------- Index of Articles
NUCLEAR
Ottawa firm halts imports of 'bomb-grade' uranium
US missile experts meet to save the nation
Putin the Power Broker
Here's One Treaty the Bush Team Loves, to Death
Last of 450 missile silos destroyed under pact
MILITARY
Rebel arms tallied for collection
Dispute Over Arms in Macedonia
Drugs trigger withdrawal of student financial aid
Palestinians Raid an Israeli Base in Gaza Strip
Palestinian Raids Kill 5 Israelis
One Last Try for Japanese Rocket
OTHER
Researchers Say Empbryos in Labs Are Not Available
U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards
Did Machete-Wielding Hutus Commit Genocide
Powell will not attend U.N.'s conference on racism
Justice: 1 in 32 adults are in corrections system
-------- NUCLEAR
-------- canada
Ottawa firm halts imports of 'bomb-grade' uranium
Critics accuse MDS Nordion of stockpiling material
August 26, 2001
Norma Greenaway
The Ottawa Citizen
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/010826/667768.html
A Canadian company has decided to temporarily halt imports from the United States of highly-enriched uranium needed to produce radioactive medical isotopes, easing fears south of the border that it was unnecessarily stockpiling the weapons-grade material.
MDS Nordion has informed the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission it will defer imports of uranium already approved and scheduled for delivery in the first half of next year.
The Ottawa company said it decided to defer the shipments because of delays in the startup of new isotope-producing facilities at Chalk River, Ont.
MDS Nordion, the leading world supplier of radioactive isotopes used in medical treatment and diagnosis, has already stockpiled a two-year supply of material while awaiting the startup of new reactors, dubbed Maple 1 and Maple 2, that will produce isotopes at the Atomic Energy of Canada-operated Chalk River facility.
They will replace the existing NRU reactor at Chalk River, 190 kilometres west of Ottawa, which is near the end of its productive life.
Medical isotopes are used to locate the spread of cancer, to diagnose the severity of heart disease and to treat such diseases as prostate cancer.
Nordion supplies isotopes for about 35,000 of the 50,000 diagnostic tests conducted around the world each day.
Grant Malkoske, Nordion's vice-president of engineering and technology, says the company opted to defer the imports for at least six months, beginning next January, because it believes Maple 1 will not be commissioned before next summer and Maple 2 even later in the year.
Nordion's move was welcomed by U.S. critics who had urged the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to impose a moratorium on exports of bomb-grade uranium to Nordion because the reactors weren't operating.
In a letter to the commission last month, the Nuclear Control Institute of Washington, D.C., said the startup delays have "led to a dangerous accumulation" of the material.
Institute president Paul Leventhal said he's satisfied -- for now.
"It essentially provides what we were looking for, which is a moratorium on new shipments of HEU (high-enriched uranium) targets until such time as it becomes clear the Maple reactors are ready to start up," he said from Washington.
Mr. Leventhal urged the U.S. commission to "draw the line" and bar exports of HEU targets until the Maple reactors are operating. Targets are the material that is bombarded by neutrons to create the desired medical isotopes.
Among other things, the Nuclear Control Institute seeks to eliminate all commerce in bomb-grade uranium by pushing efforts to convert research reactors in Canada, Europe and elsewhere to non-weapons-grade uranium, or low-enriched uranium.
Unlike low-enriched uranium and natural uranium, high-enriched uranium can be used to make nuclear bombs,
The institute, which along with the U.S. regulatory commission is keeping a close eye on Nordion's stated plans to convert to low-enriched uranium targets, says it is important to prevent Nordion from building up a large surplus of high-enriched uranium targets as a means of delaying conversion.
"We don't want to do anything to interfere with the flow of these life-saving isotopes," Mr. Leventhal said. "But we want a good-faith effort made to convert to the non-weapons material in producing these isotopes."
Alan Kuperman, an institute consultant, says the organization is anxious for Nordion to convert because, as the largest producer of isotopes, it would send a signal to other producers using bomb-grade uranium targets.
Nordion's Mr. Malkoske could not provide a date for conversion to low-enriched uranium targets at the Chalk River facility. But he rejected suggestions the firm is dragging its feet.
"These things take time. There is a program under way. But you don't just snap your fingers and convert from HEU to LEU."
For its part, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission reported in a recent letter to Leventhal that Nordion's conversion program "appears to be proceeding in good faith."
-------- missile defense
US missile experts meet to save the nation -- and make a few bucks
Agence France-Presse
SPACE WIRE
Aug 26, 2001
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/010826123032.51ofx47q.html
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama (AFP) The United States will soon be threatened by long-range missiles from unstable nations, speakers at a major military issues conference said here, as Pentagon and industry participants met to figure out how to help save the nation -- and benefit from an expected flood of government resources.
With some eight billion dollars earmarked for missile defense in the 2002 military budget, aerospace industry reps met with military brass and civilian missile experts this week for a three-day summit to figure out how to turn President George W. Bush's vision of an antimissile shield into reality.
Missile defense "is one of the true growth areas in the department of defense," said Alfred Bills, an analyst with TASC Inc, a subsidiary of defense giant Northrop-Grumman. "There is real new added emphasis in recognition of the threat."
The August 21-23 Fourth Annual Space and Missile Defense Conference and Exhibition brought together the major players in the missile-defense arena, from General Ronald Kadish, the head of the US office carrying out antimissile tests, to executives from Lockheed-Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon and TRW, the four US defense industry giants.
Scores of smaller vendors were also present hawking everything from specialty software to long-lasting batteries and tents for mobile missile units.
Displays in the hangar-size conference hall included the main components of a Patriot battery -- the missile launcher mounted on a semitrailer towed by a 10-ton truck -- as well as a giant armored truck carrying a Soviet-designed Scud-B missile, a Humvee jeep armed with missiles originally designed for jet fighters, and several displays of high-tech systems still in the design stage.
The current missile defense program has a mixed record at best. The latest test July 14 over the Pacific scored a hit, but the success came after the Pentagon had failed two out of three previous tries.
No matter -- US missile defense must move at an accelerated pace because of the ever-increasing threat from missile attack, speaker after speaker said here.
"We see a clear and present danger (from missile attacks) to US troops stationed abroad today, and the nation in the future," said Lieutenant General Edward Anderson, deputy commander of the United States Space Command, one of the event speakers, setting the tone for the conference.
The Space Command is in charge of controlling scores of satellites that provide ballistic missile warning, communications, weather and navigation, as well as defending US computer networks.
For Deputy CIA Director John McLaughlin "many nations see missiles as a way of establishing power credentials."
McLaughlin said that technological advances and possible foreign aid "makes it more difficult to predict a timeline" of when the "rogue nations" might be ready to launch a missile.
"Surprise and uncertainty are the watchwords," said Ken Knight, deputy for global projections at the Defense Intelligence Agency, as he went down the list of different "potential sources of instability" during his presentation.
Topping the gallery of bad guys, as always, was North Korea, Iraq and Iran, with China seen as a challenge that "could move into the threat category" in the coming years.
Not everyone agrees: Lloyd Dumas, author of "Lethal Arrogance," a book detailing mishaps with nuclear weapons, believes that a threat of missile attack by rogue nations is "as close to zero as you can expect."
An attack would be "an invitation to mass retaliation" from the United States. "You would not only have to be very aggressive, but also very stupid to do so," he said.
It would be easier for an enemy to smuggle a small nuclear device into the country and blackmail the government, he said.
The CIA's McLaughlin recognized the threat of a suitcase bomb. However the US intelligence community "doesn't have the luxury to view it as an either-or situation," he said.
The possibility of a missile hitting US forces abroad, and, in a few years, US soil, is "higher today than any time in the Cold War," he said.
President Bush clearly agrees, and has proposed boosting the US military budget to 329 billion dollars for fiscal year 2002, a 32.4-billion-dollar increase over the previous year.
The proposal, which still needs full congressional approval, includes 8.3 billion dollars for missile defense, a 57-percent increase over current missile defense expenditures.
And General Anderson might be in for a promotion: Bush has nominated his boss, Air Force General Richard Myers, to be the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the top job in the US armed forces.
The nomination reflects the importance that Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are giving to missile defense as part of a revamped US military strategy.
-------- russia
Putin the Power Broker
New York Times
August 26, 2001
By CELESTINE BOHLEN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/weekinreview/26BOHL.html?searchpv=nytToday
It is said that Russia sulks," said the Russian prince, speaking as he usually did, in French. "Russia does not sulk. Russia is collecting itself."
The prince in question was Prince Aleksandr M. Gorchakov, the architect of Russian foreign policy from 1856 to 1882, when Russia, weakened by its defeat in the Crimean War, chose to lie low, tend to its domestic affairs and substitute diplomacy for confrontation.
