Week of April 8, 2002
[Note: Some now-dead links have been removed from archived items.]

MORE BLOGS WEIGH IN: Jack O'Toole at Political Professional suggests that pro-therapeutic cloning voters may become what pros call "referendum voters," like gun-rights advocates: "Isn't it entirely possible that the millions of Americans who are waiting for a cure based on this technology will become, in essence, single-issue voters?"

I'm not personally waiting for a cure, but if I had to vote today, I'd hold my nose and vote for Ron Kirk, the Democrat running for the seat Sen. Phil Gramm is leaving. Although I strongly lean Republican, I don't trust those guys with the Senate, largely because of this issue. I'd rather keep gridlock. Kirk's a typical subsidy-loving, "pro-business" Texas pol who seems to be a Democrat largely for reasons of ethnicity. Not good, but not scary either. Putting scientists in federal prison for 10 years because they're trying to cure horrible diseases by transplanting cell nuclei—now that's scary.

HappyFunPundit offers a lighter look from north of the border. That ban could be great for Canadian science! [Posted 4/14.]

SMALL VOICES: Reader William Vine, an M.D. and Ph.D., writes:

Where is the the letter from Nobel Prize winners supporting cloning? The letter from the Deans of US medical schools? Where are the leaders of US medical science? Why are they not on the talk shows? To date the campaign is rather weak for one of such great importance. At least you are doing your part.

It's an interesting question, all the more so since a group of 40 Nobel laureates did sign a petition against the ban and the American Association of Medical Colleges did write a letter opposing the ban. Neither got much publicity, and the Nobelists' letter is even hard to find on the web. (After a Google search failed, I got it via Dan Pink's blog.)

Maybe the media just aren't interested. Or, as Dr. Vine suggests, maybe the science groups just haven't made enough noise. Although they haven't been silent, they haven't been loud either. The AAAS's statement seems far more concerned with maintaining good ties with the sources of science funding than with making a strong case against putting cell biologists in prison. The Council of Scientific Society Presidents has nothing about therapeutic cloning (or stem cell research) on its policy page.

As best I can tell, and this is only an impression, biologists and medical scientists are so accustomed to a) federal funding and b) federal regulation that they don't understand the difference between those issues and criminalizing science. Working scientists aren't publicly upset, in part because the Washington professionals who are supposed to represent them haven't made sure they know just how high the stakes are on this issue. The science groups seem to think they can win by asserting expert authority and boring everyone to death with technocratic language. But this isn't an issue where circumspection is helpful. Being quiet isn't much better than being silent. It encourages the idea that no one, or no one respectable, is against a ban. And, as the Franklin Society petition signers show, that's simply not the case.

I could be wrong, of course, about the science groups. Maybe they're doing terribly effective behind-the-scenes lobbying that just doesn't get reported. Or maybe nothing they might do at this point would make much difference. Given the rhetoric and arguments of the pro-ban forces, especially the Kassian neoconservative intellectuals (as opposed to the zygotean pro-lifers), saying that scientists should speak up may be akin to trying to rally blacks in the late-19th century against Jim Crow laws.

The main difference is that scientists still have the vote. And, my politics experts inform me, all you need is an organized interest of 2 percent of the voting population—on such margins are elections won or lost—to mostly get your way in Washington.

If you're a scientist, check out your own professional society's work on this issue. Let me know what you found out. And urge them to do more. [Posted 2/14.]

BLOGGERS VS. RESEARCH BANS: I'm happy to say that quite a few bloggers have written in support of the

Charles Murtaugh has several posts on the subject, one of which explains why what he calls "embryo cloning" should remain legal, even though he opposes reproductive cloning—providing a distinction missing in InstaPundit's original posting but made in a subsequent one.

At Overlawyered.com, Walter Olson writes that "despite efforts in some conservative quarters to hand down a party line opposing this potentially life-saving branch of biomedical research, support for it in fact cuts across the political spectrum."

Playing the left to Walter's right, Chris Mooney makes the same point on his blog-like daily page at The American Prospect Online.

