The Transcript, Part IVMessage (2/10/97,
6:43 pm) Dear Colleagues, The following comments are primarily in response to Greg's summary of 4 February. Who are the Public? It is not particularly constructive to get hung up worrying about who comprises the public to which this symposium is addressed, and who does not. You did acknowledge that it includes "everyone" at one point, which is probably sufficient. But if you are going to the trouble to identify sub-publics, based on their backgrounds, or the manner in which they may be affected by the genetic data forthcoming from HGP/HUGO, then you really must include the users and consumers of the array of diagnostic and therapeutic technologies and products developed by the biotech industry, which is the instrument by which the findings of all of this wonderful genetic data and science are made available to the public. This is the primary public to which the collective biotech industry is accountable, and, as I mentioned in a previous missive, it includes just about everybody. Don't forget, Greg, you invited me here to address "Confronting Public Concerns about Genetics" from the perspective of the Biotech industry. It is unfortunate that Celeste Condit pinned the label "market" on what I chose to define as the primary public to which the biotech industry and medical profession are accountable. Somehow, the term "market" is a loaded word in this discussion, with perhaps some tacit negative connotations. Eric Juengst's definition of the "public" he is addressing in his presentation, as the recipients of genetic risk testing, and their extended families (both present and future) is entirely consistent with and included in my definition of public. By Celeste's definition, Eric's public is the "market" for genetic screening; keep in mind that the actual test kits are for the most part supplied by the biotech industry. But is attaching a label particularly useful? Greg, in your summary, you call Eric's public the "extended family" rather than affixing the "market" label, but still continue to follow Celeste Condit's lead in referring to the public comprised of the users (and extended families thereof, of course) of pharmaceuticals as the "market." Remember, Greg, I never "conflated" the output of the biotech industry with pharmaceuticals --- that's much too limiting, of course. Hence in singling out the "consumer of pharmaceutical products" you have constructed a straw man and then proclaimed that he was not conflated with the "public." It is perhaps too easy to relapse into the stereotype definition of Biotechnology in its emerging days as revolutionizing the production of pharmaceuticals and biologics. "Today's Biotech Industry" is really something vastly broader than that, addressing not only pharmaceuticals in the traditional sense, but biologics, including vaccines, diagnostic tests (including both diagnostic products and specialized service laboratories), including tests for the presence or absence of specific DNA sequences, and a variety of gene therapies, not to mention research reagents and services. While we're at it, keep in mind that the instruments that enable rapid sequencing come from another quarter of the biotech industry, and much of the actual sequence determinations themselves are carried out under contract in private companies. It is difficult to imagine any sector of the industry, at least that part whose activities relate in some way to human health, that will not benefit in some way from the body of nucleotide sequence data and their interpretation, that is derived from this global effort. Perhaps a better way of differentiating among sub-publics and their concerns, is by the questions they ask. The users (and their extended families!) will ask: Will it work to treat X effectively? Will it really prevent Y? Is it safe? Is there a chance this treatment not only won't work but will kill me (my wife/husband/daughter/father/....)?. If it says I carry one copy of the gene for Huntington's disease, is there a chance it could be wrong? How can the DNA fingerprinting test prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the blood belonged to O. J. Simpson? What do you mean I'm not really the father of my son? Is there a chance that genetically modified cells you want to inject into me can exchange genetic information with some of my own cells in a way that will make me sicker? Will the gene therapy you want to do to correct Z possibly affect any future children I might father? And the scientifically erudite might even ask: You're say you're injecting naked synthetic DNA into my muscle to protect me against Chlamydia infections? But how do you know that the DNA won't be transported to many different kinds of cells, and that it won't just stimulate families of Chlamydia-specific cytotoxic T-lymphocytes, but launch an immune response strong enough to destroy my lungs the next time a catch a cold (due to a Chlamydia infection)? All of the above questions are one's that could be put to the biotech industry, broadly speaking, and many have been. Of course they will also be asked of the physician, the genetic counselor, and the scientists who originally develop the technology. But wherever the industry has participated, it is not only ethically accountable to respond to such questions, but in most cases, legally accountable as well. In any case, all of the above questions deal with safety, efficacy, or accuracy. Cheers, Burke Message (2/10/97,
