Mommy, what were Pandemics like?

Curiously enough, in 2006 the made-up word TamiFlu became part of the household lexicon of the average news-consuming adult. The drug has proved the equivalent of Microsoft's seminal Disk Operating System for its maker (but not inventor), Roche, which could not produce it quickly enough to keep up with massive demand, driven largely by wealthy clients such as the national governments of France and the US, which are developing stockpiles in the event of a worldwide Avian Flu pandemic. But TamiFlu's ability to respond to the adaptable "Bird Flu" virus is famously uncertain - no doubt which drives a subcurrent of frustration with scientists and their inability to know everything.

Fortunately, things are not as dismal as they appear. In the makings, is what will no doubt be referred to in posterity as the Evolution Revolution, a period that will be marked as a "revolution" in the way major health afflictions are addressed.

Of course, research on the two most important forms of contagious disease, as differentiated by their agents of propogation: bacteria and viruses, is informed principally by Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Evolution is a concept, like Einstein's Relativity Theory, that took some considerable amount of time before it won widespread acceptance and comprehension. It is only for this historical quirk, that these tour-de-force propositions continue to be referred to as "theories" rather than laws. On merit they deserve more, since they have been proven beyond the extent of, say, Newton's Second "Law" of Motion, which, by the way, is wrong.

Today, the Theory of Evolution is undisputed. And unlike the Theory of Relativity, it has had a momentous impact on our day-to-day lives: namely by extending them. Bacteria are single-celled organisms and viruses are even simpler. What they have in common is the fact that they they have the most rapid evolution cycles known. In a matter of weeks, hundreds of generations will have transpired and a new strain, impervious to existing drugs, may be the result. So in disease research, it is vital to develop an accurate model that can forecast mutations in these Wee Beasties, and thereby fuel preemptive medical measures.

The Evolution Revolution is an important revision to the Theory of Evolution that is bound to pay dividends in our ability to stop the spread of contagious diseases. One of the most important tenets in his 1859 Origin of the Species, was Darwin's idea of Natural Selection. This mechanism stipulates the occurence of a myriad of microscopic mutations, many of which go nowhere, but a few of which create successful incremental adaptations that accumulate over the millenia to assume the variegated landscape of life that we have documented in our zoology textbooks with those curiously familiar-sounding Latin names like the Proteobacterium and Escherichia Coli, not to mention that most beloved of species from the Chordata-Hominidum category: Homo Sapiens.

According to natural selection, mutations are supposed to occur completely at random. The proposition was accepted until recently as writ. However, in his 1996 tome, Darwin's Black Box, Michael Behe, a Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University, revived the long-forgotten (at least in physical science circles) principle
known as Irreducible Complexity. His research reveals that, while many mutations do in fact proceed at random, there are important exceptions to this rule. For example, the evolution of E. Coli's flagellum, a whip-like tail that propels its miniature master through its soupy world, could not have occured through small and completely random incremental mutations; the intermediate creatures, those between unflagellated and flagellated E. Coli, would not have survived Darwin's cruel and undemocratic "law of the jungle" that presides over nature, singling out her strongest innovations to the exclusion of all others.

Darwin's logic, then, turns out to be fatally flawed: natural selection simply does not square with the survival of the fittest. Indeed, for 137 years we have overlooked the complexity of evolution. Yes, random mutations do occur and are responsible for the small, prosaic changes that are merely one facet of evolution. But now it is clear that the big leaps (the Big Bangs if you will) occur via a more concerted "directed selection", like a composer who directs an orchestra through the emotional highs and lows of a piece while allowing the individual musicians some leeway to produce their music.

Unlike the Theory of Relativity, whose acceptance had no immediate human impact apart from philosophical, it is imperative that this extension to the Theory of Evolution be implemented rapidly. The National Institutes of Health as well as most State Boards of Education are notorious for their inability to adapt to important
new scientific standards. In the long run, much of human ailment will indeed be relegated to obsolescence. But the question is: How many people must die and suffer before that happens?

America has always had a remarkable penchant for innovation and once more it is poised to lead a brave new world, this time in the field of medicine. By doing two things, we can ensure that this happens sooner rather than later. First, we ought to train our young minds in the latest scientific developments because they are the future of medical research. Second, we ought to rearrange our taxpayer funded research priorities. This will require a major overhaul of the archaic beaurocracy at the NIH so that research grants give priority to promising research on directed selection; while proposals premised exclusively on natural selection should be cut. The latter move will have the more immediate effect: instead of building stockpiles of dubious drugs like TamiFlu, we will be comforted to rely upon more perspicacious pharmaceutical remedies made possible by Intelligent Design.