Dan Pink takes a break from his usual light-hearted tone to explain the issue and provide informative links, including one to the petition by 40 Nobel laureates against the ban. (I naturally love the title of the post.)

Jay Manifold disapproves of my use of the word particular. (My dictionary disagrees.) On the point at hand, he notes "the tendency of the winners of political debate to foreclose possibilities altogether rather than merely redirect future efforts, as happens in science."

Brink Lindsey writes, "Criminalizing scientific research that promises enormous benefits to real, actually-living people is grim business. What compelling interest could justify such a profoundly illiberal and anti-humanitarian prohibition? Not the theological assertion, absurd on its face, that mindless cells are the moral equals of living, suffering people. And certainly not the dark hostility of Leon Kass and his confreres to the advance of medical knowledge and technique."

An exceedingly busy Derek Lowe gives the petition a quickie endorsement, noting that "the bill, as written, is far too restrictive and will unnecessarily restrain a lot of valuable research."

Diana Hsieh gives the petition thumbs up. Addressing American readers, so does Aussie blogger Jason Soon.

Have I missed your blog's entry? If so, send me a note. Don't send it to the petition address, or the blog info will get lost in the electronic pile.

The big question remains: The bloggers read each other, but what about the rest of the world? How self-sealing is this universe? We will, of course, hold a press conference to release the petition in a couple of weeks and will do the normal sorts of p.r. in the interim. But it will be interesting to see how much attention Internet discussion can generate by itself. [Posted 4/14.]

FASHION GRIEVANCE: I'm flattered, and I've read the explanation, but my shoes are still insulted. If I must wear shoes, let them have three-inch heels. [Posted 4/14.]

DEBATING BIOLOGICAL FUTURES: Two Monday debates, one live and one broadcast, promise interesting clashes over the issues of therapeutic cloning and genetic medicine more generally.

Those in Washington should check out the New America Foundation's forum, "Cloning, Stem Cells and What Comes Next, featuring Ron Bailey of Reason, New America Foundation's Shannon Brownlee, and arch-biotech foes Eric Cohen and Bill Kristol.

On NPR's "Talk of the Nation," airing from 2-3 p.m. Eastern, Greg Stock, author of Redesigning Humans and director of UCLAs Program on Medicine, Technology, and Society, will debate Leon Kass, the Bush administration's bioethics czar. (Check local times here.) Greg will also be appearing on The Charlie Rose Show on May 10. [Posted 4/14.]

BUSH ON BIOTECH: The president's speech in support of making cell cloning a crime was a carefully crafted piece of rhetoric, calculated to appeal to those who believe a fertilized egg is a person and to confuse the rest of the public. The president framed the issue as unethical, means-justifies-the-ends, out-of-control science vs. ethics and human conscience:

Advances in biomedical technology must never come at the expense of human conscience. As we seek what is possible, we must always ask what is right, and we must not forget that even the most noble ends do not justify any means.

Science has set before us decisions of immense consequence. We can pursue medical research with a clear sense of moral purpose or we can travel without an ethical compass into a world we could live to regret. Science now presses forward the issue of human cloning. How we answer the question of human cloning will place us on one path or the other.

This smear against supporters of "therapeutic cloning" is simply untrue. Most of us believe that research for the relief of human suffering is an ethical imperative and, equally important, that no ethical or moral precept is violated by cloning cells. Some of us base that position on religious teachings, others on secular reasoning, others on a combination of the two. But no one is asking for the sacrifice of human conscience. (I would argue that those who raise the moral status of cells above the moral status of human beings capable of consciousness are dangerously eroding moral sympathies, but that's a point for another day.)

The Bush position is based, first and foremost, on the idea that a fertilized egg in a petri dish is a person, with all the moral claims of a baby or an adult. But Bush does not argue this point. He first hides it by using the opaque word "individual" to describe the fertilized egg: "Human cloning is the laboratory production of individuals who are genetically identical to another human being." Later, he drops even that technical precision, going all the way to declare the fertilized egg a "human life": "Research cloning would contradict the most fundamental principle of medical ethics, that no human life should be exploited or extinguished for the benefit of another."