6:43 pm) Yet Another Exciting Episode in the Continuing Exchange Between C. Condit and B. Zimmerman.. Talk about Bait! Sheesh! You really didn't think I could let the bit about the "Class Enlightenment Vision" of "Man the Controller" pass without notice, or to just look the other way while you tossed out the catchword of the times (actually of a few years ago), "chaos theory" as a rhetorical ploy to counter my assertions that the data from HGP/HUGO will continue reduce uncertainty, did you? In terms of products and strategies for the detection, prevention, treatment and management of pathology, of course the paramount public issues (although certainly not the only issues) are benefits and risks (which include accuracy). My point is that as we gain more knowledge, we can design our pharmaceuticals, biologics, and targeted gene therapies much more intelligently than we can in the absence of such information, and thus continually reduce uncertainty, both with regard to desired function and undesired consequences. That is a very simple and logical concept. Obviously there is a measure of uncertainty in everything, including all "normal" biological functions, e.g. spontaneous mutations occur in all living creatures. Most errors in DNA replication and mutation arise primarily from a very small amount of thermodynamic "leakage" and from ionizing radiation, and most are correctable. But, in fact, normal genetic function is naturally a highly deterministic process, with some remarkably efficient built-in error correction and genetic repair mechanisms. It has to be, or we would all be in deep trouble, and the survival of Homo sapiens for at least some significant tens of thousands of years without evidence for any significant genetic change could never have happened (not to mention the apparent genetic constancy of the cockroach for many millions of years). I see no reason why the accuracy of targeted genetic intervention cannot approach the accuracy of natural genetic processes. For example, the technology now exists to enable the precise, targeted replacement of one DNA sequence by another, in a way that could, in principle, be applied to humans. Your assertion, however, that we "ought to expect that the complexity of interactions in each human subsystem will work to thwart such perfect targeting" reflects a lack of understanding of the processes involved; such a statement simply does not follow. If one has simply restored a previously mutated sequence with the "normal" one, and left everything else alone, what kind of interactions are you referring to, that are uniquely different than those that occur normally? To be sure, neither chaos theory, and not even the Heisenberg uncertainty principle are significant forces here; if they were, genetics simply wouldn't work. Do I detect more than an implication of arrogance in what you call the "class enlightenment vision" of "man the controller"? But isn't the whole point to understand more and more of "the complexity of interactions in each human subsystem" thereby reducing the possibility of our interventions being thwarted, as well as the possibility of missing something critical? We should worry far more about the promotion of diagnostic, prevention and treatment strategies based on grossly incomplete knowledge. For example, the obsession with serum cholesterol and LDL, to the point of taking drugs (with numerous known and unknown side effects) to reduce cholesterol, without understanding the process of primary atherogenesis. Or popping ibuprofen (Advil or Burana) willy nilly, of orthopedic procedures that remove irreplaceable cartilage from joints, the gulping of alkaline neutralizers to treat ulcers for decades before ulcers were shown to be caused by a treatable bacterial infection, etc. etc.. The Groping in the Dark list over the history of medical practice and pharmaceutical development is long indeed. Current medical and pharmaceutical praxis is still conducted in a rather large sea of uncertainty, and in many cases, downright ignorance. Would you not agree, Ms. Condit, that the data forthcoming from HGP/HUGO programs will do a great deal to lift the veil of darkness? And wouldn't you really prefer to have your medical interventions designed by a good old "man the controller" who has a chance of getting it right? I look forward to meeting you in Seattle. Regards, Burke Message (2/11/97,
10:02 am) Having just read Burke's response in his ongoing dialogue with Celeste, plus my own reaction to THE DECISION TREE, I'm struck by the fact that our group is much more of a microcosm of public debate on the HGP than I ever would have believed prior to this cyberspace discussion. In general, we have hard-science oriented people concerned with the content of communication about HGP and we have social-science people concerned with the forms of communication about the HGP. That being said, I have to agree with Burke's point that it is a disservice to any science (hard, social. or otherwise) cloud issues with mis- popularizations of science -- i.e. chaos theory of genes by way of Jurassic Park. Now that I've continued to play the devil ('s advocate), I should warn you all that the is some probability that I may not be able to be in Seattle to face the music. My wife is due to deliver at any moment. If the baby has not arrived by Friday, I will have to think long and hard about being away from Saturday to Tuesday. Perhaps the ethicists could give me some advice about how many years I would be in the marital doghouse, if the baby arrived while I was away in Seattle. At any rate, I WILL have to invoke some complicated sort of decision tree about that one! Dave Message (2/11/97,
