P.S. on Dr. Fauci Hearing and Congressional Dysfunction

 I took another look at the "hearing wrap up" press release from meeting that the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held with Dr. Fauci. Very sad performance by the committee.

Given that Dr. Fauci has spent more than half a century devoted to protecting the world's population from infectious diseases, given that he has been credited with saving millions of lives, you might expect that the "Key Hearing Takeaways" listed in the wrap up would help us with questions like: How can we prevent another pandemic? What steps can we take to protect everyone throughout the globe from the next new virus that challenges us? How can we best organize our public health system to work as effectively as possible?

Not a single one of the "takeaways" related to such questions. In addition, in the "Member Highlights" section of the wrap up, not a single member said anything that was forward looking and visionary. Rather they tried to outdo one another with "gotcha" statements and "he said, she said" types of comments about the past.

We need strong, bipartisan leadership that enables us to make government work to promote the health and livelihood of all. We certainly do not have that leadership in place right now.

Dr. Fauci, Science, and Congressional Dysfunction

 

Similar to Anthony Fauci, I spent a career leading careful, deliberate, nonpartisan efforts to use science – in my case, social science – to improve the quality of life for all people in equitable ways. (By coincidence, Dr. Fauci and I attended the same high school in New York City, although his graduation preceded mine by 10 years.) So, via C-Span, I watched with great interest his appearance at the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic. 

Ostensibly, the committee meeting had the worthy goal to identify steps we can take to prevent another pandemic similar to COVID19. In contrast, it was a seesaw conversation with red representatives trying to blame Dr. Fauci for one thing or another and blue representatives rising to Dr. Fauci’s defense. Few questions from committee members had anything to do with subjects that could protect the health of the American people. 

This half day event provided plenty of examples of the misunderstanding that some people have about science, and it put into relief the dysfunction of our Congress. 

Many of the representatives don’t know, or don’t want to admit, how science works, and how it can inform policy, government action, and community action. Scientific research begins with questions; activities occur to gather information to respond to those questions; scientists analyze that information; they then produce findings. Usually, the findings answer only some of the original questions, and the answers that the research provides are usually better and more complete for some questions than for others. 

Given the research findings, anyone can interpret what those findings mean, what strength they have, what limitations they have. Based on research findings, anyone can draw conclusions. If interested in using the findings to inform a decision or to guide an action, anyone can do so. 

Rarely does research on a specific question of interest provide the absolute, definite, immutable answer to that question. A specific study does the best it can at a particular time with the findings it can produce. Later research tries to address unanswered questions; it also often tests to see if the findings from earlier studies really had the strength that everyone thought and/or whether they continue to apply in a changing world. In this way, knowledge based on scientific research evolves, corrects itself, and improves over time. 

Apply that to the situation with COVID. COVID arrived in the United States as a completely novel pathogen and immediately began to kill people. We faced a severe crisis. Decisions about policies and action to stave off this killer could not draw on research because little research existed on the ways that specific virus transmitted itself and on specific means of prevention. No evidence existed on best treatments. So, very logically, public health experts made decisions based on closely related evidence, gathered new information, and revised their thinking and their recommendations about COVID as they learned more. 

Some early decisions produced positive results; some did not. All of the decisions about how to treat the virus and stop its transmission had social and economic impacts in addition to health impacts. Schools and businesses closed, or changed operations, for example – with major costs for families, individuals, and companies. All of those impacts need to be analyzed so that we understand their benefits and costs and can use that understanding when challenged by a future virus. Sadly, the activities of the committee did not move in that direction. 

Which raises the issue of the dysfunction of our U.S. Congress. A hearing such as this should contribute to our understanding of how to put science to use in preventing future national tragedies such as COVID. This committee should ask Dr. Fauci and others questions such as: What have we learned about public health measures that work and don’t work for prevention? What steps should we take if we suspect another powerful virus has begun to infect our population? How can we ensure effective, equitable care if a new epidemic occurs? How can we train and sustain the motivation of health care workers, to empower them to defeat future pandemics? 

Those questions received little consideration. The press release “wrap up” on the committee’s website contained a litany of criticisms of Dr. Fauci; it did not mention anything that could protect the future health of our population. 

Many of the Republican representatives used precious time to ask whether Dr. Fauci had used his personal email for official purposes. Each time someone raised the question, he said no. None of them had any evidence that he had done so. Regardless, does Dr. Fauci’s use of email several years ago contribute in even the slightest way to building our nation’s protection against a future pandemic? No. 

