's raid and the February strike were much bigger in scope than dozens of tit-for-tat retaliatory air strikes against smaller Iraqi air defense targets over the past decade.

The United States said in February that Chinese technicians were helping Iraq lay fiber-optic cables to integrate its air defenses.

U.S. and British warplanes have patrolled no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq since the Gulf War, when Iraqi troops were ousted from Kuwait by a U.S.-led coalition.

Iraq was banned from using all aircraft in the zones set up by Western powers to protect minority Kurds and Shiites from attack by Saddam's forces.

--------

US - Iraq Chronology

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-US-Iraq-Chronology.html?searchpv=aponline

Recent strikes by allied forces against Iraq, including some of the most significant since the Persian Gulf War:

--Friday: The United States and Britain bomb three sites in southern Iraq after Iraq increases efforts to shoot down allied pilots.

--Aug. 7, 2001: The United States bombs a northern Iraqi air defense site, saying it was self defense after Iraq launched surface-to-air missiles and fired anti-aircraft artillery.

--May 18, 2001: American and British warplanes attack an air defense installation 180 miles southeast of Baghdad to counter Iraqi firings of surface-to-air missiles and anti-aircraft artillery in the ``no fly'' zone in southern Iraq.

--April 30, 2001: Responding to Iraqi anti-aircraft fire, U.S. jets strike Iraqi air defense sites in a northern no-fly zone.

--April 19, 2001: U.S. warplanes bomb a mobile early-warning radar in southern Iraq in response to Iraq's aggressive action against U.S. and British planes monitoring a ``no fly'' zone over southern Iraq.

--Feb. 16, 2001: Two dozen U.S. and British jets attack air defense sites around Baghdad after Iraq takes steps to improve its ability to target -- and potentially shoot down -- pilots patrolling ``no-fly'' zones.

--April 4, 2000: Coalition aircraft target four Iraqi military sites with precision-guided munitions -- including a military radar site at Nasiriyah, 17 miles southeast of Baghdad. Iraq says two killed in U.S.-British air raid in the south.

--Nov. 22, 1999: Navy fighters fire missiles at a ``surface-to-air missile site'' after Iraqi anti-aircraft artillery fire at a coalition aircraft. The site was located near the city of an-Najaf, about 85 miles south of Baghdad.

--Feb. 24, 1999: Air Force and Navy aircraft attack two Iraqi surface-to-air missile sites near Al Iskandariyah, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, in response to anti-aircraft artillery fire and an Iraqi aircraft violation of southern no-fly zone.

--Feb. 10, 1999: U.S. and British warplanes fire at two air defense sites in Iraq after three waves of Iraqi fighter jets violate southern ``no-fly'' zone.

--Dec. 16, 1998: Weapons inspectors withdrawn from Iraq. Hours later, four days of U.S.-British air and missile strikes begin, pounding Baghdad.

--June 30, 1998: A U.S. F-16 fighter fires a missile at an Iraqi surface-to-air missile battery in southern Iraq after Iraqi radar locks on four British patrol planes.

--November 1996: Two U.S. F-16 pilots fire missiles at Iraqi radar sites near the 32nd parallel in the southern no-fly zone.

--Sept. 11, 1996: Iraqi forces fire a missile at two F-16s in the northern no-fly zone. United States responds by sending more bombers, stealth fighters and another aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf region. Iraq accuses Kuwait of an ``act of war'' for allowing U.S. jets into Kuwait.

--Sept. 3-4, 1996: U.S. ships and airplanes fire scores of cruise missiles at Iraqi anti-missile sites to punish the Iraqi military for venturing into the Kurdish ``safe haven'' in northern Iraq.

--April 14, 1994: Allied planes enforcing no-fly zone shoot down two U.S. helicopters carrying a U.N. relief mission, mistaking them for Iraqi helicopters. Twenty-six people are killed, including 15 Americans.

--June 27, 1993: U.S. warships fire 24 cruise missiles at intelligence headquarters in Baghdad in retaliation for what the United States calls plot to assassinate President Bush.