As Jacob Sullum notes in his syndicated column (the whole column is well worth reading; version with links here):

The principle is important, but a lot hinges on how a "human life" is defined....It's not surprising that Bush did not explicitly address that question, since he cited support for the cloning ban from "those who are pro-choice" as well as "those who are pro-life." But it would be an odd state of affairs if a scientist were prohibited from destroying a miscroscopic, unimplanted embryo in an attempt to cure Alzheimer's disease while a pregnant woman could legally kill a 3-month-old fetus for any reason at all.

Even stranger, Bush is not trying to protect all blastocysts—only the cloned ones. And he proposes to save them by preventing them from being created in the first place.

Throughout the speech, Bush also adopts the anti-commercial rhetoric of his new-found left-wing allies. Hence the fear that human life will be "exploited," by, for instance, "create a massive national market for eggs and egg donors." There is, of course, already a national market for eggs and egg donors. You can find ads seeking such donors in college newspapers, and I know people whose beloved children owe their lives to such transactions. But eggs are expensive, and expensive for a reason. Not a lot of women are willing to be pumped full of hormones, even for a compassionate cause, unless they're well-compensated for the pain and risk. That's not exploitation. It's trade. Unless, of course, you believe that trade is inherently exploitative, especially when women are involved.

One interesting point: The White House and its allies have adopted the consistent use of the term "research cloning" to describe what most people call "therapeutic cloning," what groups lobbying against the bill call "SCNT" (for "somatic cell nuclear transfer," the precise name), and what I call "cell cloning" to emphasize the product rather than the process or intent. (I similarly tend to use "baby cloning" to describe "reproductive cloning.")

Why is "research" suddenly a bad word? So that people will think of "greedy scientists in white coats as opposed to people with diseases to be cured" suggests a friend who opposes the ban but was in the White House's p.r. loop. True, I think, but not the whole picture. Using "research cloning" along with the president's talk of "human life" and "individuals" makes it sound as though scientists want to grow babies and do dastardly research on them. This is absurd, but, as Todd Seavey notes in his latest column, this debate is as much about symbols and myths as it is about science or philosophy. Mental pictures matter. Most people don't understand that an "embryo" is less recognizably human than a "fetus." Bush's speech writers, and presumably his "bioethics" advisers, are using that ignorance and some carefully chosen wording to make the public think the president is standing between humanity and mad, baby-dissecting scientists.

The anti-science strain that runs through Bush's rhetoric may not reflect the president's actual views of the scientific enterprise and its practioners. Like most Americans, he probably appreciates both the pursuit of knowledge and its practical application. He just has a religious conviction that a fertilized egg is a person. But the left-right intellectual alliance against cell research is just that: people united against increased understanding of how the human body works. Getting the president to stigmatize science and commerce serves their immediate purpose—making cloning cells a federal crime—and their long-term goal—making it harder to alter human beings' biological fates.

You know those crazy scientists—they'll do anything, because they have no consciences. That's what George Bush said on Wednesday. And it was despicable.

If you read only one thing on this general topic, read Alan Kors on charity and the relief of man's estate. And please sign the petition against the ban. [Posted 4/12.]

MORMONS & CELLS: Reader Allen S. Thorpe wrotes wwith the subject line "A Mormon perspective on cell research":

It seems to me that the only valid objection to stem cell research would be that fertilized ova are separate human beings, that they have souls. As a believer in LDS theology, I think that view is unsupported.

We believe that our spirits existed prior to this mortal life, and that we were sent here in part because our physical bodies enable a "fullness of joy."

We have been taught that the growth of technology is the result of God pouring out his spirit in these latter days. It would follow that the increasing homogenization of cultures and peoples is part of God's program. Most scientific advances are double edged, able to be used for good or evil. It's human beings who make that decision.

We also believe that all truth is part of our religion and that "The glory of God is intelligence." We teach science and have had a number of prominent scientists as church leaders. You may have heard of Philo Farnsworth, who invented television. One of our current apostles was a prominent heart surgeon before being called to his present position.