A staff person for the red side had the opportunity to ask questions of Dr. Fauci, after the elected representatives had completed their questioning. Commendably, he addressed some of the issues relevant to the protection of the public’s health. It seemed that most of the committee members had left by that time – which is too bad, since they might have learned something, and maybe by learning they could put science to good use.

Martin Luther King's Vision

 

Can we join together as a planet, to address the issues that face humanity? Martin Luther King Jr. had a vision, expressed during the two speeches he gave at the time of his Nobel Peace Prize award.

All statements below are direct quotes.*

I accept this award today with an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in the future of mankind. I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the “isness” of man’s present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal “oughtness” that forever confronts him. I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life, unable to influence the unfolding events which surround him. I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality.

I believe that even amid today’s mortar bursts and whining bullets, there is still hope for a brighter tomorrow. I believe that wounded justice, lying prostrate on the blood-flowing streets of our nations, can be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men. I have the audacity to believe that peoples everywhere can have three meals a day for their bodies, education and culture for their minds, and dignity, equality and freedom for their spirits. I believe that what self-centered men have torn down men other-centered can build up.

Yet, in spite of these spectacular strides in science and technology, and still unlimited ones to come, something basic is missing. There is a sort of poverty of the spirit which stands in glaring contrast to our scientific and technological abundance. The richer we have become materially, the poorer we have become morally and spiritually. We have learned to fly the air like birds and swim the sea like fish, but we have not learned the simple art of living together as brothers.

Another indication that progress is being made was found in the recent presidential election in the United States. The American people revealed great maturity by overwhelmingly rejecting a presidential candidate who had become identified with extremism, racism, and retrogression8. The voters of our nation rendered a telling blow to the radical right9. They defeated those elements in our society which seek to pit white against Negro and lead the nation down a dangerous Fascist path.

Why should there be hunger and privation in any land, in any city, at any table when man has the resources and the scientific know-how to provide all mankind with the basic necessities of life? Even deserts can be irrigated and top soil can be replaced. We cannot complain of a lack of land, for there are twenty-five million square miles of tillable land, of which we are using less than seven million. We have amazing knowledge of vitamins, nutrition, the chemistry of food, and the versatility of atoms. There is no deficit in human resources; the deficit is in human will.

So man’s proneness to engage in war is still a fact. But wisdom born of experience should tell us that war is obsolete. There may have been a time when war served as a negative good by preventing the spread and growth of an evil force, but the destructive power of modern weapons eliminated even the possibility that war may serve as a negative good. If we assume that life is worth living and that man has a right to survive, then we must find an alternative to war. In a day when vehicles hurtle through outer space and guided ballistic missiles carve highways of death through the stratosphere, no nation can claim victory in war. A so-called limited war will leave little more than a calamitous legacy of human suffering, political turmoil, and spiritual disillusionment.

So we must fix our vision not merely on the negative expulsion of war, but upon the positive affirmation of peace. We must see that peace represents a sweeter music, a cosmic melody that is far superior to the discords of war. Somehow we must transform the dynamics of the world power struggle from the negative nuclear arms race which no one can win to a positive contest to harness man’s creative genius for the purpose of making peace and prosperity a reality for all of the nations of the world. In short, we must shift the arms race into a “peace race”.

This is the great new problem of mankind. We have inherited a big house, a great “world house” in which we have to live together – black and white, Easterners and Westerners, Gentiles and Jews, Catholics and Protestants, Moslem and Hindu, a family unduly separated in ideas, culture, and interests who, because we can never again live without each other, must learn, somehow, in this one big world, to live with each other.

This means that more and more our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. We must now give an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in our individual societies.

This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force, has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response which is little more than emotional bosh. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life.

* Quotes from:

Martin Luther King Jr. – Acceptance Speech. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2024. Mon. 15 Jan 2024. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/acceptance-speech/

Martin Luther King Jr. – Nobel Lecture. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2024. Mon. 15 Jan 2024. <https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/peace/1964/king/lecture

Racial Disparities, Suppression of Speech, Denial of Science – but nonetheless Hope on Independence Day

Some quotes from the Times for our times, which I noticed as I paged through The New York Times on the recent Fourth of July and the day after

From an essay by Matthew Thompson, questioning the impacts which urban economic development has had upon Black communities:

“Are we doing better than our ancestors? Are we building on their best ideas and learning from their worst mistakes? What sort of future are we preparing the next generation for?”