--Jan. 7, 1993: After Baghdad refuses to remove missiles that United States says it has moved into southern Iraq, allied warplanes and warships attack missile sites and a nuclear facility near Baghdad.

--Aug. 27, 1992: United States, backed by Britain and France, declares ``no-fly'' zone over southern Iraq to protect Shiite Muslim rebels. United States and some allies begin air patrols.

--April 1991: United States, France, Britain declare 19,000-square-mile area of northern Iraq ``safe haven'' for Kurds and impose no-fly zone north of 36th parallel.

--Feb. 26, 1991: U.S.-led coalition forces Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. Baghdad accepts cease-fire two days later.

-------- u.s.

Marines Face Charges in Osprey Case

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Osprey-Investigation.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Eight Marines implicated in the alleged falsification of maintenance records on the Osprey aircraft have been charged with violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice, officials said Friday.

The eight have been ordered to appear for an administrative hearing to answer the charges, said Maj. Bryan Salas, a Marine Corps spokesman.

Salas declined to identify any of the eight. He said their names would not be made public until Aug. 17, which is their deadline for deciding whether to proceed with the administrative hearing. If any of them refused to attend the hearing, their commander could take a number of actions, including ordering an Article 32 hearing, a more formal procedure often likened to a grand jury proceeding in the civilian justice system.

In June, the Pentagon's chief investigator confirmed an allegation that the commander of the Marine Corps' V-22 Osprey squadron, Lt. Col. Odin Fred Leberman, falsified maintenance documents to exaggerate the aircraft's performance record. Leberman was relieved of duty the day the allegations became public in January.

The Pentagon inspector general's investigation also concluded that other Marines knew of the deception but failed to report it.

Salas declined to say whether Leberman is among the eight charged with violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Salas said that after reviewing the results of the inspector general's investigation, the commander of Marine Corps Forces Atlantic, Lt. Gen. Raymond P. Ayres Jr., notified the eight officers that he would hold an administrative hearing for their alleged roles in the falsification of records.

He also issued a nonpunitive ``letter of caution'' to one additional officer who had not previously been implicated by the inspector general, Salas said. He did not identify the recipient of the letter.

The charges cited by Ayres:

--Violation of a lawful standing general order.

--Dereliction of duty.

--Making a false official statement.

--Conduct unbecoming an officer.

Salas said none of the eight officers was charged with all four violations, although some were charged with more than one. He would not be more specific about which officers were charged with which violations.


-------- OTHER

-------- genetics

World Reacts to U.S. Stem Cell Plan

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Stem-Cells-World-Reax.html

LONDON (AP) -- President Bush's decision to fund experiments only on existing stem cell stocks maintained in laboratories didn't entirely please either supporters or opponents of stem cell research in Europe.

Reaction was mixed in Asia, where some countries are already going ahead with it while ethical concerns have prompted a more cautious approach in others.

Britain's Prolife Alliance, a splinter political party, said it was disappointed in Bush's decision ``because the issues at stake here are about absolute respect for early human life, not about compromise.''

Proponents of the research also considered Bush's announcement a compromise.

``He's made the most cautious thumbs-up to stem cell research that he possibly could. I'm sure Bush has agonized over this, but it's a bit of a non-decision in a way,'' said Juliet Tizzard, director of the Progress Education Trust, a London-based pro-research group that was involved in shepherding the approval for stem cell research through Parliament earlier this year.

Tizzard said the decision was a lost opportunity to move the field ahead more rapidly. The United States has the largest medical research budget in the world.

``It would have stepped things up massively,'' Tizzard said. ``If you look at how well research went along on the Human Genome Project, that was incredible. They invested so much money in it and it really pushed the field ahead.''

In Germany, opponents of the research welcomed Bush's decision.

``He has put the sharpest backers of experiments with human beings and on human beings in their place,'' said Joerg-Dietrich Hoppe, president of the main doctors' association. ``Here's a clear block from the United States.''

Hoppe said the decision also brought governments in Europe and the United States closer together on the issue.

The legal status of human embryo and stem cell research varies across Europe. Nine of the 15 European Union nations have legislation governing the issue.