The reason I don't see stem cell research as evil is that the LDS Church, through its prophet, has not equated abortion to murder. Abortion is considered an evil practice, not because it is necessarily a murder, but because we are supposed to multiply and replenish the earth and because it usually is the result of a prior series of other immoralities. No one really knows when a spirit enters a body, but it is assuredly not in vitro.

I think that caution is necessary in this research because of the high failure rate of cloning, but that is not a reason to ban it altogether. What makes our point of view different from other religions is that we believe that God continues to speak through revelation and give guidance on such issues. Other monotheistic religions all believe that relevation ceased long ago and that it is up to theologians to interpret ancient scriptures and apply them to current problems. It would be a harsh God indeed who would cease speaking to us and leave us adrift in times like these.

Anyway, that's why I agree with Senator Hatch on this one.

Actually, as I told Allen, Senator Hatch hasn't yet declared his views on the cell-cloning ban. He's considered a vital swing vote.

Back in August, when embryonic stem cell research funding was the issue of the day, Drew Clark explored LDS theology and stem-cell politics in a Slate article. [Posted 4/12.]

LIBERTARIAN ISOLATIONISM, CONT'D: Writing in to sign the Franklin Society's petition against making cell cloning a crime, Hoover Institution economist David Henderson, a Canadian-born naturalized citizen, chides me for referring "to people like me—anti-war libertarians—as people who hate their country. I chose this country because I love it very much." That wasn't what I meant to say, but it does seem a reasonable interpretation of the poorly crafted sentences in the item below. (I guess this is what they mean when journalists complain that blogs have no editors.)

I don't think for a moment that all libertarian isolationists (or, for that matter, conservative or leftist isolationists) are anti-American, only that some very loud ones are. As a group, isolationist are wrong, they're utopian, and they have a tendency to discredit arguments I think are important, particularly on issues of domestic civil liberties. But they aren't universally anti-American, and certainly David, whom I've known for years, isn't. (Readers might enjoy his book, The Joy of Freedom.)

Adopting the "antiwar" isolationist position does have a tendency to draw libertarians toward anti-American and/or anti-market positions, usually by first drawing them toward anti-American and/or anti-market allies. In order to justify a policy of no engagement overseas, even when (as in the current situation or World War II) the United States is directly attacked, it becomes tempting to find greater and greater fault with the country, to identify with those who wish America and its citizens ill, and to argue for withdrawal from the world of international migration and trade.

Brink Lindsey continues to post interesting thoughts on the subject of libertarians and foreign policy and its relation to anarchist strains in the libertarian intellectual movement. Among his most important points is: "Face the present as it actually is, not as you think it should be." Or as TFAIE put it in a different context, quoting Stephen Toulmin, "There is no scratch." We don't get to rewrite history, nor is starting at Year Zero something anyone who cares about human life, liberty, and happiness would argue for. [Posted 4/12.]

CELL RESEARCH: I'll write more later about the White House push for a ban on the "therapeutic cloning." In the meantime, please check out the petition and related links here.

One quick note about the unpleasant intersection of science and politics: No one can promise that any line of basic research will lead to any particular treatments—a point that the anti-research side makes repeatedly. That's true of all basic research. And it's definitely true of the alternatives touted to excuse a ban. No one knows those alternatives will work either. People who want to make cell cloning a crime are asking to pick a winner by putting the loser in jail. They're trying to criminalize the path of discovery itself.

What this battle about is the right to try to figure things out, to ask questions, to do experiments, in the belief that knowledge will lead to "the relief of man's estate." There is good reason to think this research is promising. But there is also good reason to preserve the freedom to do research even when it's speculative. The proponents of the ban keep saying that the research isn't necessary, so outlawing it is justified. They are in effect demanding that science, an open-ended process of exploring the unknown, have answers in advance—and practical ones at that.