With that entreaty Thompson concluded a discussion that emphasized taking a comprehensive look at how changes made in the name of “progress” can often produce positive results from some, but negative results for others. He suggests learning from experience – good and bad – as we address economics, education, health care, criminal justice, and housing in order to create an optimal and equitable quality of life for all people.

From an essay by Darren Walker, the president of the Ford Foundation, urging us to overcome the divisions in our nation:

“I believe fiercely in the promise of America. My love for this nation is unyielding and unwavering…In this new era of deconstruction, we must summon renewed fortitude, resilience and vigilance, with reverence for those who came before us and resolve for those who follow. This will require patriotic defiance, with respect for the rule of law but with fidelity to the ideals that precede it.”

Walker encourages us to change cultural values and institutional systems that don’t work optimally for all. The fundamental principles which underlie this nation’s democratic vision persist in their relevance, despite flaws and shortcomings in their application since the nation’s founding. We can fix that.

From an article by Vimal Patel, on free speech in the cyber age, in reaction to the actions of Daniel Schmidt, an activist protesting “anti-White hatred”:

“the Chicago statement (a declaration of free speech principles) has become a guide for colleges across the country that have struggled to manage campus controversies, particularly when liberal students shout down conservative speakers….The Chicago statement assumes that what takes place on campuses is ‘in good faith and that people have an interest in engaging the ideas’…but ‘the ecosystem that Daniel Schmidt is part of has no interest in a conversation’”.

Much has changed since the 1970s, when I began my research career. Certainly, extremists of all persuasions have always existed. Some of them have claimed their own sets of “facts” and have denied objective, credible evidence. However, the majority of members of audiences for research used to include diverse constituencies who would accept a study’s findings and then proceed with their interpretation.

As an analogy, if we determined that a 16 ounce glass contained 8 ounces of liquid, groups who differed in their outlooks and priorities would accept the data and move forward. Some might proclaim that the glass was half full; others might proclaim that the glass was half empty. But no significant denial arose regarding the fact that the glass held six ounces.

Today, unfortunately, some people would attempt to conceal the number of ounces. Others would look straight at the number 8 and say that it is not really 8. Those people render conversation and mutual agreement very difficult, at least in the short term.

From an essay by Anthony Fauci, regarding the complex relationship which evolved during 32 years between him and an activist who at the outset loudly and publicly proclaimed Fauci a “murderer”:

“…we reminisced like two aging warriors who recalled the battles that we fought together, how despite our initial adversarial relationship, we ultimately became partners in an important struggle and how differences of opinion and even a history of antagonism are entirely compatible with friendship and even love….I am so pleased and grateful that the last words we had the opportunity to say to each other were, ‘I love you.’”

So, on this Independence Day, I hope that as many people as possible can declare independence from rigid ways of thinking, that they can expand their perspectives, and as Thompson and Walker exhort, build a future based on respect and understanding of the past, along with energetic dedication to improve the future.

Walker also stated: “However we give voice to our patriotism, let’s step away from the extremes and from the edge, away from the sanctimony and certitude. Let’s build longer bridges, not higher walls.”

I hope that the portions of those on the left and on the right who now obdurately cling to narrow visions can refrain from demonizing their adversaries. Then, with expansion of their scope of sight, perhaps as Fauci suggests, all of us can act as partners in our very important human struggle to make this country, in fact this entire world, a just and healthy place to live.

Immigrant, Sociologist, Visionary: Aronovici

 

Science attempts to inform politics, with mixed results.

Public health expert offers recommendations and is ridiculed by a racist public official.

Research identifying inequities suffers backlash.

Do these sound like familiar recent events? They actually occurred in Saint Paul a little more than 100 years ago. Carol Aronovici, who served as the first director of Wilder Research, found himself immersed in controversies that arose because he did good social scientific work that did not align with the thinking of some people in power at the time.

In 1917, the Wilder Foundation board of directors hired Carol Aronovici, Ph.D., as the first research leader of the organization. Romanian-born Dr. Aronovici had earned his Ph.D. in Sociology at Brown University, under the supervision of Professor Lester Frank Ward, the first president of the American Sociological Association. Professor Ward stressed that science should work for the benefit of humanity – an axiom continuously underlying the quest of Wilder Research to improve the lives of individuals, families, and communities.