Four countries -- Austria, Germany, France and Ireland -- ban all embryo research. France plans to change its law to open the possibility of stem cell research.

Spain and Finland allow embryo research under certain conditions. In Denmark, scientists may only conduct infertility research on embryos.

In Sweden, embryo research is allowed, and researchers may also create embryos for research if the project is approved by an ethics commission.

Britain has the most open laws on the issue. Scientists may conduct research on donated embryos, create new embryos for research and even make embryos for stem cell research by cloning.

To obtain embryonic stem cells, ``master'' cells that develop into every tissue or cell type in the body, scientists must destroy embryos. Bush's decision means that federal money cannot be used for research that involves the destruction of new embryos.

Vatican officials had no comment Friday on Bush's announcement. However, Pope John Paul II made it clear that he opposed stem cell research during a meeting with Bush on July 23 in which he urged Bush not to go ahead with it.

Italy's health minister, Girolamo Sirchia, said in an interview published in the Corriere della Sera newspapers that Bush's decision wasn't right for Italy.

``His reality is different from ours,'' Sirchia said in an interview done before Bush's announcement. ``Half of Italians are against experimentation on embryos, so I don't see why we should go against the wishes of the majority of the country when other options exist.''

John Smeaton, president and CEO of stem cell research company BresaGen, based in the southern Australian city of Adelaide, said he expected the stem cell field to move more swiftly now.

``There will be a much greater availability of brain power to press on into this area,'' said Smeaton, whose company has four stem cell lines eligible for funding.

In Asia, Nobuyuki Fukushima, deputy director at the bioindustry division of Japan's Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, said Bush's decision was in line with trends around the world.

``Japan is heading toward permitting this research, so we can't say that the decision by Bush is wrong,'' he said. But ``the pros and cons must be debated rigorously.''

Reaction was enthusiastic in South Korea, where researchers said the potential benefits outweighed the dangers.

In Singapore, where the government has set up a special panel to put together a ``collective morality'' on biotechnology, the addition of U.S. participation was seen as a boost to the research.

--------

Bush Backs Partial Stem Cell Funding

By Amy Goldstein and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 10, 2001; Page A01
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A56170-2001Aug9?language=printer

President Bush last night announced the federal government will begin to pay for a limited amount of research on stem cells from human embryos, a politically charged decision that will move taxpayer money slowly into a controversial but promising field of medical inquiry.

In his first presidential address to the American people, Bush said federal grants may be used to conduct studies solely on stem cells that have been harvested from embryos left over at fertility clinics. But he prohibited subsidies of research that involved the creation or destruction of additional embryos.

The decision, which could be overridden by Congress, represents essentially the most restrictive use of federal money the administration could have permitted short of a ban.

Saying the decision placed him at a "difficult moral intersection," Bush, an opponent of abortion, told a television audience last night that research on stem cells "offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care."

Far from resolving the controversy over the government's role in stem cell research, the president's decision is likely to prompt a fresh round of debate over science and morality on Capitol Hill as proponents of the research seek even more funding and opponents try to eliminate all subsidies.

By allowing even partial funding of research involving stem cells, Bush infuriated some conservatives who viewed any subsidies as a betrayal because the research involves the destruction of embryos, which they view as potential life. He drew measured praise from scientists, who were relieved that he had not forbidden federal funding in a field they say could lead to cures for many diseases. But they cautioned that Bush's limitations meant research would now move at a relatively slow pace.

The White House's strategy of disclosing the decision during an 11-minute prime-time speech -- with a backdrop of the Texas prairie that Bush considers home -- reflects the immense political stakes that a question of science policy has taken on for the administration and the Republican Party. The announcement's prominence is particularly striking because -- apart from his first speech to Congress on his budget priorities in February -- Bush has never given a televised address on issues such as tax cuts, education or other central goals of his young presidency.

In recent weeks, Bush's aides have been eager to demonstrate his personal agonizing over whether to permit government subsidies of this type of research. The issue has elicited an outpouring of conflicting advice to Bush from researchers, ethicists, politicians, lobbying groups and the famous -- including former first lady Nancy Reagan and the pope. Even the president's most senior advisers have been divided. The president is said to have spent a portion of every working day on the issue for the past two months.