For several years, many Russians - starting with former Prime Minister Yevgeni M. Primakov - have been summoning up the prince's ghost as they reposition themselves in a post-cold-war world, which, in some ways, resembles Gorchakov's era.
Then, as now, Russia's main focus was inward, in particular on modernizing a society and an economy still seriously lagging behind their Western counterparts. Yet Russia now, as then, remains determined to stay in the great power game, projecting itself as an equal, if with a weak hand.
Another example appeared last week. The more President Bush presses Moscow with a virtual ultimatum over the testy issue of American withdrawal from the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, the more Russia stands to pick up points with the rest of the world, where irritation with perceived American "unilateralism" is running high.
"Some of the rhetoric out of Washington in the last half-year has created a sense of unease in the world, which you see particularly in Russia, China and Europe," said a top Russian expert in the Bush administration, speaking on the condition of anonymity, "and the Russians are trying to be a leading global articulator of this concern."
It is not the first time Russia has made the best of a bad situation. This year, it has used old ties to North Korea to insert itself in the debate over rogue states; and, in 1999, the special Russian-Serbian relationship gave Moscow its chance to play a key role in bringing an end to the war over Kosovo.
Unlike his bombastic predecessor, Boris N. Yeltsin, President Vladimir V. Putin has proved to be better suited to Gorchakov's pragmatic gamesmanship. First, he is quite articulate; and second, he makes no secret of Russia's weaknesses. In fact, Mr. Putin listed "pragmatism" as the second of three principles of Russian foreign policy in a speech last year. (The others were "national interests" and "economic efficiency.")
"The rhetoric of the Yeltsin days has really disappeared," said Karl Kaiser, a German foreign policy expert. "This is a different Russia, more realistic and therefore more credible."
Unlike Mr. Yeltsin, Mr. Putin - buoyed at home by high polls - has time on his side. "As a young and energetic leader he feels he need not be in a rush," said Mark C. Medish, a former adviser on Russia in the Clinton administration, "and he ought to go about things in a systematic way. He represents a modern man who comes at things with a cost-benefit analysis."
The peripatetic Mr. Putin - he made 18 trips in his first year in office - has used his foreign visits and the stream of foreign visitors to take stock of Russia's status. He tidied up old debts (Cuba), sized up old allies (Vietnam) and tested new relationships (Iran). He also put Russia's relations with close neighbors on a high priority, a move that raises the specter of Russian domination but also answers Moscow's concern about security threats in its border regions.
"The goal is to be seen out there operating as if you were a great power," said the Bush administration expert. "That builds international respect, and it makes outside powers less likely to intervene in your affairs. It gives you the external conditions necessary to rebuild yourself domestically."
With North Korea, Russia has emerged as a broker in the on-again, off-again negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang over the suspension of ballistic missile launchings. It is an issue with obvious benefit to Moscow, since it has the potential to undercut a critical selling point for the Bush administration's missile defense system.
Some experts argue that in acting as intermediary, Russia has only signaled how low its fortunes have fallen. After all, they note, the main purpose of Kim Jong Il's strange train trip across Siberia this summer was to send a message to Washington.
Yet even if North Korea - or China - is playing a Russia card, a Gorchakov might argue, who cares? It means Russia is still in the game, and, it can be argued, as an increasingly constructive player. That was how Mr. Putin struck members of the Clinton administration in 2000, when, after visiting Pyongyang, he first offered to serve as a conduit. "He seized an opportunity to be an information broker," said Mr. Medish. "The Russians were pleased because it put them in a constructive position."
During the early days of the Putin administration, some experts suggested he might choose cooperation over confrontation in dealing with the West - and so pose a greater challenge. "He will position Russia in such a way that Russia will not be blamed for confrontation," predicted one paper from the Center for Russia and Eurasia Studies in the spring of 2000.
Certainly, in his relations with the West, Mr. Putin has largely opted for cooperation. One of his first official acts was to push through the Duma, or parliament, ratification of the Start II treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which is more than the Americans have done.
The Russians have vigorously opposed the administration's plans to abandon the ABM treaty but, even there, their public statements have been free of the finger- pointing characteristic not only of the cold war, but also of the Yeltsin era.
There is, of course, a pragmatic reason for this reasonable tone. The Russians still hope to negotiate deep cuts in the American and Russian offensive nuclear arsenals - one of Moscow's long-term goals.
"Moscow has not supported the Chinese radical language on missile defense," said Mr. Kaiser, "because they are keeping open the option of making a deal with the U.S."
What that deal will be remains to be to seen. But some experts contend that Russia has won points, particularly in Europe, as the more reasonable of the two. "We have managed to make the Russians look constructive, rather than obstructive," said Mr. Medish.
Yet the war in Chechnya casts a pall over Russia's image abroad. In parts of Central Europe and the Baltics, memories of Soviet occupation are still fresh.
But Russia's importance for Europe has never been in doubt - if only for geographic reasons. Now, Mr. Putin has put Europe at the center of his diplomatic efforts - a shift from Soviet days when Moscow looked to the developing world to test its influence.
Earlier this year, the European Union and Russia reached an agreement to establish a "common economic space," a dialogue on energy and, most intriguingly, on crisis prevention, which raises the possibility of joint efforts to defuse hot spots.
"This is something quite substantial," said Mr. Kaiser, "and the quality of the relationship is such that it holds the potential to achieve something."
-------- treaties
Here's One Treaty the Bush Team Loves, to Death
New York Times
August 26, 2001
By JANE PERLEZ
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/weekinreview/26PERL.html?searchpv=nytToday
WASHINGTON - Richard Armitage, the deputy secretary of state, is known as a blunt-speaking, down-to- earth public official. He minced few words in Australia recently, and hit a nerve surprisingly raw for a country considered one of the United States's most dependable allies.
The Bush administration has irritated many allies with its aversion to treaties, especially the Kyoto Protocol on global warming and the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty. Mr. Armitage, however, raised hackles as he singled out a treaty that the administration is partial to: the Australian-New Zealand United States Treaty, or Anzus, a mutual defense pact signed at the start of the cold war.
So partial, in fact, that the deputy secretary felt compelled to remind Australians that Americans would die to fulfill it - and that Washington would expect an equal sacrifice.
Blending what Australians interpreted as condescension and old-fashioned militarism, Mr. Armitage declared: "I'm not sure all our friends here in Australia understand the significance of an alliance to Americans. It's not a matter of political convenience or economic interaction, although some of that, inevitably.
"But for us, an alliance is an obligation, if necessary, to fight and die for each other. That's what it means. That's why an alliance is submitted to the U.S. Congress. It has to be debated. Because we're talking about, for the U.S. side, our sons and daughter fighting and dying if Australia comes under attack. And by the way, we're talking about Australian sons and daughters who would be willing to sacrifice their lives to help defend the United States." (New Zealand's children are safe: that country dropped out of the treaty because it objected to Washington's nuclear policies.)
Now, Mr. Armitage likes Australia. He travels there relatively frequently, and has often expressed affection and admiration for the country. And Australians generally admire the United States. They cite common characteristics - independence of spirit, absence of the British class system, love of sports and the outdoors. But - usually beneath the surface - there is also a streak of resentment at being bossed around by "the Yanks." Memories of Australia's painful involvement in Vietnam, prompted by a request from Lyndon B. Johnson, still rankle.
Australians worry that the United States may someday make a similar request over Taiwan. In fact, Mr. Armitage, visiting as a private citizen two years ago, angered Australians by suggesting that Washington would expect them to fight alongside Americans to protect Taiwan if the Chinese invaded.
And his recent comments were widely interpreted as another preview of a call to arms over Taiwan - even though he also said that the "threat assessment" on the likelihood for such a conflict "has actually receded a fair amount."
So the momentum of an anti-Armitage backlash gathered rather quickly. Leading the charge was a former prime minister, Malcolm Fraser. A conservative, Mr. Fraser said in the newspaper The Australian that years ago, American officials "would not even dream of telling Australia publicly what we must do."
"That such people are now prepared to tell Australians this," he wrote, "represents a fundamental change in Anzus."
He went on to suggest that Australia reduce its efforts to maintain a strong relationship with Washington, and replace it by a greater emphasis on improved relations with Asian nations.
Mr. Fraser was actually being quite polite. Irritated by the Bush administration's heavy hand, he suggested Australia should withdraw from Anzus altogether. That was, coincidentally, about a month before President Bush's announcement last week that America would, at some point, withdraw from one of its own scorned pacts: the 1972 ABM Treaty.