Iraq Roadsigns

There is now a consensus that the Iraq project is going badly and a fundamentally new strategy is necessary. I welcome the Baker-Hamilton report as an attempt at apolitical realism. It appears to mark a turning point in the conversation about Iraq from the entrenched polemics that have been so destructive to US and Iraqi interests. Hopefully moderates will have greater influence on policy, including McCain, Biden and the generals.

Political Cover
Yes, perhaps the report does provide "political cover" to the president, the Republican Party and others. So what. More important is whether it is an honest and potentially productive attempt at mitigating the disastrous consequences of our Iraq policy. This project has damaged our global credibility and military and it has been devastating for the chronically beleagered Iraqi people. Remember them? They are the real victims of the chaos, suffering increasing civilian casualties, ethnic cleansing and meltdown of economic infrastructure.

Key Findings
The Iraq Study Group included several experienced people who have a broad view of foreign policy issues (three former Secretaries of State). They are not to be dismissed as partisan or poor judges of political realities. On the other hand, not much in the way of military expertise was directly involved. Here are the key findings:

• The US cannot win. It would require a large increase in troop levels and a radical change in the Iraqi government's policy. Since neither is feasible, they are not worth talking about.
  
• Iraqis must be forced to take greater ownership using the threat of a phased troop withdrawal by 2008. The Iraqi army will be coached by embedding up to 20,000 advisory officers.
  
• Multi-lateral international cooperation should be fostered through a regional conference that would include Syria and Iran. These talks should allow the discussion of other regional issues such as the Israel/Palestine conflict, but not including the nuclear question viz Iran.
  

Mythology and Pathology
The Iraq conversation will hopefully become more constructive by eliminating several problematic talking points such as:

• Manichean regimes in the Middle East: Traditional logic holds that regimes in the Middle East are either good or bad. A more nuanced understanding is necessary which is hampered by the current existential quest for an enemy. In particular Iran is discussed reflexively.
• Liberals must not rush to endorse the report merely because it repudiates many of President Bush's policies. Frustration with the President is well deserved, but it must give way to the more important concerns. The "gotcha" reflex is only satisfying to those who are safely removed from the war zone.
  

Biden-Gelb Plan
This summer Senator Joe Biden and the former President of the Council on Foreign Relations Leslie Gelb proposed an important plan for Iraq. The Iraq Study Group report supports some of its points and is ambiguous about others:

1. Federalize Iraq
2. Share oil
3. Regional conference
   
4. Gradual troop withdrawal
5. Economic aid

Points 1 and 2, taken together represent a realist political solution that has unfortunately not been endorsed by the ISG.

McCain and other critics
Senator John McCain, like Biden, is always worth listening to. He is the leading advocate for augmenting the troops. The generals have mixed views on whether this is possible or worthwhile. A viable solution for Iraq must include realistic political and military plans. What is McCain's political proposal? Central to his logic is the question of whether things will spiral out of control and how bad it can get. I don't know the answer. Another point is that Iraq is now our responsibility; "you break it you bought it". We owe the Iraqis a bit of our blood and sweat now...if that will help and if they will accept it. But neither appears likely.

Some have dismissed the notion of talking with Syria and especially Iran as unrealistic and dangerous. I find this attitude to be wrongheaded and even dangerously dogmatic at worst. Senator Lieberman has been one of the more effective critics. What is ignored is the fact that Iran and the US share certain overlapping interests. For their own reasons, both Iran and the US want more democracy in the Middle East. Iran wants to empower the long-oppressed Shia populations and the US is finding out that maybe democracy is not a good thing after all.

What next?
So maybe political cover is exactly what's needed to get the conversation going. The outlines of the plan are written on the wall, and for once lets get it right and prepare for it rather than turning on each other.

• We cannot sustain this deployment forever and therefore must make the most of a bad situation.
• We need help. We cannot do it alone and at the end of the day, the consequences will reach everyone else as much as ourselves.
• Iran is no worse than our bosom buddy Saudi Arabia which is also quietly fueling the conflict. During the Cold War we talked to the Soviets all the time. Iranians spontaneously demonstrated against the September 11 attacks and are among the most pro-American in the region (in stark contrast to SA). Moreover we both want to see a stable Iraq led by moderate Shias (Muqtada al-Sadr is not liked by Iran).