Last night, the president shared details of his decision-making process, describing "heartfelt letters" he received from ordinary Americans, as well as conflicting advice he collected from experts in various fields. "I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection," he said. "And I have found widespread disagreement."

The stem cell controversy has created unusually intricate political fault lines. Public opinion polls indicate strong support for such research, even among a majority of Catholics, who are considered a crucial constituency if Bush is to win reelection in three years. Some prominent conservatives in the GOP have urged the president to allow subsidies, reasoning that the research holds the potential to reduce suffering from many diseases. But anti-abortion groups and other conservatives denounce such use of stem cells as a destruction of human life. The nation's religious community has been split.

Immediately after Bush's speech, several leading congressional Democrats criticized him for not opening the spigots of federal money wide enough. "Once again, the president has done the bare minimum in order to try and publicly posture himself with the majority of the Americans," said House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.). "But Americans know this is not the decision that the science community needs to go forward full force."

Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) was more muted, praising Bush for "a genuine willingness to embrace the concept . . . that the federal role in steering this research is a constructive one." But he, too, said he was concerned about the limits the president placed and predicted that "the Senate will want to take action."

Patient advocates and researchers sounded relieved that Bush had not imposed a ban, but were disappointed by the limits. "We are saddened that President Bush failed the leadership test and cast a shadow on the hopes of patients and the promise of science," said Dan Perry of the Alliance for Aging Research. He leads the patient-advocacy Coalition for Urgent Research.

Conservative Republicans and anti-abortion groups praised Bush for deciding not to pay for stem cell studies that involve the creation of new embryos for research, although they said they feared the president had created a precedent that would prove difficult to restrict in the future. "This initial research may ultimately serve as a pretext for vastly expanded research that does require the destruction of new living embryos," said House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Tex.)

Stem cells can develop into many other types of tissue, which scientists believe could create new treatments for diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's diseases, and other afflictions. Researchers consider stem cells from embryos to be especially promising, although similar cells can be found in some adult tissues.

Bush said that, as he sorted through the intricacies of the choices he faced, he was guided primarily by two questions: "First, are these frozen embryos life and, therefore, something precious to be protected. And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives."

"At its core," the president said, "this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginning of life and the ends of science."

The new policy will replace guidelines issued by the National Institutes of Health a year ago under the Clinton administration that would have allowed the first federal subsidies of human embryo cell research. Those rules did not permit the use of federal funds to destroy human embryos directly, but it would have allowed the government to sponsor studies involving stem cells taken from embryos by privately financed researchers. The policy said the embryos had to be slated for destruction at fertility clinics, frozen and used in research with donors' consent.

Bush's ground rules differ from the previous guidelines, which never went into effect, because they will permit research only on existing colonies of stem cells. The president said that 60 such colonies, or "lines," exist -- many more than scientists acknowledge.

The president also said he would create a presidential council to oversee such research and named as its chairman Leon Kass, a conservative bioethicist from the University of Chicago.

Sean Tipton of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine said the group was "concerned about the nature and the composition of the task force." Kass was an early opponent of in vitro fertilization "and has not shown a lot of signs of movement since then," Tipton said.

In an interview after Bush's speech, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson, who had urged the president to allow subsidies during the administration's internal deliberations, said the panel will "review all of the ethical questions around stem cell lines and make advisory opinions."

NIH will review grant applications from scientists starting next year. During the past several weeks, NIH has contacted all the companies, organizations and individuals in the United States and other countries that possess the existing colonies of stem cells and secured promises to share their cells with government-subsidized researchers, Thompson said. It remained unclear how much money would be spent, but Thompson suggested it would be "several million" dollars.

A senior administration official said Bush's direction was clear after an Oval Office meeting with two bioethicists a few weeks ago. Bush signaled early this week that he had made a decision and was simply contemplating when and how to announce it.

Staff writers David Brown, Helen Dewar and Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.