-------- u.s. nuc weapons
Last of 450 missile silos destroyed under pact
Sunday, August 26, 2001
By JACK SULLIVAN
The Associated Press
http://www.bergen.com/morenews/silo26200108267.htm
PETERSBURG, N.D. -- A rumbling explosion destroyed the last of the Minuteman missile silos marked for destruction under the 1991 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, leaving a 90-foot hole filled with broken concrete and twisted steel in a North Dakota field.
The treaty, signed by former President George Bush and then-Soviet President Mikhail S. Gorbachev, cut the long-range nuclear missiles stockpiled in the Cold War arsenals of the United States and the former Soviet Union.
It also created almost two years of work for the personnel at Grand Forks Air Force Base, which has been blasting and burying the Minuteman silos it once controlled in the state. On Friday, they destroyed the last of the 450 Minuteman missile silos marked for destruction under START I.
Grand Forks was one of three bases to lose their Minuteman wings, along with Whiteman in Missouri and Ellsworth in South Dakota.
Three other bases manage the remaining arsenal of 550 Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles: Minot, in north-central North Dakota; Malmstrom, near Great Falls, Mont.; and F.E. Warren, near Cheyenne, Wyo., said Col. Tom Bradley, chief international affairs officer for the Air Force Space Command.
Taking out a concrete and steel missile silo meant to withstand all but a direct nuclear hit is no easy feat.
It took hundreds of pounds of dynamite placed in 69 holes drilled through the concrete top and filled with diesel fuel and fertilizer to turn the silo into a 90-foot hole.
That hole will be filled with rubble, capped, and left for 90 days so that Russian satellites can confirm the destruction, said Steve Marback, a technical sergeant with Grand Forks Air Force Base.
After that, the ground will be offered to farmers.
Bradley said the silos' destruction proves they did their job of deterring nuclear war.
"They succeeded brilliantly," he said.
-------- MILITARY
-------- balkans
Rebel arms tallied for collection
August 26, 2001
By Aleksandar Vasovic
ASSOCIATED PRESS
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20010826-88432864.htm
SKOPJE, Macedonia -- NATO moved ahead yesterday with plans to collect weapons from ethnic Albanian rebels, but a possible stumbling block -- the number of weapons the rebels will turn in -- remained.
A firm number is crucial because the peace deal that allowed NATO into the country calls for a step-by-step process in which rebels voluntarily hand their weapon caches over to NATO troops in exchange for political reforms. The arms collection is supposed to start early this week, but a figure must be accepted before NATO launches the operation.
NATO officials announced Friday that they had agreed with the rebels on the number of weapons to be collected by the troops. Western diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the agreement called for the rebels to surrender about 3,500 weapons.
Macedonian Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski said yesterday, however, that weapons figures as low as 3,500 could hinder the peace process.
"We used to seize that quantity in a single raid," he said. "I think it is laughable to speak about 3,500 pieces six months after the outbreak of crisis. I think that if that figure stays, we will not achieve anything."
He suggested that the guerrillas hold up to 70,000 weapons, 20 times the number they have reportedly offered to turn over.
NATO had presented President Boris Trajkovski with a figure on Friday, and the continuation of discussions yesterday fueled speculation on the extent of the rebel arsenal. The alliance downplayed the dispute, insisting the government has simply asked for clarification of figures NATO has suggested.
"We have great confidence that this process is going to move forward and that our numbers will be accepted as being realistic," said Maj. Barry Johnson, a spokesman for NATO forces in Macedonia. "We have every confidence that...the collection sites will be able to begin on Monday as planned."
Reports late yesterday indicated NATO and Skopje were close to a deal, but no breakthrough was announced.
Fighting broke out along Macedonia's border with Kosovo in February, after ethnic Albanians launched an insurgency and claimed they were fighting for greater rights. The government says ethnic Albanians, who make up about a third of the country's population of 2 million, really want a state of their own.
After an Aug. 13 peace deal, NATO's ruling council authorized a total of about 4,700 troops to help with disarmament of the rebels. That includes about 3,500 actively involved in the collection of arms and others in administrative and logistic roles, the alliance said.
NATO officials said Macedonian forces and ethnic Albanian rebels have agreed to pull back from sensitive areas ahead of the collection. Macedonian security forces said they would move to a distance of 3-1/2 miles from sites where troops will collect the arms, NATO said.
NATO hopes to collect about a third of the arms by the end of next week.
Also yesterday, World Bank officials pledged to assist the troubled Balkan country, offering a fresh influx of cash, provided a peace deal remains in place.
--------
Dispute Over Arms in Macedonia
Government Says NATO Estimate of Rebel Weapons Is Too Low
Associated Press
Sunday, August 26, 2001; Page A16
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62315-2001Aug25?language=printer
SKOPJE, Macedonia, Aug. 25 -- NATO was moving forward today with plans to collect weapons from ethnic Albanian rebels, but a dispute over the number of weapons the rebels will turn in remained unresolved.
NATO announced Friday that it had agreed with the rebels on the number of weapons to be collected by the troops. Western diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the agreement called for the rebels to surrender more than 3,000 weapons.
But today Macedonian Prime Minister Ljubco Georgievski said weapons figures as low as 3,500 could hinder the peace process. "We used to seize that quantity in a single raid," he said. "I think it is ridiculous to speak about 3,500 pieces six months after the outbreak of crisis. I think that if that figure stays, we will not achieve anything."
A firm number is crucial because the peace deal that allowed NATO into the country envisions a step-by-step process in which rebels voluntarily hand their weapon caches over to NATO troops in exchange for political reforms. The arms collection is supposed to start early next week, but a figure must be accepted before NATO launches the operation.
NATO played down the dispute, insisting the government has simply asked for a clarification of figures NATO has suggested.
Fighting broke out along Macedonia's border with Kosovo in February, after ethnic Albanians launched an insurgency saying they were fighting for greater rights.
The government says ethnic Albanians were fighting for a state of their own.
-------- drug war
Drugs trigger withdrawal of student financial aid
08/26/2001
USA TODAY
By Maureen Groppe, Gannett News Service
http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/27/student-aid.htm
The millions of college students heading to campus this fall might not include an estimated 28,230 who were denied federal financial aid because they have admitted to a recent drug conviction.
This is the second school year that federal student aid has been contingent on a clean drug record, but it's the first time aid is being denied to applicants who leave the drug-conviction question blank on their aid applications. That could keep 11,417 more students from getting assistance.
Students who lie have little chance of being caught, however, because there is no national database of state and local drug convictions that the Department of Education can use to check on them.
The law has drawn protests from students and financial-aid officers who say it hurts poor and minority students disproportionately because they are more likely to have a conviction and less likely to have the independent means to forgo financial aid. For example, although blacks make up 17% of drug users, they represent 37% of those arrested for drug crimes, the Department of Health and Human Services reports.
Even the law's author, Indiana Republican Rep. Mark Souder, is unhappy with the results.
The way the Education Department has interpreted the law, a student convicted of possessing illegal drugs can't get aid for a year after the conviction, although the student can regain eligibility sooner by completing a drug-treatment program. The penalty for a second possession conviction or for a first conviction for selling drugs is a 2-year ban on aid.
Souder says he meant for the ban to kick in only if a student committed a drug crime while receiving aid. He tried unsuccessfully to pass legislation last year to make that change. He says he has been meeting with Education Department officials this year to find an administrative solution.
"We are close to getting this worked out," says Seth Becker, a spokesman for Souder. Education Department spokeswoman Lindsey Kozberg says the department is still evaluating its options.
Nothing but an all-out repeal will satisfy the law's critics, who include many financial-aid officers.
More than 9,600 of last year's applicants were denied aid for at least part of the year, depending on when their ineligibility period ended. This year's figure could be four times that.
When Russell Selkirk of Columbus, Ohio, saw the question on the student-aid form last year, he knew he was sunk. After his first quarter at Ohio State University, Selkirk, who is now a junior, was caught smoking marijuana outside a bar. "I got to that question, and I was like, 'Wow, I guess that seals the deal right there,' " he says.
He says he briefly considered lying about the misdemeanor conviction because he didn't think it was relevant to whether he should receive aid. But with his mother sitting beside him, Selkirk filled out the form truthfully and wasn't surprised when his request for a low-interest loan was rejected.
"I definitely feel it's very unfair," he says. "I know walking around on this campus there have been people convicted of crimes far worse than choosing to partake in a little marijuana smoking."
A drug conviction is the only crime that will make a student ineligible for aid.
Selkirk was able to get help from his parents for tuition. Kris Sperry of Mountain Home, Ark., wasn't as fortunate.
The 23-year-old father of three had to drop out of Arkansas State University when his aid request was rejected because of two convictions for possessing marijuana.