The more I've learned about this subject—and there's still a lot I don't know, even at the level of a good science journalist like my friend Ron Bailey—the more I've begun to think that basic research, not treatments, is in fact the issue. Rather than directly cloning organs for transplants, for instance, it seems more likely that basic research will lead to a better understanding of cell development, which will lead to a more elegant way of developing tissues, without the problem of obtaining eggs. But we'll never know unless we explore. [Posted 4/11.]

ALPHA GIRL: I don't know what Maureen Dowd's problem is—maybe she just didn't have the advantage of growing up with a bunch of brothers—but I've never known the horrors of men trying "to protect their eggshell egos from high-achieving women." In my experience, men like high-achieving women, or at least they like me, just fine. (OK, so I'm not that high-achieving. But I have the temperament the Meyers-Briggs people so charmingly call The Field Marshall, which seems like the sort of thing eggshell egos would be afraid of.)

Of course, I also believe that human beings, regardless of sex, have to make tradeoffs. If you spend all your time working as a high-powered journalist, maybe you shouldn't try to be a mom in your nonexistent spare time. And while I don't speak from experience, having met my husband when we were both college freshmen, I'd be willing to bet that whining in print about the evils of men is a really bad way to get dates. [Posted 4/11.]

WHO WANTS TO BE READ? The Authors Guild, a union of 8,000 writers, is telling members they should break ties to Amazon and has sent a sharp letter to the company, condemning it for selling used books. The NYT report treats this protest as a rebellion by "authors" (in general) and a sign that the "literary world" (in general) has cooled on Amazon.

I'm an author. Amazon sells used copies of my book right on the same page where it sells new copies. When my next book comes out, I expect Amazon will do the same thing with it. And I have absolutely no intention of breaking the links from this site to Amazon's.

The Authors Guild apparently represents writers who would rather see their books pulped or sent to the dump than read. Yes, authors—including me—want to get paid. (Hurray! I got my first royalty check, for a bit over $300, a few weeks ago, having finally "earned out" my advance for TFAIE.) But if the guild were serious about protecting authors, it would direct its ire not at Amazon, which is the best thing to happen to readers and writers since the paperback, but at the book review editors who cart their unwanted copies to used book stores instead of giving them to libraries. That's where the copies come from that turn up on Amazon before they've even hit the stores. But even then I don't mind. The loss in royalties is more than made up for by the gain in readers. Since TFAIE didn't get many reviews (one thing that nasty Eric Alterman told the truth about), I'm sure a lot of discarded review copies wound up in used bookstores.

I'm grateful to Amazon, and to the much-maligned chains, for stocking and selling lots of copies of my book. It could hardly have survived without them, since it's not the sort of work that independent bookstore proprietors like. I'm happy to have my book reach new readers through used-book sales. And as a reader, I'm glad to have such an easy way to obtain otherwise hard-to-get books like James Lileks' Fresh Lies, which just arrived today from one of Amazon's dastardly used-book sellers.

Whether you like Amazon or hate them, you can buy my book directly from me by clicking on the link to the left. The other cover-illustrated links to the left go to Amazon, which gives me a 15% cut when you order them from the first page you see and a 5% cut for everything you order when you go to Amazon from this site.

Finally, I'm not sure what, if anything, to make of this but the letter to Amazon is signed by two women—Letty Cottin Pogrebin, president of the Authors Guild, and former Rep. Patricia S. Schroeder, president of the Association of American Publishers—who are far better known for their feminist political activity than for selling books. (Letty Cottin Pogrebin is a fairly well-known writer, however.) Beats me what it meansmaybe just good networkingbut I thought I'd mention it. [Posted 4/11.]

CLONE WATCH: Charlie Murtaugh has posted an item explaining the science behind why, as an opponent of reproductive cloning, he still signed petition against a ban on "therapeutic cloning." (See item below for more information.) [Posted 4/10.]