---

Text of President Bush's Speech

Friday, August 10, 2001; Page A12
Washington Post
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A57223-2001Aug10?language=printer

The issue of research involving stem cells derived from human embryos is increasingly the subject of a national debate and dinner table discussions. The issue is confronted every day in laboratories as scientists ponder the ethical ramifications of their work. It is agonized over by parents and many couples as they try to have children or to save children already born. The issue is debated within the church, with people of different faiths -- even many of the same faith -- coming to different conclusions.

Many people are finding that the more they know about stem cell research, the less certain they are about the right ethical and moral conclusions.

My administration must decide whether to allow federal funds, your tax dollars, to be used for scientific research on stem cells derived from human embryos.

A large number of these embryos already exist. They are the product of a process called in vitro fertilization, which helps so many couples conceive children. When doctors match sperm and egg to create life outside the womb, they usually produce more embryos than are implanted in the mother.

Once a couple successfully has children, or if they are unsuccessful, the additional embryos remain frozen in laboratories. Some will not survive during long storage; others are destroyed. A number have been donated to science and used to create privately funded stem cell lines. And a few have been implanted in an adoptive mother, and born, and are today healthy children.

Based on preliminary work that has been privately funded, scientists believe further research using stem cells offers great promise that could help improve the lives of those who suffer from many terrible diseases, from juvenile diabetes to Alzheimer's, from Parkinson's to spinal cord injuries. And while scientists admit they are not yet certain, they believe stem cells derived from embryos have unique potential.

You should also know that stem cells can be derived from sources other than embryos: from adult cells, from umbilical cords that are discarded after babies are born, from human placentas. And many scientists feel research on these types of stem cells is also promising. Many patients suffering from a range of diseases are already being helped with treatments developed from adult stem cells.

However, most scientists, at least today, believe that research on embryonic stem cells offers the most promise because these cells have the potential to develop in all of the tissues in the body.

Scientists further believe that rapid progress in this research will come only with federal funds. Federal dollars help attract the best and brightest scientists. They ensure new discoveries are widely shared at the largest number of research facilities, and that the research is directed toward the greatest public good.

The United States has a long and proud record of leading the world toward advances in science and medicine that improve human life, and the United States has a long and proud record of upholding the highest standards of ethics as we expand the limits of science and knowledge.

Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo and thus destroys its potential for life.

Like a snowflake, each of these embryos is unique, with the unique genetic potential of an individual human being.

As I thought through this issue, I kept returning to two fundamental questions. First, are these frozen embryos human life and, therefore, something precious to be protected? And second, if they're going to be destroyed anyway, shouldn't they be used for a greater good, for research that has the potential to save and improve other lives?

I've asked those questions and others of scientists, scholars, bioethicists, religious leaders, doctors, researchers, members of Congress, my Cabinet and my friends. I have read heartfelt letters from many Americans. I have given this issue a great deal of thought, prayer and considerable reflection, and I have found widespread disagreement.

On the first issue, are these embryos human life? Well, one researcher told me he believes this five-day-old cluster of cells is not an embryo, not yet an individual, but a pre-embryo. He argued that it has the potential for life, but it is not a life because it cannot develop on its own.

An ethicist dismissed that as a callous attempt at rationalization. "Make no mistake," he told me, "that cluster of cells is the same way you and I, and all the rest of us, started our lives. One goes with a heavy heart if we use these," he said, "because we are dealing with the seeds of the next generation."

And to the other crucial question -- if these are going to be destroyed anyway, why not use them for good purpose? -- I also found different answers.

Many of these embryos are byproducts of a process that helps create life, and we should allow couples to donate them to science so they can be used for good purpose instead of wasting their potential.

Others will argue there is no such thing as excess life, and the fact that a living being is going to die does not justify experimenting on it or exploiting it as a natural resource.

At its core, this issue forces us to confront fundamental questions about the beginnings of life and the ends of science. It lives at a difficult moral intersection, juxtaposing the need to protect life in all its phases with the prospect of saving and improving life in all its stages.

As the discoveries of modern science create tremendous hope, they also lay vast ethical mine fields.