"I'm trying to better myself and get my children a future," he says. "I'm an intelligent person. I think I deserve an education. It's not like I was out smoking crack or using heroin."
The issue has inspired a nationwide student lobbying campaign. Former George Washington University student Shawn Heller was helping organize Students for Sensible Drug Policy to try to change the nation's approach to the drug war when Congress passed Souder's student-aid restriction.
"It sort of blew us away," Heller says. "It has been the driving force in creating the largest anti-war movement since Vietnam."
Today, the group has 156 local chapters and has gotten 66 student governments, the U.S. Student Association and the Association of Big Ten Schools to pass resolutions calling for the ban's repeal. The group has held a national drug war conference, created scholarships for students who were refused aid and lobbied Congress.
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is pushing to overturn the ban, says he has never seen an issue that has generated more action by students. "They see the unfairness of this," Frank says. "The fact that it singles out drugs. The fact that by definition it only hits low-income people."
Student groups aren't the only ones complaining. Financial-aid directors have told Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., who is reviewing financial-aid programs, that putting them in charge of monitoring student activities that have nothing to do with financial need detracts from their primary mission: helping students get an education.
-------- israel
Palestinians Raid an Israeli Base in Gaza Strip, Killing 3 Soldiers
August 26, 2001
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
JERUSALEM, Aug. 25 - In the deadliest raid on an Israeli Army base in the 11-month-old conflict, Palestinians penetrated a military post in the Gaza Strip today, killing three soldiers and wounding seven others. Two of the attackers were killed in a firefight with the Israelis, while a third man and possibly others escaped.
By Israeli commanders' own admission, it was a bold predawn assault, with hand grenades and automatic rifles, and it seemed to have caught many of the soldiers literally sleeping.
It also seemed likely to produce an Israeli retaliation, especially given that Israel's defense minister, Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, warned on Friday that "there will be no situation in which they send terrorists or continue shooting and we will sit quietly and not respond."
Israeli forces reportedly sealed off the southern end of the Gaza Strip from Khan Yunis to Rafah, on the border with Egypt. Tanks were said to have taken up positions outside Gaza City. Taking no chances, Palestinian security men and government officials evacuated their posts and offices.
The raid took place near Bedolah, part of a major block of Jewish settlements in southern Gaza known as Gush Qatif. Although the teeming Gaza Strip has been a Palestinian autonomous zone since 1994, significant stretches remain in Israeli hands, with the army in control of key intersections to protect an estimated 6,000 Israelis living in Gush Qatif and more isolated settlements.
Clashes between soldiers and Gazans have become routine over the last 11 months. But assaults like the one today are uncommon. It clearly rattled Israel's military.
"The specific incident reflects a new form of audacity that we hadn't yet witnessed," said Maj. Gen. Doron Almog, the army commander in southern Israel and Gaza.
Undetected, the raiders made their way through the barbed wire perimeter of the base and began shooting and hurling grenades at the soldiers, many of whom were asleep. A major, Gil Oz, 30, and a staff sergeant, Yaakov Nir, 21, were killed. An unidentified medic was said to have also been fatally shot when he tried to give first aid to Major Oz.
In a firefight said to have lasted about 10 minutes, the two Palestinians were killed - later identified as Amin Abu Hatab, 26, and Hisham Abu Jamus, 24. At one point, General Almog said, his soldiers and the Palestinians were locked in hand-to- hand combat.
Judging from his remarks to Israeli radio reporters, the general did not sound pleased with his troops' performance, particularly since the attackers got inside the base without anyone noticing.
"I would be careful not to define the incident as a mishap," he said. "However, I would like to say that the results of the combat were not what we would have expected from a face-to-face battle."
Hours after the assault, Israeli officials blamed Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian Authority chairman. General Almog said he thought it was the work of Abu Rish, a small faction in Mr. Arafat's Fatah movement.
But responsibility was claimed by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical group based in Syria and led by Nayef Hawatmeh, a long-time Arafat rival. "This operation was in response to the aggressive, ugly war that the criminal government has continued against our people," the group said in a statement.
If the Democratic Front was indeed responsible, the attack could prove an important development. Although opposed from the beginning to Palestinian peace talks with Israel, the Hawatmeh organization has not been a serious armed force for a long time. It was most prominent during the 1970's, an era of airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks overseas with a proliferation of Palestinian groups bearing words like "liberation" and "front" in their names.
In those days, these secular, mostly extreme leftist organizations stood as the opposition to Mr. Arafat. But they have long since been overtaken by radical Islamic groups like Hamas and Islamic Holy War, the leading sponsors of the many suicide bombings that Israel endures.
Some Palestinians said that, with the raid today, the Democratic Front may have tried to show that, as the present conflict wears on, it has not disappeared.
The attacks dealt yet another blow to already-shaky attempts to arrange a meaningful cease-fire. Mr. Arafat and the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, agreed this week to meet soon to try to work out a truce with more teeth than one that has been in place in theory for more than two months.
But no date or location have been set, and on Friday Mr. Peres sounded doubtful that much could be done in the present climate of daily attacks and counterattacks.
Senior Palestinian officials bristled today at a harsh critique of Mr. Arafat that President Bush made in Texas on Friday. The president came close to suggesting that the Palestinian leader was being disingenuous in his approach to talks with the Israelis. "If they are that interested in peaceful dialogue," Mr. Bush said of the Palestinians, "they ought to do everything they can to stop the terrorist activity that has accelerated in recent months."
Nabil Shaath, a minister in the Palestinian Authority, said in Damascus that Mr. Bush's remarks showed that "the American authorization to assassinate Palestinians continues." Another Palestinian minister, Yasir Abed Rabbo, said in the West Bank city of Ramallah that the United States would bear responsibility for "pushing the region toward a violent unknown."
--------
Palestinian Raids Kill 5 Israelis, Including 3 Soldiers at Gaza Base
New York Times
August 26, 2001
By CLYDE HABERMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/international/middleeast/26MIDE.html?searchpv=nytToday
JERUSALEM, Sunday, Aug. 26 - Israel retaliated swiftly and hard today after Palestinians killed five Israelis on Saturday, including three soldiers who were shot in the Gaza Strip during the boldest and deadliest raid on an Israeli Army base in the 11-month-old conflict.
The two other dead Israelis were a husband and wife, Yaniv and Sharon Ben-Shalom, killed when Palestinians opened fire on them as they drove from Givat Zeev, a settlement just inside the West Bank, along a road that has become a frequent target for gunmen. Mrs. Ben-Shalom's brother, Zion Sabiri, was critically wounded with a bullet in the head and the couple's two small children, ages 1 and 2, were lightly wounded.
Israeli F-16 jets fired two missiles at the Palestinian police headquarters in Gaza City this morning, wounding three Palestinian policemen and causing heavy damage, Palestinian security officials said.
The officials said warplanes had also hit a Palestinian military intelligence post in Deir al-Balah, south of Gaza. There was no immediate report of casualties.
An Israeli Army statement said the jets had successfully attacked the police headquarters in Gaza City and similar Palestinian security posts in Deir al-Balah and Salfit, a village south of Nablus on the West Bank.
On Friday, Israel's defense minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, had warned that "there will be no situation in which they send terrorists or continue shooting and we will sit quietly and not respond."
Israeli tanks received heavy machine gunfire Palestinians earlier today as they moved deeply into Palestinian-controlled areas near Rafah, at the southern tip of the Gaza Strip. A Palestinian police sergeant was killed and two other Palestinians were wounded by Israeli fire, Palestinian officials said.
The Israelis destroyed a police headquarters and several security checkpoints with bulldozers before withdrawing early today.
Israeli fighter planes were also heard over Ramallah, the closest major West Bank city to the site where the family was ambushed. A group called the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, allied with Yasir Arafat's Fatah movement, said it was responsible for the shooting.
The attack on the soldiers in Gaza was claimed by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a radical group that had been largely dormant and had long been at odds with Mr. Arafat. But Israeli officials, warning that there would be reprisals, put the onus for Saturday's violence entirely on Mr. Arafat and his Palestinian Authority.
By Israeli commanders' admission, the predawn Palestinian raid on a military post in Gaza was an audacious assault, with hand grenades and automatic rifles, and it caught some of the soldiers literally sleeping.
Besides the three deaths, seven soldiers were wounded. Two Palestinian attackers were shot to death, while a third man believed to have helped them managed to escape.
The raid took place near Bedolah, part of a major bloc of Jewish settlements in southern Gaza known as Gush Qatif. Although the teeming Gaza Strip has been a Palestinian autonomous zone since 1994, significant stretches remain in Israeli hands, with the army in control of key intersections to protect an estimated 6,000 Israelis living in Gush Qatif and more isolated settlements. Like many army posts in Gaza, the one hit on Saturday was near an Israeli enclave.