CRIMINALIZING SCIENCE: The future of medical research needs your help. But first, some background:

In the next week or two, the Senate will vote on a bill to make cloning cells through "somatic nuclear transfer" a criminal offense, punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and a $1 million fine. As it currently stands, the bill would also make it a crime to import a medical therapy that had been developed abroad using such "therapeutic cloning" (called that to distinguish it from baby-making "reproductive cloning). This bill represents both a nearly unprecedented attack on basic science; the only comparable prohibitions I can think of involve mind-altering drugs. It would be a significant blow to potentially life-saving medical techniques in this country and, if such treatments are developed elsewhere for diseases like Parkinson's and diabetes, it would create a black market or drive patients abroad. (I've written about the issue in The Wall Street Journal and the Los Angeles Times and organized a symposium of statements published on Reason Online.)

A House version has already passed, so the Senate will decide the issue. The vote will be close, especially now that Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) has stopped wavering and come out for a ban.

To rally the anti-research troops, the president has invited opponents to the White House today, taking a break from foreign policy. "It's a fluid situation, and I think the president thinks he can win," an adviser tells the NYT.

Last week, Chris Mooney of The American Prospect revealed that the supposedly anti-research left wasn't so opposed after all. And a grassroots group of self-described progressives mounted a petition to drive home the point.

Now I've joined with a group of non-leftists (conservative, libertarian, centrist, declines to state) to cover the rest of the political spectrum. Many, though by no means all, of the early signers of our petition voted for Bush. Some of them are very mad, some peeved, others just cynically disgusted that the president would sacrifice the future welfare of patients and the present freedom of inquiry to score political points with his social conservative allies. This is, in fact, an issue the Democrats could run with if they had the guts. (The AWOL liberal activist groups and wimpy Dems are a rant subject for another day.)

You can see our petition, along with links to more information, here. I'm sure you'll recognize many of the names. If you are a U.S. citizen, please sign the petition. Write your Senator. A link to contact info is on the page. An individually composed email will be fine, thanks to the anthrax-induced slowdown of regular mail to Capitol Hill. And please spread the word. [Posted 4/10.]

ITALIAN DISEASE: "The difference in Italy and the United States is like running through a swamp or running on Astroturf," says Ugo Ginatta, co-owner with his wife of Paciugo, an ambitious (and delicious) chain of gelato parlors based in Dallas. "A European entrepreneur—and an Italian one in particular—will spend half of his time taking care of problems that have nothing to do with his business."

I sent my friend Pierluigi Zappacosta the Dallas Morning News article in which the quote appeared. Pierluigi is well-known as a co-founder of Logitech, and he's now chairman of Digital Persona, but I'm always trying to get him into the gelato business. His response: "I loved the 'running in swamps or on Astroturf" image. Doing business in Italy is indeed maddening hard. I would have been a total failure in Italy."

The Berlusconi government has been trying to make that task slightly less difficult, by loosening the labor law, known as Article 18, which makes it essentially impossible ever to fire an employee. The law kicks in when a company reaches 15 people. As Michael Barone, who was fresh from Italy when I saw him on my recent DC trip, puts it, "There are a lot of 14-employee firms in Italy."

Berlusconi's reforms wouldn't get rid of the law. They would simply make is slightly more flexible. As the Financial Times explains:

Under Article 18 of the statute, any worker who can prove he has been sacked without "just cause" can be reinstated in his job by a court. Mr Berlusconi's government proposes suspending this article in three cases: for those companies abandoning the black economy and coming out into the open; for companies whose workforce grows beyond 15 people because of new hirings; and when employees in southern Italy pass from a contract with a set time period to one that has no time limit.

The battle over the reform, which hasn't gotten much U.S. coverage, has been intense, costing the life of economist Mario Biagi, who was assassinated for his role in advising the government on the reform. (Italian terrorists seem to have a thing for killing economists. While cleaning out old files, my husband recently came across the chilling memo from Franco Modigliani that I mention in this op-ed.) In late March, more than a million union-affiliated demonstrators poured into the streets in generally peaceful protests. A one-day general strike is planned for next week.

As one might predict in an aging country where it's impossible to lay people off—and thus risky to hire people, especially inexperienced young people, in the first place—unions have increasingly come to represent retirees, not current workers. So it's not clear whether Berlusconi's current offer, a proposal to extend unemployment benefits to people who work in small and medium companies, will appease them.