As the genius of science extends the horizons of what we can do, we increasingly confront complex questions about what we should do. We have arrived at that "Brave New World" that seemed so distant in 1932 when Aldous Huxley wrote about human beings created in test tubes in what he called a hatchery.

In recent weeks, we learned that scientists have created human embryos in test tubes solely to experiment on them. This is deeply troubling and a warning sign that should prompt all of us to think through these issues very carefully.

Embryonic stem cell research is at the leading edge of a series of moral hazards. The initial stem cell researcher was at first reluctant to begin his research, fearing it might be used for human cloning. Scientists have already cloned a sheep. Researchers are telling us the next step could be to clone human beings to create individual designer stem cells, essentially to grow another you, to be available in case you need another heart or lung or liver.

I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans. We recoil at the idea of growing human beings for spare body parts or creating life for our convenience.

And while we must devote enormous energy to conquering disease, it is equally important that we pay attention to the moral concerns raised by the new frontier of human embryo stem cell research. Even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

My position on these issues is shaped by deeply held beliefs. I'm a strong supporter of science and technology, and believe they have the potential for incredible good -- to improve lives, to save life, to conquer disease. Research offers hope that millions of our loved ones may be cured of a disease and rid of their suffering. I have friends whose children suffer from juvenile diabetes. Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life, and believe as your president I have an important obligation to foster and encourage respect for life in America and throughout the world.

And while we're all hopeful about the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated.

Eight years ago, scientists believed fetal tissue research offered great hope for cures and treatments, yet the progress to date has not lived up to its initial expectations. Embryonic stem cell research offers both great promise and great peril, so I have decided we must proceed with great care.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.

Leading scientists tell me research on these 60 lines has great promise that could lead to breakthrough therapies and cures. This allows us to explore the promise and potential of stem cell research without crossing a fundamental moral line by providing taxpayer funding that would sanction or encourage further destruction of human embryos that have at least the potential for life.

I also believe that great scientific progress can be made through aggressive federal funding of research on umbilical cord, placenta, adult and animal stem cells, which do not involve the same moral dilemma. This year your government will spend $250 million on this important research.

I will also name a president's council to monitor stem cell research, to recommend appropriate guidelines and regulations, and to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of biomedical innovation.

This council will consist of leading scientists, doctors, ethicists, lawyers, theologians and others and will be chaired by Dr. Leon Kass, a leading biomedical ethicist from the University of Chicago.

This council will keep us apprised of new developments and give our nation a forum to continue to discuss and evaluate these important issues.

As we go forward, I hope we will always be guided by both intellect and heart, by both our capabilities and our conscience.

I have made this decision with great care, and I pray it is the right one.

--------

THE BASIC RESEARCH
A Science in Its Infancy, but With Great Expectations for Its Adolescence

New York Times
August 10, 2001
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/10/health/10STEM.html

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - For months, scientists have hoped President Bush would set an important precedent by allowing federal financing for embryonic stem cell research. Mr. Bush did just that tonight, but leading experts were sorely disappointed by his decision, describing it as a baby step, rather than a giant leap, for medical research.

In taking a position between proponents and opponents of the research, Mr. Bush said he would limit federal spending to studies on self-sustaining colonies of stem cells that already exist. But scientists were dubious about his assertion that 60 such colonies, or lines, exist, saying reports indicated only about 10, some of which are largely useless. Still others may be off-limits because scientists in other countries may refuse to share them.

"If there are 60 lines that are robust, grow well and have the properties of human embryonic cell lines, that's news to me and it is good news," Doug Melton, a stem cell researcher at Harvard University, said after Mr. Bush's remarks. "First let's find out if these 60 lines really do exist. Secondly, are they going to be available without restriction?"

Until such questions can be answered, experts said tonight, it would be difficult to assess how much Mr. Bush's decision might speed progress toward treatments and cures.

"It's hard to crystal-ball this," said Dr. John Mendelsohn, who as president of the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center was consulted by Mr. Bush on the stem cell issue. "I believe President Bush made the important decision, which is to go forward."

Patients' advocates, too, were buoyed by the precedent. But they warned that they would press Congress to enact legislation that would expand scientists' ability to do stem cell work.