Clashes between soldiers and Gazans have become routine over the last 11 months. But assaults like the one on Saturday are uncommon. It clearly rattled Israel's military.
"The specific incident reflects a new form of audacity that we hadn't yet witnessed," said Maj. Gen. Doron Almog, the army commander in southern Israel and Gaza.
Undetected, the raiders made their way across ditches and through the barbed-wire perimeter of the base, where they opened fire and threw hand grenades from close range at the soldiers, some of whom were asleep. A major, Gil Oz, 30, and a staff sergeant, Yaakov Nir, 21, were killed. An unidentified medic was fatally shot when he tried to give first aid to Major Oz. At one point, General Almog said, his soldiers and the Palestinians were locked in hand- to-hand combat.
In a firefight said to have lasted about 10 minutes, one Palestinian attacker was killed. The other got away, but was found several hours later, hiding in the greenhouses of a nearby settlement, Atzmona, where he was shot and killed. The two Palestinians were identified as Amin Abu Hatab, 26, and Hisham Abu Jamus, 24.
Judging from his remarks later, General Almog was not pleased with his troops' performance, particularly since the attackers got inside the base without anyone noticing. "I would be careful not to define the incident as a mishap," he said. "However, I would like to say that the results of the combat were not what we would have expected from a face-to-face battle."
The general said he though the raid was the work of Abu Rish, a small Fatah faction, even though responsibility was claimed by the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, based in Syria and led by Nayef Hawatmeh, a longtime Arafat rival. "This operation was in response to the aggressive, ugly war that the criminal government has continued against our people," the group said in a statement. It also released a videotape made before the attack, showing the two raiders with assault rifles and seated in front of a Palestinian flag.
Although opposed from the beginning to Palestinian peace talks with Israel, the Hawatmeh group has not been a serious armed force for a long time. It was most prominent during the 1970's, an era of airplane hijackings and terrorist attacks overseas, with a proliferation of Palestinian groups bearing words like "liberation" and "front" in their names.
In those days, these secular, mostly extreme leftist organizations stood as the opposition to Mr. Arafat. But they have long since been overtaken by radical Islamic groups like Hamas and Islamic Holy War, the leading sponsors of the many suicide bombings that Israel endures.
Some Palestinians said that, with the raid today, the Democratic Front may have tried to show that it has not disappeared.
The attacks dealt yet another blow to already shaky attempts to arrange a meaningful cease-fire. Mr. Arafat and the Israeli foreign minister, Shimon Peres, agreed this week to meet soon to try to work out a truce with more teeth than one that has been in place in theory only for more than two months.
But no date or location have been set, and on Friday Mr. Peres sounded doubtful that much could be done in the present climate of daily attacks and counter-attacks.
Senior Palestinian officials bristled today at a harsh critique of Mr. Arafat that President Bush made in Texas on Friday. The president came close to suggesting that the Palestinian leader was being disingenuous in his approach to talks with the Israelis. "If they are that interested in peaceful dialogue," he said of the Palestinians, "they ought to do everything they can to stop the terrorist activity that has accelerated in recent months."
Nabil Shaath, a minister in the Palestinian Authority, said in Damascus that Mr. Bush's remarks showed that "the American authorization to assassinate Palestinians continues." Another Palestinian minister, Yasir Abed Rabbo, said in the West Bank city of Ramallah that the United States would bear responsibility for "pushing the region toward a violent unknown."
-------- space
One Last Try for Japanese Rocket
By Doug Struck
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, August 26, 2001; Page A19
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A62463-2001Aug25?language=printer
TOKYO -- Three times since 1998, rockets have lifted from launching sites in Japan in a roar of smoke and fire, straining for outer space. Three times, the rockets have spluttered and failed before delivering their expensive satellites to orbit.
Japan is set to try again in what is widely seen as a make-or-break effort for the country's ambitions to join the club of nations able to reach space on their own.
After a mechanical glitch forced a delay in the launch, Japan's space agency will try Wednesday to send a 172-foot-tall H-2A rocket into orbit from its launch pad on a small Pacific island south of Kyushu, Japan's southernmost main island.
The agency is so wary of further failure that the rocket will carry only a dummy weight for a satellite, making it a $77 million experiment. Still, officials at the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) have acknowledged that an unsuccessful launch could doom their program.
"NASDA will lose all credibility" if it cannot resume its earlier string of successful launches and suffers another mishap, agency chief Shuichiro Yamanouchi said when he was appointed last summer.
Japan sees some tangible benefits in having its own launch capabilities. Not the least of these is the country's plans to launch its own spy satellites, its first military-related use of space.
But the space program is chiefly intended to keep Japan in a league of countries that have stretched their capabilities to space and will be major players in the future of space use and exploration.
"From now on, space will be a place for international joint operations," said Fujio Nakano, author of a book on Japan's space program. "If Japan does not have its own launch capability, it will have nothing to offer. It will not be a part of the game."
Japan also hopes a successful launch from Tanegashima Island will put it back into the commercial satellite launch business. It had contracts with two U.S. satellite makers -- Hughes Space and Communications International Inc. and Space Systems/Loral -- for about 18 commercial launches before its string of failures scrapped the deals.
Some experts see Japan's rocket woes as expectable setbacks in a science still far from perfection. All countries with major space programs have seen rockets go haywire, leaving curlicue smoke trails or exploding gloriously seconds after launch.
"It's a high-risk business," Ghassem R. Asrar, associate administrator of NASA, said on a visit to Japan in November. "What Japan is experiencing today is not really unusual. It's a routine part of the business we are in."
But in Japanese society, failure is not considered acceptable. After two H-2 rockets fell short of orbit, the head of NASDA resigned to accept blame.
The wayward rockets add to the insecurities of a country that has been unable to figure a way out of its economic doldrums, has lost its technological lead in electronics and has suffered embarrassing accidents in its nuclear energy industry.
As Japan has been trying to find its space feet, the competition has gotten tougher. At least 15 sites, ranging from Cape Canaveral in Florida to Baikonur in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan, have launched satellites in the past five years, and they vie for commercial advantage. China and Russia offer much cheaper launches than Japan; sites close to the equator in Brazil and French Guyana offer better efficiency by reaching orbit faster; and Europe's Ariane-4 offers the world's best reliability record.
"I think Japan has already lost this race," said author Nakano. "It's easier and cheaper to buy American satellites" and pay another country to have them launched, he said.
But he argued that Japan should press ahead to keep a competitive edge and to generate spin-off research technologies. Japan should concentrate on innovation in its specialties, such as miniaturization or robotics, he said.
Others suggest Japan is adamant about developing space capability to reduce its dependence on the United States for defense purposes. It is planning to launch a series of intelligence-gathering satellites, some of which would be aimed at North Korea.
"International relations are not stable. So it's insurance," Ryojiro Akiba, former director of the Institute of Space and Aeronautical Science, acknowledged in an interview last year.
Japan also wants to keep pace with other countries in space use. It is building some components for the international space station, and four Japanese astronauts have flown on U.S. space shuttles.
Japan has put 83 satellites into orbit -- 66 of them launched from Japan. On the drawing boards are plans for the "Hope X," a space plane, as well as a cargo shuttle to supply the international space station and satellite missions to asteroids and the moon. But those plans are looking increasingly vulnerable as Japan's government searches for budget cuts.
"All of Japan's expectations are now on the shoulders of the H-2A," said Hiroshi Okubo, a professor of aeronautical engineering and an expert on the space program.
"If the next launch fails, all these planned satellites and the plans to use the H-2A to send material to the international space station will fail," he said. "The argument will then be very strong to use other countries to launch the necessary satellites for us."
-------- OTHER
-------- genetics
Researchers Say Empbryos in Labs Are Not Available
New York Times
August 26, 2001
By GINA KOLATA
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/health/genetics/26EMBR.html?pagewanted=all
If scientists want to develop new supplies of embryonic stem cells, they may have to take the bold and controversial step of creating human embryos expressly for research, many leading fertility experts say.
Tens of thousands of embryos are frozen at fertility centers, and a widespread assumption in the debate over stem cell research has been that scientists can use them.
But in clinics around the country, embryologists and doctors tell the same story: almost every embryo is spoken for. The vast majority of couples use their frozen embryos, or plan to use them, in attempts at pregnancy. It may be that embryos will become available if there are concerted efforts to encourage couples to donate them. But so far, very few couples have agreed to do so.
An alternative, creating human embryos and nurturing them solely for experiments that will destroy them leaves even many supporters of the research deeply uneasy.