For the forseeable future, the Astroturf United States can look forward to more defectors from the entrepreneurial swamp. [Posted 4/9.]

MORE ITALIAN NOTES: Michael Barone's column on his Italy trip is here. The Italians, he says, don't share the anti-U.S. sentiment rolling through much of Western Europe:

When American journalists were reporting that all of Europe opposed the United States on missile defense, Berlusconi's government, like Blair's, supported Bush's decision to scrap the antiballistic missile treaty and move ahead as a necessary step against terrorist states. When American journalists were reporting that all of Europe opposed Bush's rejection of the Kyoto treaty, Berlusconi said he understood America's reservations. After September 11, Italy sent Navy and Air Force units to aid the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and offered to send Army units as well, and it sent more troops to the Balkans to reduce the need for U.S. troops there.

Solid promise. What about future moves, especially against Iraq? "If, as I believe possible, the United States presents a convincing case that Iraq is engaged in the production of weapons of mass destruction, and that it has the capability of projecting these weapons," Defense Minister Antonio Martino said during an interview in Rome, "then we can convince a majority of Parliament to support the operation. Even the most reluctant Italian would understand." Since there seems to be little doubt that such evidence can be produced—Blair's government even now is promising a white paper on evidence of Iraq's capabilities—this amounts to a solid promise of support. Martino predicts that Germany and Spain will follow suit. "From a purely military point of view, the U.S. does not need anybody,'' he said. "But the U.S. wants to avoid the private thing and have an international coalition. That kind of support is needed, and we will provide it."

According to the Financial Times, Berlusconi enjoys a solid majority of popular support.

And in different take on Italy, the conspiracists over at IndyMedia are claiming that the Berlusconi government must have murdered Mario Biagi. Although the obvious parallel is the claim that Jews and the Bush administration conspired to ram hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, their paranoid style actually reminds me a lot of the old "ancient astronauts" case built on rhetorical questions. [Posted 4/9.]

DIM VIEWS: Last Tuesday's NYT profile of Francis Fukuyama was neither deep nor as interested in his new, anti-biotech book, Our Posthuman Future as it might have been, even in the limited space. (Too much End of History news to go over.) But it was thorough enough to incite readers against Fukuyama's "there are some things man was not meant to know" stance. Today's letters to the editor included these:

To the Editor:
In "A Dim View of a 'Posthuman Future' " (April 2), Dr. Francis Fukuyama says he wonders whether Caesar or Napoleon "would have felt the need to conquer Europe if either had been able to pop a Prozac," as if this would have been a bad thing.

Dr. Fukuyama, like so many of his faction, seems to think that there is a definition of "human nature" so mystical that alteration must by definition be negative.

I, having accepted years ago that his definition excludes me, propose that perhaps a little posthumanity may be just what earth needs to survive.
SETH EBEN SHAPIRO
Albany, N.Y.

To the Editor:
In "Posthuman Future," Dr. Francis Fukuyama says that genetic engineering may pose the most direct threat to human nature, but that other techniques bear watching. For instance, he states that mood altering drugs "could" change society if taken widely enough.

"Could?" Try to imagine the world without the most widely used mood altering drug of all—caffeine.
SCOTT DWYER
Troy, N.Y.

Let's hear it for caffeine, the exceedingly unnatural drug on which modern civilization (except maybe Utah) depends.

Will the NYT will get around to profiling Greg Stock and his new book, Redesigning Humans? Unlikely in my lifetime, no matter how biomedically extended. (Read Stock and Fukuyama's Reason Online debate here.) [Posted 4/9.]

NOT NEW COKE: The WSJ redesign looks good to me. The graphic designers deserve major kudos for maintaining the paper's essential identity. But why is the interesting article about Starbucks in Europe slotted under "Career Journal"?

Addendum: The editorial page, which didn't need more than a slight alteration of typefaces to go with the new look, is needlessly ugly. [Posted 4/9.]