"I think it was a step in the right direction," Dan Perry, executive director of the Alliance for Aging Research, an advocacy group in Washington, said of Mr. Bush's decision. "But unfortunately, a frustratingly small step."

Despite the limitations Mr. Bush established on it, federal financing could expand stem cell science in a number of ways. First, because the research is still in its infancy, industry has not contributed heavily to it. Taxpayer money would attract more academic researchers, the nation's "best and brightest scientists," Mr. Bush said tonight.

Federal involvement would also create an atmosphere of openness that many scientists say is sorely needed, because academic researchers freely share their discoveries in scientific journals and at conferences. And the government's imprimatur means it would be able to set ethical standards for the research.

"I think there will be a momentum effect," said LeRoy Walters, a bioethicist at Georgetown University who met with Mr. Bush and his advisers last week. "The pace of discovery will be accelerated and there may be the side benefit that some discoveries may be more available to researchers nationwide."

Moreover, research goes on in arenas untouched by United States financing - in countries like Australia, Britain and Israel, and to a lesser extent by American researchers who do not rely on federal money.

In calculating that 60 cell lines would be available to researchers the White House tonight cited a survey it said the National Institutes of Health had conducted that identified reseachers in Australia, India, Israel and Sweden who were working on embryonic stem cell lines.

But experts in the field were caught off guard. "I have no idea where this number came from," said John D. Gearhart, biologist at Johns Hopkins University, one of the nation's leading stem cell experts. "I am totally unaware of this and obviously this is of great concern."

Embryonic stem cells are regarded by scientists as the foundation of a new era of regenerative medicine in which human cells will be used to repair or replace damaged tissue or organs. The cells, which are extracted from human embryos when the embryos are tiny enough to fit on the head of a pin, could theoretically grow into any of the body's more than 200 cell types. Scientists envision growing neurons to treat Alzheimer's disease, say, or insulin-producing pancreas cells to replace nonfunctioning cells in diabetics.

But the work draws intense criticism from religious conservatives and abortion opponents because the experiments result in the destruction of the embryos, which are left over from in vitro fertilization attempts.

Congress has banned federal financing of experimentation on human embryos; last August the Clinton administration carved out an exception to that ban, ruling that taxpayer dollars could not finance work on embryos, but could pay for studies of stem cells that privately financed researchers had obtained from embryos. Those rules, less restrictive than the ones Mr. Bush outlined tonight, were never put into practice.

The absence of federal money has meant that "much less has been accomplished than could have been," said Dr. Harold Varmus, former director of the National Institutes of Health and now head of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

Both Dr. Mendelsohn and Dr. Varmus said that it would take time to develop therapies based on stem cells but that such therapies would come. Speaking before Mr. Bush announced his decision, Dr. Varmus insisted on the need for developing more cell lines, saying the number of existing lines was unlikely to provide enough genetic diversity.

"It seems it would be a very poor investment federally, and a very cruel investment," he said, "if we ended up with knowledge of how to make differentiated cells to treat people and then we were stuck" without the necessary cell lines.

Scientists have studied embryonic stem cells in mice for 20 years, and the results have been encouraging, according to a recent report by National Institutes of Health.

For example, Spanish researchers have shown that mouse embryonic stem cells can be coaxed into becoming insulin-producing cells. A team at the National Institutes of Health has been able to use mouse embryonic stem cells to develop neurons that produce dopamine, a brain chemical that is depleted in patients with Parkinson's disease.

Now, Dr. Gearhart said, researchers face the challenge of learning how to coax embryonic stem cells into becoming self-sustaining colonies of specialized cells, like pancreas, nerve and heart cells. Once that is accomplished, he said, several hurdles remained before stem cells could be transplanted into people.

First, the cells must be safe. One worry is that they could grow indefinitely, becoming tumors. Researchers will also need to learn how to deliver the cells to a patient and how to prevent the patient's immune system from rejecting them.

Opponents of the research have argued that it is not necessary to experiment with embryonic stem cells because "adult" stem cells derived from blood, umbilical cords and placentas, bone marrow, fat and other tissues also show promise. Tonight, Mr. Bush cited this work.