The harsh truth about the status of the frozen embryos "changes the debate," said Dr. Thomas Pool, scientific director of the Fertility Center of San Antonio. If the embryos already existed, were unwanted byproducts of in vitro fertilization, and were never going to be used to make babies, Dr. Pool said, people could ask, "Could I save them and do some good with them?" That was "a warm and fuzzy way for people to get around the question of making them," he added. "It's an easy way to not have to come back to the salient question: What are these things that we make in I.V.F. labs?"
This conundrum does not arise in the area where President Bush has proposed allowing federally financed research. He would permit work to go ahead on existing lines of stem cells - Mr. Bush says there are 60 lines, while others say there may be as few as a dozen usable ones.
Rather, the issue comes up when scientists try to develop new stem cells, abroad or with private money. Some say this is necessary because the existing lines are insufficient and may not be safe for human use.
Most of these human cells were exposed to mouse cells while being coaxed to grow in the laboratory, to prevent them from developing prematurely. This has raised the question of whether mouse cells could transmit viruses to human patients.
There are no national data on the number of frozen embryos. But the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology says that most of the approximately 400 American clinics that offer in vitro fertilization also freeze embryos. The frozen embryos are one to five days old and consist of one to 120 cells. They are less than three-thousandths of an inch in diameter.
Some clinics routinely ask patients if they want to donate embryos for research. Others - the majority, fertility experts say - do not ask.
One clinic that asks is the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St. Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., one of the nation's largest fertility centers. Embryologists there have frozen 11,402 embryos since August 1995, from a total of 1,595 patients. Many used their embryos. One woman gave hers up for adoption, which was privately arranged. That left 6,284 in storage, from 1,006 patients. Of those patients, 191 signed or said they would sign a form directing that their embryos be discarded.
But only 22 patients signed or indicated a desire to sign a form allowing their embryos to be used for research, although Dr. John Garrisi, the chief embryologist there, said that he was certain many who no longer wanted their embryos would donate them for research if he asked them personally.
Patients at the Jones Institute for Reproductive Medicine of Eastern Virginia Medical School, another large center, are also asked to donate embryos for research. Embryologists there froze about 15,000 embryos in the last 15 years, two-thirds of which were used by the couples that owned them. About 200 embryos might be available for research according to forms signed by patients, said Dr. William Gibbons, a reproductive endocrinologist there. And that, he said, might not be enough to generate any stem cells.
Dr. Zev Rosenwaks, who heads a large fertility center at the Weill Medical College of Cornell University, said that his patients, too, almost always keep their embryos. But, Dr. Rosenwaks said, over "many many years," about 100 to 200 couples agreed to donate embryos for research. That could be enough for stem cell research, he said, although he is not doing such work.
Boston I.V.F., a group of fertility clinics based in Waltham, Mass., recently agreed to supply Harvard researchers with frozen embryos for stem cell research. Dr. Michael Alper, the group's medical director, estimated that the clinics had several thousand frozen embryos and that a small percentage of patients had indicated they no longer needed theirs. Two months ago, Boston I.V.F. began asking these patients to donate their embryos. "We've had several patients already who agreed," Dr. Alper said.
In San Antonio, Dr. Pool does not offer patients the option of donating embryos for research. He stores about 2,000 frozen embryos, he said, and almost no one discards them.
Dr. Richard Rawlins, laboratory director at the Rush Center for Advanced Reproductive Care in Chicago, said patients there were not asked about donating embryos. In Dr. Rawlins's 17 years at Rush, he said, only one couple broached the subject. Three couples in the last three years have asked to have their embryos discarded. He is storing embryos for about 250 couples, most of whom will use them, he said.
Even if scientists did want to use frozen embryos at fertility centers, there would be hurdles to overcome, Dr. Gibbons said. Each patient who has agreed to donate embryos must be contacted and agree to the particular stem cell project. Then scientists must buck the odds in getting the embryos to grow and isolating stem cells from them.
Those odds can be long.
Dr. Gibbons said that even if every one of the 200 embryos at the Jones Institute that might be available were used and were in the best possible condition, 50 or fewer would grow to the blastocyst stage. That is the stage, at about five or six days, when scientists can try to isolate stem cells. On average, only a small fraction of blastocysts yield stem cells.
"There is no guarantee that we would get any stem cells from those 200 frozen embryos," Dr. Gibbons said.
"We hear all this stuff about how all these embryos are available," he added. "But we just didn't think there was much there."
Dr. Gibbons said it was the dire lack of frozen embryos available for research that led his group to make its own, a controversial experiment the Jones Institute reported last month. Even then, only 3 out of 110 embryos yielded stem cells. The embryos were ideal, made from the eggs and sperm of young and healthy volunteers and never frozen.
The frozen embryos at fertility centers are much less robust, medical experts say. Dr. Pool said that until recently, he and others froze many embryos that were of poor quality and would never grow. And, he added, they put them in solutions that were not optimal, so even healthy embryos frozen in previous years may not grow into blastocysts.
Another difficulty is that most frozen embryos are from older women who had trouble conceiving, said Dr. Jacob Mayer, director of the embryology lab at the Jones Institute. Their embryos are less likely to grow, he said, and stem cells derived from them may be of lesser quality.
Dr. Barry Behr, who directs the in vitro fertilization laboratory at Stanford University and at four other California fertility centers, said that if he wanted to make stem cells, he would do the same thing the Jones Institute scientists did.
"The few dribs and drabs of embryos that are released by our patients are never going to be enough to generate high-quality cells," Dr. Behr said. "By far, by far, the vast majority of embryos that are frozen are not good. If we thawed 10,000 embryos, we would get 100 or so that are viable blastocysts."
But although the chances of frozen embryos being viable are small, fertility experts say, patients and their doctors still cherish every one.
For patients, they represent a chance at future fertility, which is why so few want to give them up.
In a sense, said Dr. Jacques Cohen, the director of research at St. Barnabas, an infertile couple's decision to keep their frozen embryos is not so different from a fertile couple's decision not to be sterilized after their family is completed.
The embryos take on additional value, doctors and embryologists say, because obtaining them is so expensive and emotionally draining.
A patient has typically spent years trying to have a baby, and invested huge sums - usually more than $10,000 a month for the fertility center and $3,200 a month for drugs. A medical team has worked intensively to induce her ovaries to produce eggs. A team of embryologists, laboring in a tension-filled atmosphere, has manipulated the microscopic eggs to produce an embryo.
"It is a clump of cells, but it is a very important clump of cells," Dr. Garrisi said. "It may not be a human being, but it certainly has potential and I think it deserves respect that is greater than that accorded to an egg or sperm. An embryo is more important if for no other reason than all the work it takes to get it."
Some scientists predict that the promise of stem cell research may encourage more couples to donate embryos for that purpose.
"I think that patients will come forward," said Dr. Alan DeCherney, a fertility expert at the University of California in Los Angeles and editor of the journal Fertility and Sterility.
But that remains to be seen. At Columbia University's fertility center, only two patients so far have asked about donating frozen embryos for stem cell research. But, said Dr. Mark V. Sauer, the center's director, neither responded when asked for more information.
At the Jones Institute in Virginia, where scientists are clearly interested in the work, no one has offered to donate embryos, Dr. Mayer said.
But, he said, "I did get an e-mail from another embryologist who indicated she had a patient who wanted to donate frozen embryos for stem cells." It was forwarded to him from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology.
And what did he tell the embryologist? "I passed the e-mail on to someone else," Dr. Mayer said.
--------
U.S. Challenges EU's Biotech Food Standards
By Alan Sipress and Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, August 26, 2001; Page A01
http://washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A59952-2001Aug24?language=printer
Senior Bush administration officials are pressuring the European Union to abandon new restrictions on genetically modified foods that they say could cost U.S. companies $4 billion a year and disrupt efforts to launch a new round of global trade talks.
U.S. officials have repeatedly told their European counterparts that the regulations, which received preliminary approval last month, discriminate against U.S. products in violation of World Trade Organization requirements, raising the prospect of a major and emotionally charged trade dispute.
The European Commission's decision to require the labeling of genetically engineered products reflects a European anxiety about food safety that is far more profound than in the United States, the world leader in agricultural biotechnology. This is a divide that threatens to further aggravate U.S. relations with Europe, already roiled by differences over global warming, arms control and other trade issues.
Undersecretary of State Alan P. Larson, the State Department's senior diplomat assigned to economic issues, called the new restrictions "trade disruptive and discriminatory." He said, "It's obviously a very serious problem that affects a very important trade and one that's of vital interest to a very important constituency in the United States, which supports free trade."
Though U.S. officials have declined publicly to detail what type of punitive action the Bush administration might take against Europe, U.S. officials say the regulations are inconsistent with the terms of the WTO because they treat U.S. products less favorably than European ones.