Immediately upon taking his position, Aronovici initiated a survey of housing and health conditions, which Wilder Research considers its first study. The Saint Paul Pioneer Press reported that Aronovici told the funders of the study and other community leaders that he wanted their assurance that the findings of the research would lead to action. “It is my conviction that a housing survey which is merely intended to give the community a bad reputation and does not result in immediate, practical, and far-reaching action, is detrimental rather than beneficial to the community.”1

Based on Aronovici’s survey, which included visiting the homes of more than 22,000 people, Wilder Research issued its first research publication: “Housing Conditions in the City of Saint Paul”.2  With statistical tables, graphs, maps, and pictures, the report provided a framework for significant recommendations intended to improve the lives of Saint Paul’s residents, including: development of housing ordinances; formation of a Housing Bureau; and initiation of comprehensive inspections of hotels and lodging houses to ensure that the conditions in which people lived met basic standards of sanitation. 

The report by Aronovici exhibited wisdom more characteristic of the twenty-first century than of the twentieth. He understood the importance of managing the social and physical environments of an urban area in order to create equitable, healthy living spaces for all people, especially people of low income. He had observed city life across the United States and in other countries and had witnessed how housing design could enhance human life. 

Some of his observations seem very prescient, given what we now know about the importance of green space, the mixed impacts of the advent of automobile travel, and the advantages and disadvantages of urban growth. He urged, for example, “comprehensive community planning of constructive character” that would produce “the maximum amount of light and air” and “the economical use of land without hindrance to requirements of safety, sanitation, convenience, or permanency of investment”.

Observing inequities that produced challenges for poor people and immigrants, as well as power dynamics that favored unscrupulous landlords over tenants, Aronovici proposed bold conclusions and recommendations. He acknowledged the importance of promoting health for all of Saint Paul’s residents, but noted the special importance of attending to the needs of lower income people:

“The entire city needs a constructive plan, but the elimination of the slums and the redistricting of the city to meet the housing and industrial needs of the wage earners and poorer elements of the population, should take precedence over the construction of costly public buildings, the development of improving thoroughfares, the building of boulevards designed for the automobile tourist, the opening up of park areas in districts undeveloped and inaccessible sections of the City. These things, while desirable, should not take precedence over the immediate needs for the improvement of the living conditions of the people.” 

Based on the study, Aronovici felt that the city had failed to do as much as it could and should have done for its residents. He specifically faulted Saint Paul’s public officials for failure to enforce existing building codes, enact new health and housing codes, provide adequate water and sewer lines, and maintain an effective system of garbage collection. He identified tropes which stigmatized poor people and immigrants, and which public officials referenced in order to justify inaction by government with respect to addressing public health issues. 

For the legislative branch, the report suggested that stereotypes of the “foreigner” served as excuses which legislators used to delay passing laws that would protect the health of immigrant and poor populations. Regarding the executive branch, the report strongly criticized the Health Department for inadequate attention to public health issues, citing a lack of personnel and lack of efficiency, but also citing the unwillingness of the Health Department to bring issues forward for attention, due to dominant prejudices against the poor. The report advised that anyone in the Health Department or in any other department of the City government responsible for the neglect of public health should receive “public condemnation” and be removed from office. 

The judicial branch received disapprobation through statements in the report that reflected Aronovici’s values of equity and fairness, such as: “…the courts are frequently unwilling or unable to realize the importance of using their judicial power in the protection of the health of the people with the same sense of justice that guides them in the protection of mere property…Property can be reproduced, health cannot…” 

Many people praised the report, and it did lead to changes in health and housing policies. Within four months of the report’s publication, the Saint Paul City Council enacted a housing ordinance which Aronovici had authored. 

Not surprisingly, however, the report received a negative reaction from Saint Paul’s health officer, Dr. B.F. Simon: “I wish to go on record from the first that I have not given a great deal of time or attention to said Dr. Aronovici since taking public office because I absolutely refuse to give much of the public’s time to recommendations made by any man who is not a full-fledged American citizen.” 

Aronovici died in 1957. His obituary in The New York Times indicated that, at the University of Pennsylvania, he had taught “the first course in city planning offered in this country”. After leaving Saint Paul, he became the State Commissioner of Housing and Immigration for California. The obituary also noted: “At the New York World’s Fair of 1939-40 he was one of a group of naturalized citizens honored for contributions to ‘the welfare and progress of the United States’.”3  A profile of Aronovici in the StarTribune in 2017 characterized him as “years ahead of his time”.4 

[1] Saint Paul Pioneer Press, March 5, 1917.

[2] Aronovici, Carol, “Housing Conditions in the City of Saint Paul,” Amherst H. Wilder Charity, 1917.

[3] The New York Times, August 1, 1957.

[4] Brown, Curt, “Lifting the Lid on St. Paul’s Poverty,” StarTribune, November 19, 2017