10:42 am) Being a journalist by training, I suppose I'm always suspicious of words. The word "value" has been used a lot in various communications, so I went to my trusty Webster's Third International Dictionary. (You know, the foot thick black one.) Then I realized my confusion is in the use of the word "value(s). I have been thinking "something (as a principle, quality, or entity) intrinsically valuable or desirable." So I have thinking of values as a part of a person's ethical code. As such, I could not understand how one could discuss "negative" values, or to categorize values according "representativeness, accuracy, or effectiveness" -- as in the decision matrix. I figured that we were discussing this highfalutin meaning of the word. But then a realized that probably people were referring to the more mundane meaning, "relative worth, utility, or importance." Whatever. It still seems to me to be a loaded word, which is very difficult to center in the minds of a general audience. It's a bit like the word "biotechnology" which means so many things to so many different people that it is almost without meaning. (At a conference on Biotechnology Education, I was once forced to endure several days of debate about the meaning of biotechnology, that nothing of substance got done about education. "Technology" and "constructivism" are two other good examples of good words become useless by overidentification with several connotations to the detriment of all others.) So, I think that some of us (and I REALLY don't know if it's me, you, or everyone) can't see the problems for the semantics. Sorry, but I will have to resist responding much further to the listserv, since I have some very non-semantic, pedantic, work-related problems I HAVE to solve by Friday. Cheers. Dave Message (2/11/97,
11:11 am) Dear BZ: I know this is going to sound patronizing, and I know that it is inappropriate for a "Ms." to patronize a Industrioscientist, but the sense that one is correct often makes us arrogant. So let me begin by saying, that if you understood the arguments and critiques behind the "catchwords" of contemporary theory, then you might understand better why they are appropriate critiques of your vision of "man the controller." Before I try to explain in more depth, let me first agree with you that I think it is BETTER to understand how biological systems function in as much detail as possible. That is why I support scientific endeavors such as the HGP. I think that such understanding has THE POTENTIAL to improve our ability to control natural (and undesired) conditions. HOWEVER, there is a huge gap between your "in principle" and actualization. Thus, I think it very important that we continualy frame these issues with awareness of what control costs. In your vision, and in the examples you give, there are no costs. For example, you say that "I see no reason why the accuracy of targeted genetic interventions cannot approach the accuracy of natural genetic processes." You conjure up the image of a mutated sequenced replaced with a "natural" "normal" sequence. But, of course, the difficulty all lies in getting that mutated sequence replaced. In principle, humans can be treated like mice and we can stick sequences in them and let them pop up in whatever place and amount that we like. For those mice/humans where the sequence actually does imitate the natural--terrific! it worked! But of course, the cost is to those mice/humans (the vast overwhelming majority!) where it didn't exactly imitate nature. In other words, your examples are incomplete. They conjure up only the final moment of control, and not all of the difficulties that get to the point of control. Now it may be possible some day to target the sequence more efficiently, but just because it can be done "by nature" doesn't mean that it is going to be easy for us to do it. As I said before, we don't yet know whether the costs of the processes of intervening will be greater or less than the benefit of the successful targeting. Perhaps other treatments that don't use such therapy will ultimately be less costly (if less fully successful). Thus, when we are dealing with medical applications, we need to be realistic about the costs of the application. Thus, instead of your frame, which assumes that we can exert control parallel to natural versions without incurring any difficulties (because after all, the natural system usually runs OK, doesn't it), it is wiser to use the frame that says "we can exert control, but it will entail difficulties and costs and we don't know in advance whether the difficulties and costs will outweigh the advantages." In addition to this basic premise, I think it also important to remember that it is a long long way to perfect understanding. In the meantime, geneticists are in no different position than those pulling cartilage out of knees or prescribing Advil. IN fact, to me the position of medicine in both cases seems pretty much the same. In both cases, people are operating on incomplete knowledge and trying to intervene in the natural process of control pain/dysfunction. If you want it to be otherwise with genetics, you would have to proceed with the human genome project, and then call us for applications once EVERYTHING is understood. Can you see why I portray your vision as merely a dream? It is a dream of perfect knowledge that grants perfect control. But perfect knowledge seems like rather a large dream. At the least it is far away, and on your prescription, we would not be able to undertake medical applications until we had it. But of course things won't go like that. Instead, what will really happen is that we will continue to fumble along, trying things out on mice and people, without perfect knowledge of all of the underlying systems and their complex interfaces. And make no mistake, these systems are complex. You portray nature as operating in a simple, deterministic fashion, but in my studies of biology and genetics one of the things that struck me most forcefully is that nature is an opportunist, using multiple inter-locking systems that develop in relationship to the contingencies of each others' existence, rather than in nice simple paradigmatic relationships. I noticed, in fact, reading Genetics textbooks, the way that geneticists are caught between the enlightenment paradigm of order (which worked fairly well, to a point, for physics--and which biologists still try to imitate) and the messy variability of organisms. Look at Genes IV or Genes V with a critical eye and you'll see this tension. The book wants to be organized as a nice simple set of relationships indicating how things work. But then the organisms do things in multiple ways, not in one way--pesky little opportunists--and so the geneticists end up using a "model organism" that really isn't quite that, to explain how one organism manages a certain function, but then one has to introduce the fact that that really isn't the only way to do it, and that other organisms do it differently. Similarly, I'm struck with the fact that the homology of sequences between species is so variable in its parameters. One person's homology is another persons difference. You are still operating out of the old physics paradigm. Hoping that if you understand the atom you can easily create nuclear fusion (after all, the sun does it every day). But the devil is always in the operational details. And that is OK, it is fun. Just because we recognize things are messy, doesn't mean that we give up on them. It just means we are a bit more cautious. So BZ, come on down and play in the mud. Dr. C. Message (2/11/97,