For instance, Larson said the European regulations would require that American crushed soybean oil bear a label, while European cheeses and wine made with biotech enzymes would not be covered. "There are potential WTO concerns about how it is structured now," Larson said.
U.S. officials have left open the possibility of bringing a legal case before the WTO, which, after lengthy litigation, could eventually impose a politically embarrassing judgment and stiff economic penalties on Europe. But Larson said the administration's immediate focus is on lobbying European governments to amend the regulations before they take effect. He added that the United States and Europe need to resolve the issue quickly so it does not become a "distraction" that interferes with their shared interest in launching new global trade talks as planned later this year.
Officials said that economic losses in the United States -- where 75 percent of soybeans and more than 25 percent of corn comes from genetically modified seeds -- could far exceed other transatlantic trade battles, such as those over bananas and growth hormones in beef. Resolution of the long-running banana dispute earlier this year removed a major irritant in American-European relations.
The dispute could also harden public opinion about biotechnology and its ability to transfer beneficial genes from one species into another. Proponents want it to be seen as a force for progress and global improvement, but it could become a symbol of divisiveness if it set off a bitter trade dispute.
The European Commission's new standards, among the most far-reaching in the world, call for all products made from engineered material to bear a label saying they contain "genetically modified organisms." They also require producers to document the source of all their ingredients. Since the U.S. crop-handling system generally does not separate modified and conventional crops, the new requirements could be unwieldy and costly for U.S. businesses.
European limitations on biotech crops already ban most U.S. corn for food products, estimated by U.S. officials as a $300 million annual loss. The new requirements, which must be approved by the European Parliament and Council of Ministers before taking effect by 2003, could also make it difficult to export corn for animal feed and soybeans.
Larson said in an interview that he has raised U.S. concerns with "everyone that comes through this door, every trade minister, agriculture minister, economy minister from Europe," including those representing about eight European countries. He said a similar message has also been delivered by Agriculture Secretary Ann M. Veneman and U.S. Trade Representative Robert B. Zoellick.
President Bush, who comes from a large farm state and counts on the agriculture industry for political support, raised the issue personally with European leaders last month at the Group of Eight meeting of industrialized countries in Italy, according to a senior administration official.
Kimball Nil of the American Soybean Association said the food industry is pleased by the tough talk. "The Bush administration met with EU commissioners and very clearly laid down a marker that many of us felt was missing before," he said.
But European officials chafe at the pressure, saying the administration is trying to impose U.S. acceptance of biotech food on a European public that does not believe these products are safe despite scientists' claims. The spread of mad cow disease and other health crises have fueled public concern about food safety, and prominent officials, including Britain's Prince Charles, have been highly critical about biotechnology in crops.
"We are seeing an illustration of American unilateralism," said Tony Van der haegen, a European Commission representative in Washington. "There are basic psychological differences between American consumers and those in Europe, where [genetically modified products] are not accepted."
Requiring food labels is a way of offering choice to consumers and restoring their confidence in food, Van der haegen said. He added that the United States has exaggerated the potential loss to U.S. companies, putting the figure instead at $2.8 billion a year.
On a policy level, U.S. regulators have embraced the position that engineered and traditional crops are essentially equivalent, and so should be treated the same. There is some public -- and congressional -- pressure to require labeling of modified foods in the United States, but promoters of biotechnology have fought tenaciously, and successfully, to resist the efforts. They argue that labels would unfairly stigmatize the products.
The European Union has not approved any new engineered crops for almost three years, and it has been under great pressure from the United States to begin the review process again. The new regulations allow for biotech crop reviews to resume, but only with the requirements that U.S. officials find objectionable.
In an Aug. 9 letter to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Veneman and Zoellick, 24 U.S. trade organizations said the proposed EU guidelines on biotechnology in agriculture are "commercially unworkable, inconsistent with WTO obligations and would result in billions of dollars of lost U.S. exports." The letter, signed by groups ranging from the Grocery Manufacturers of America to the American Soybean Association and the North American Export Grain Association, said the measure would cause a "serious trade impediment" by requiring labeling and tracing of modified foods, but not of European wines and cheeses.
The European regulations would not apply to the latter items because the requirements distinguish between food made from genetically modified material such as seeds and those produced with the assistance of modified material such as enzymes.
Larson wrote back this week that "I share many of your apprehensions regarding the proposals," and said he was working to "ensure that any measures [implemented by the EU] are not onerous, costly or trade-disruptive."
Mark Mansour, a Washington attorney who represents large food companies and has been consulted by administration officials, has written an analysis urging the administration to file a case with the WTO as soon as possible. Mansour also recommends that the United States withdraw support for the international Biosafety Protocol negotiated in Montreal, a Clinton-era agreement that accepted some of the European concerns about genetically modified foods.
As the regulations now move to the European Parliament, legislators may tighten the restrictions further. Environmental groups are urging them to remove a provision that waives the labeling requirement if the percentage of genetically modified material in a food item is less than 1 percent of the overall product. "The U.S. is trying to force-feed modified foods to the rest of the world, and it just isn't going to work," said Charles Margulis of Greenpeace, which has led the anti-biotech campaign in Europe.
U.S. troubles over biotechnology and international trade are not limited to the European Union. The governments of Saudi Arabia and Sri Lanka have proposed bans on importing genetically modified foods, and Mexican legislators are also discussing tough labeling laws. Larson said the United States is concerned that the EU biotech guidelines could become a model for developing countries and significantly limit the reach of the technology.
Advocates of biotechnology say it can be especially helpful to poor farmers by increasing their yields, protecting against pests and viruses, and allowing them to grow crops in depleted soil. But critics say poor farmers will never see those potential benefits because the technology is owned by private, multinational companies interested primarily in selling seeds for a profit to commercial growers.
-------- human rights
Did Machete-Wielding Hutus Commit Genocide or Just 'Acts of Genocide'?
New York Times
August 26, 2001
WORD FOR WORD
By NEIL A. LEWIS
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/weekinreview/26WORD.html
In the spring of 1994, United States government policymakers were confronted with mounting evidence that a blood bath of huge proportions was taking place in the central African country of Rwanda. Moreover, the nature of the killing - by Hutu-backed militias, aimed largely at civilians within the Tutsi minority - raised the likelihood that genocide was occurring. Those Hutus who favored ending a four-year-old civil war with Tutsi rebels were also killed.
The Clinton administration had little inclination to become involved in an ethnic conflict in Africa, especially since it had just lost 18 servicemen in an ill-defined peacekeeping mission Somalia.
One of the issues administration officials debated behind the scenes was whether it was best to avoid using the word genocide to describe what was happening, as that might increase legal and political pressure to act. Documents disclosed last week by the National Security Archive show some of that debate. On May 21, 1994, Secretary of State Warren Christopher agreed to allow department officials to say that "acts of genocide have occurred," and on June 10, he finally flatly called it genocide. Between April 6, when the killing began, and July 4, when the Tutsi rebels took over the capital city of Kigali, an estimated 800,000 people were slaughtered.
In a visit to Rwanda in March 1998, President Clinton expressed regret that the West did not recognize the genocide for what it was far earlier.
The killing began immediately after an airplane carrying the Rwandan president, Juvénal Habyarimana, was downed as he returned from a peace conference in Tanzania. Less than a month later, senior Defense Department officials held a meeting in the Pentagon about the situation in Rwanda. A memorandum dated May 1, 1994, recorded the discussion of several topics and concluded:
1. Genocide Investigation: Language that calls for an international investigation of human rights abuses and possible violations of the genocide convention.
Be careful. Legal at State [the Office of Legal Adviser at the State Department] was worried about this yesterday - Genocide finding could commit U.S.G. [United States Government] to actually "do something."
One month into the genocide, the Defense Intelligence Agency, an arm of the Pentagon, drafted a military analysis of the situation. The May 9 memorandum asserted that genocide was occurring:
It appears that, in addition to the random massacre of Tutsis by Hutu militias and individuals, there is an organized, parallel effort of genocide being implemented by the Army to destroy the leadership of the Tutsi community. The original intent was to kill only the political elite supporting reconciliation; however, the government lost control of the militias and the massacre spread liked wildfire. It continues to rage out of control.
On May 18, Toby T. Gati, the assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research, sent a memo to the head of the Africa division, George E. Moose, and to the legal adviser Conrad K. Harper, detailing events showing that genocide was occurring:
There is substantial circumstantial evidence implicating senior Rwandan government and military officials in the widespread, systematic killing of ethnic Tutsis. . . . Massacres in Rwanda have claimed from 200,000 to 500,000 lives, according to international humanitarian organizations. (We believe 500,000 is an exaggerated estimate. . . .) Most of the killed have been Tutsi citizens, including women and children.