In reaching his decision, Mr. Bush cautioned that while he was hopeful about the research, science did not always deliver on its promise. He recalled another area of inquiry, experiments on tissue from aborted fetuses, that created intense controversy during his father's administration and has not yet yielded the therapies that had been hoped.

"So," Mr. Bush concluded, "I have decided to proceed with great care."

--------

Paris, Berlin press crusade for global cloning ban

FRANCE: August 10, 2001
Story by Brian Love
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/11970

PARIS - France's health minister stepped up pressure for a worldwide ban on human cloning yesterday with a blistering attack on Italian doctor Severino Antinori who wants to produce the world's first "photocopy" babies.

Bernard Kouchner, raising the stakes after an urgent Franco-German appeal to the United Nations for a global ban on cloning humans, lambasted the controversial doctor's plan to begin cloning before year-end and said he should be struck off the medical register in Italy.

"It is, very simply, morally unacceptable to create life while hijacking its very meaning," Kouchner said.

"We have to ban the photocopying of human beings now," said Kouchner, the outspoken founder of medical aid charity Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors without Borders) and a former UN administrator in Kosovo.

"The Italian medical profession would do honorably if it immediately prohibited Mr. Antinori from practicing medicine in his country," he told France's Le Monde newspaper.

FRANCE, GERMANY SEEK WORLDWIDE BAN

France and Germany, alarmed at the prospect that Antinori or others could soon produce human clones, have jointly written UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to urge action during the coming session of the 189-nation UN General Assembly, which opens next month.

They want the assembly to set up a special committee that would draft an international treaty on the matter.

"The objective is an international and effective ban on the reproductive cloning of humans and the creation of a globally applicable ethical boundary for the relevant areas of research," a German Foreign Ministry spokesman said.

UN officials said a decision to add the matter to the General Assembly's agenda likely would be made on September 12.

"The secretary-general is going to distribute our proposal tomorrow to all UN member nations," French UN envoy Yves Doutriaux said in New York.

If all went smoothly, the preparatory work would require two years and negotiations on a future global convention could begin in 2003, Doutriaux told Reuters.

"This is a matter that concerns the whole of humanity," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Bernard Valero said on Wednesday. "Action has to be taken to prevent the dangers and unpredictable consequences this poses to human kind."

ALARM AND CONTROVERSY

Paris and Berlin hope the debate will consolidate mounting concern among governments tortured by the pace at which science and genetic engineering in particular are paving the way to a "Brave New World" with no controls on the risks of excess.

But while a UN debate could be launched within months, it could take years to draft a treaty that wins universal support - far longer than Antinori intends to wait before launching his experiment.

The Italian doctor says he has up to 700 couples willing to take part in a cloning program which he could start as early as November, and he is reportedly ready to do his work on a ship in international waters if hindered by national restrictions.

Antinori, who grabbed worldwide attention by helping a woman of 62 to have a child in 1994 and who is now working with Panos Zavos, an American fertility specialist, presented his plans to a US audience in Washington on Tuesday.

Many governments have recently tried to adapt their laws to clamp down on cloning, though many scientists believe excessive restrictions could limit cell clone research that could lead to new cures for some diseases.

Antinori, however, has gone beyond the idea of cell cloning for purely therapeutic ends and raised the debate to fever pitch with ideas of creating embryos that could be implanted in a woman's uterus to produce full-blown clone babies.

"If somebody wants to do something with such zeal, without any regard for ethical limits, then it's not something that can easily be prevented," Ottmar Wiestlar, a German neurologist and genetic scientist at Bonn university, told German radio.

Antinori outlined his plans to a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences which is gathering information for a report by the end of next month on whether the United States should impose a moratorium on human cloning.

Kouchner said he was not surprised by the doctor's declarations, but was stunned by the "cowardly" absence of forthright condemnation by others from the medical community.

"I simply fail to fathom how distinguished scientists of the kind present in Washington found nothing better to do than talk of the complexities or risks of such an enterprise," he said.

--------



------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)

------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!