11:29 am) Getting back to Greg's request for our views on strategies that will prepare the public to deal responsibly and participate effectively in policy-making decisions, I see at least one major dilemma. In the absence of perceived catastrophe, or at least something very negative, most lay people (members of the public) are simply uninterested in complex scientific issues, especially when it is very difficult for them to understand the science. Even Jurassic Park, and Michael Chrichton's disturbingly anti-science remarks in the prologue to the book were not enough to arouse very much public interest (or "concern" --always a negative term) in the possible misuse of genetic technologies. As I have stated before, I am convinced that without strong, comprehensive, and effective science education beginning in elementary school, trying to get the public involved in policy making in a truly constructive manner will lead to protracted frustration. Eric is right about arousing public concerns via a TV drama, and scare articles in respectable periodicals also work as we have seen, but these ploys inevitably work by arousing fears or worries -- they do not simply provide information, and often they provide incorrect information. Coupled with a lack of understanding of the technical issues, the worries will only be amplified, and constructive participation will be more difficult. I don't think a campaign to force public interest in what is regarded by many, if not most, as an esoteric issue is appropriate or useful. Public apathy, while unfortunate, is a fact of life. Does cajoling the apathetic into some sort of involvement in decision making make for better policy? It is a bit like "getting out the vote" in an election, encouraging people to vote who don't even know the names of the candidates. This is not participatory democracy, only a perversion thereof. Where I see the major need for public involvement is not with regard to the risks and benefits of new pharmaceuticals, biologics, or gene therapies for correcting pathology. Nearly identical mechanisms of accountability to the public are in place throughout the world for assessing such applications. In general, the procedures are quite conservative, and, while sometimes interventions are approved for use that have tragic consequences, such instances are becoming rarer, and the knowledge base on which to ensure the public safety continues to increase. In my view, it is rather in areas with long term personal and/or social sequelae, where public involvement in policy making is desirable. These are largely those issues that involve reproductive choices, including genetic screening, preembryo screening and selection, and any form of germ-line intervention. There is less likely to be much public concern over methods that are designed to ensure "normalcy" through the prevention or correction of obvious pathology, than those to add improvements. In time, however, what is considered normal today may become tomorrow's deficiency or pathology. For example, if widespread intervention were undertaken, to ensure high inborn cognitive skills in newborns, one can envision scenarios where (a) there would be an accelerated dichotomy between genetically determined elite and inferior subcultures (ala the Bell Curve, in which the authors say this has already happened through selective processes) or (b) a child with an IQ of 150 would be considered retarded. Now is the time to look ahead not merely 10 or 20 years but try to extrapolate where any policy alternatives will lead, and then try to put in place a decision-making process (which must be international in scope!) that can manage applications as the enabling technologies are developed. Yes, here I will agree that resource allocation, so far mentioned only by Celeste, is an important issue, except in the highly unlikely event that custom reproductive services become a normal and routine part of having children throughout the world someday. But, following the example of the computer industry, we can expect today's heroic and expensive interventions to become tomorrow's routine and relatively inexpensive procedures. And what about individual reproductive autonomy? Can a case be made for abridgment of this right for the greater good of society? But how is the "greater good" to be defined or determined? How is someone's view of what constitutes enhancement in an individual application to be judged in terms of whether it contributes to the greater good of society to its detriment in the long run? Many would make the case now simply to limit population growth. And then there is the rapidly increasing potential for perpetrating deliberate harm, while the means to do so become easier and cheaper. Since all such (BW) activities are, at least at present, carried out in secret anyway, what can the public, or any other government agency for that matter, possibly do to ensure its continued survival and safety? These are enormous challenges to society. Perhaps we can deal with the immediate, near term, well defined issues, and establish effective and responsive mechanisms for setting policies, for example, with regard