Ms. Gati went on to list some of the criteria for genocide under the 1948 Geneva Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime and Genocide:
KILLING AND HARM. International organizations, foreign diplomats and indigenous eye witnesses have reported systematic executions of Tutsis in villages, schools, hospitals and churches by Hutu militia, the Presidential Guard and military forces. Many have been killed or gravely injured by machete-wielding militia members because they are ethnic Tutsi, have Tutsi physical characteristics or support Tutsis. . . .
UNBEARABLE LIVING CONDITIONS. Campaigns of ethnic cleansing against Tutsis appear well-planned and systematic. Homes are often destroyed and looted after the occupants have been killed. Hospital staff have witnessed the execution of Tutsi patients. . . .
MEASURES TO PREVENT BIRTHS. Tutsi children, along with their parents, are being mutilated and killed. In one town, pregnant women at a maternity clinic were massacred. . . .
On May 16, a lawyer in the Office of Legal Adviser drafted a memo concluding that all the legal prerequisites for genocide had occurred in Rwanda. The lawyer, Joan Donoghue, listed three main criteria: specific acts had been committed; the acts were committed against members of a national, ethnic or racial group; and they were committed with the intent to destroy the group. For the first criterion, she relied on figures and descriptions from the office of Ms. Gati, whose memo was drafted two days later:
There can be little question that the specific listed acts have taken place in Rwanda. . . .
The second requirement is also clearly satisfied. As I.N.R. [Ms. Gati's agency] notes, most of those killed in Rwanda have been Tutsi civilians, including women and children. . . .
It also appears that the third element has been satisfied. At least some of the prohibited acts have apparently been committed with the requisite intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the Tutsi group as required by the Convention. . . .
On May 21, using both the Gati and Donoghue memos, four senior State Department officials urged Secretary Christopher to allow the statement that "acts of genocide have occurred." The four officials, Mr. Moose, Mr. Harper, John Shattuck, assistant secretary of human rights, and Douglas J. Bennet, assistant secretary for International Organizations, titled their memo "Has Genocide Occurred?":
Events in Rwanda have led to press and public inquiries about whether genocide has occurred there. In light of [the Gati and Donoghue memos] we believe that Department officials should be authorized to state that "acts of genocide have occurred." This is the same formulation that we use with respect to Bosnia. . . .
A U.S.G. statement that acts of genocide have occurred would not have any particular legal consequences. Under the Convention, the prosecution of persons charged with genocide is the responsibility of the competent courts in the state where the acts took place or an international penal tribunal (none has yet been established); the U.S. has no criminal jurisdiction over acts of genocide occurring within Rwanda unless they are committed by U.S. citizens. . . .
Although lacking in legal consequences, a clear statement that the U.S.G. believes that acts of genocide have occurred could increase pressure for U.S. activism in response to the crisis in Rwanda. . . .
Referring to a coming meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, the officials said the United States would have to take a stand:
If we do not seize the opportunity presented by such [a forum] as the U.N.H.R.C. meeting to use the genocide label to condemn events in Rwanda, our credibility will be undermined with human rights groups and the general public who may question how much evidence we can legitimately require before coming to a policy conclusion.
On June 10, relying on the State Department guidance, Christine Shelly, a department spokeswoman, replied to reporters' questions by saying that "acts of genocide have occurred in Rwanda." Pressed by reporters to define the difference between "acts of genocide" and "genocide" Ms. Shelly replied:
As to the distinctions between the words, we're trying to call what we have seen so far as best we can; and based again on the evidence, we have every reason to believe that acts of genocide have occurred.
Alan Elsner, a Reuters reporter, then asked:
How many acts of genocide does it take to make genocide?
Ms. Shelly: Alan, that's just not a question I'm prepared to answer
Later that day in Istanbul, where he was traveling, Mr. Christopher told a questioner:
If there is any particular magic in calling it genocide, I have no hesitancy in saying that.
--------
Powell will not attend U.N.'s conference on racism
08/26/2001
USA TODAY
By Bill Nichols,
http://usatoday.com/news/world/2001/08/27/powell-usat.htm
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Colin Powell will boycott the United Nations conference on racism that begins Friday in Durban, South Africa, administration officials said Sunday.
As the first African-American secretary of State, Powell wanted to attend the conference, aides said. But he decided over the weekend that he could not go because the conference will consider Arab-backed proposals that accuse Israel of racist practices toward Palestinians.
Administration officials said it is still possible that a lower-level U.S. delegation might attend the conference. A final decision is expected today or Tuesday on whether to send any U.S. representative.
Powell's decision, which administration officials had hinted at in recent weeks during briefings for interest groups and members of Congress, is sure to draw fire from the civil rights community.
Civil rights leaders have urged the Bush administration to send a delegation headed by Powell to the conference, which will take place from Friday through Sept. 7.
The circumstances surrounding Powell's decision raise the question of whether there is a rift between the White House and the State Department over U.S. representation at the conference.
Last week, senior State Department officials told U.S. Jewish organizations and members of Congress that the administration would send a delegation to Durban and that Powell himself might go.
But on Friday, President Bush reiterated at a news conference his threat to boycott the conference altogether if anti-Israel language was not eliminated from the agenda. "We will have no representative there so long as they pick on Israel, as long as they continue to say Zionism is racism," Bush said in Crawford, Texas, where he is vacationing.
State Department officials dismissed suggestions that Powell and Bush had different views on whether to send someone to Durban. However, Bush's comments prompted two days of marathon meetings at the State Department on the issue of U.S. representation at the conference.
Congressional sources who were briefed by the administration over the weekend said State Department officials complained that they had been boxed in by the president's strong words and were now suggesting that the Untied States might boycott the conference entirely.
Negotiators from the United States and Europe successfully fought in pre-conference meetings to remove from the agenda controversial language implying that Zionism equals a form of racism.
Calls for a formal apology from former slave-holding nations were dropped, and language on reparations for slavery was tempered to Washington's satisfaction.
But Powell remained troubled by the insistence of some Arab and Muslim states that the conference address the issue of alleged Israeli racism toward Palestinians, aides said. The Arab League said last week that it would continue to press for such a condemnation of Israeli practices.
-------- police / prisoners
Justice: 1 in 32 adults are in corrections system
08/26/2001
USA TODAY
http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/08/26/corrections-population.htm
WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of adults behind bars, on parole or on probation reached a record 6.47 million in 2000 - or one in 32 American adults, the government reported Sunday.
On the positive side, the percentage increase from 1999 was half the average annual rate since 1990.
Jails and prisons held 30% of the adults in the corrections system, or 1,933,503. People on probation accounted for 59% of the total, or 3,839,532. An additional 725,527 adults were on parole, a period of supervision following release from prison.
Over the past two decades, the number of adults in the corrections system has tripled, so they now make up 3.1 of the country's adult population, compared with 1% in 1980, said Allen J. Beck, a chief researcher with the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics.
"It's just overwhelming," said Kara Gotsch, a spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union's National Prison Project, which advocates alternatives to incarceration. "It just shows that we need to put much more into prevention."
During the 1990s, the corrections population increased 49%. By the end of last year, there were 2.1 million more adults in the system than there were in 1990.
The rate of growth was 2% between 1999 and 2000, compared with an average of 4% during the 1990s. Beck attributed the slowing growth to the cumulative effect of a general drop in crime rates that began in the 1990s.
"This could be the beginning of a peak," said James Alan Fox, a criminal justice professor at Northeastern University in Boston.
Nearly 2.5 million people were released from parole or probation in 2000. Among parolees, half successfully completed the terms of their release in 1990. By 2000, just 43% completed parole and stayed out through the end of the year.
Among those released from community supervision in 2000, 15% of probationers and 42% of parolees were sent back to prison or jail that year for new violations. Fox said that figure underestimates the large number who will probably be convicted again.
Beck noted that the number of Americans who have returned to prison has remained stable over time.
To Gotsch, that shows the shortsightedness of corrections policies that focus more on punishment and less on rehabilitation.
"It's no wonder that they're re-offending at incredibly high rates because we don't teach them anything else," she said.
The report also showed:
Among those on probation, 52% were convicted of felonies, the most frequent of which was driving under the influence, followed by drug offenses. The percentage of women in the prison population, as well as their percentages among probationers and parolees, rose. The states with the largest percentage of their adult population in the corrections system were Georgia, 6.8%, and Texas, 5%. At the other end were West Virginia, New Hampshire and North Dakota, each with 0.9%.
------- OneList (submissions from subscribers)
------- Depleted Uranium Keeps On Killing!