to the gathering and use of individual and familial genetic screening data. No doubt if we limit the discussions in this symposium to definable, current issues, we will at least have a chance of doing some constructive assessment of policy alternatives, and identify appropriate routes for public involvement. But these kinds of problems are small potatoes in comparison with those that applications that begin to challenge human identity itself. It is here that, frankly, I don't even know where to begin. Burke Zimmerman P.S. Having received Barry Anderson's thoughtful response to my remarks concerning the "trees and matrices" approach this morning, as well as having reflected on the other contributions concerning this topic, it is clear that the organizers of this conference have placed a great deal of emphasis on the Decision Tree and Table as a guide to making important policy decisions, much more than I think anyone realized up until a week ago. Barry is right in that if it is going to be a useful element of this conference at all, then dialogue is needed, preferably before the symposium. Accordingly, I suggest that some time be found, perhaps this weekend when presumably both the organizers and the speakers will be present in Seattle, to discuss this approach face to face in a working session to deal with this issue. Personally, I still need to be convinced that it is really useful, and I gather that several others share this opinion. Nevertheless, I promise to keep an open mind and give your proposal fair consideration. Fowlers, you have an idea of the people's arrival schedules and the logistics of the meeting organization. Can this be arranged? Message (2/11/97,
5:33 pm) I appreciated Dave Micklos' observation that we have hard-science people concerned with the content of communication and social-science people concerned with forms of communication. This is useful in calling attention to our potential contributions, our biases, and the adjustments that could improve our functioning as a team. I also appreciated Dave's definition of "value" as "relative worth, utility, or importance." That's precisely the way I have been using it. Burke Zimmerman suggested a link between the discussion of science education and the decision analysis - although he gave no indication that he was aware that he had done so. Much earlier, I had commented that, because science education is a matter of transferring information from experts to the public or to decision makers, its relevance to a symposium on transferring information from the public to decision makers required explication. I then went on to suggest a rationale: An educated public might be content to leave questions of science to the scientists and focus their discussion on value issues, which require broad public discussion. Burke seems to have an additional rationale: An educated public might be more interested in these issues and more willing to participate in public dialogue. These are the kinds of links that I think can give our discussions greater coherence and clearer relevance to our stated topic. Celeste Condit indicated concerns about uncertainty and costs (which I share), and Burke indicated concerns about personal issues, involving, for example, reproduction, and issues related to human identity (both of which I share.). However, our job is not to state OUR values, but to suggest a process that is sufficiently comprehensive to ensure that such PUBLIC values will not be systematically overlooked by any alternative for involving the public in the decision process. In terms of the decision analysis, Celeste and Burke were elaborating the value we have called Representativeness. This is helpful. It should be more helpful, however, to go on to point out that these considerations are relevant to designing processes for public involvement and perhaps even to suggest what alternatives would be particularly desirable or undesirable from this point of view. Barry Message (2/11/97,
5:44 pm) Dear Colleagues, After receiving the last, shall we say "spirited" remarks from Celeste Condit, I think it is time to take a break for some constructive reflection. It would appear that we are quickly approaching the " is...is not....is...is not....is...is not.." mode of argument, with no immediate hope of conciliation, and getting dangerously close to getting sucked into making ad homonym remarks. Accordingly, I will resist the temptation to respond in kind to my newly affixed labels, and certain other less than objective evaluations of my understanding of physics and other natural processes. It shall suffice at this point simply to offer the observation that Dr. Condit has just made a compelling case for the importance of a solid grounding in science for those who choose to expound with the voice of authority on the practical, social and philosophical implications of scientific phenomena, or their applications. It is a very long trip from Helsinki to Seattle. I look forward to meeting you all in a few days. Peace, Burke Message (2/11/97,
9:44 pm) Dear "Group," 1. The recent exchange between Burke and Celeste has been most interesting...and helpful as I prepare a 10 minute "introduction" which I will use to "update" the audience on what we have been doing for the past few weeks preparatory to the first four a.m. speakers at the Monday conference (9:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m.). Alex will "summarize" the a.m. session at the start of the 3-6 p.m. afternoon session. Questions/remarks from the audience will be allowed at the end of your 20-25-minute presentations depending on available time remaining. I don't want to rush any of you through your talks so plan them for 20 minutes if you can. Your remarks are more important than allowing generous time for audience response. 2. As per Burke's suggestion, Alex and I had already planned to organize a no-host dinner at the hotel on Sunday evening. I suspect that many of us will be staying at the Sheraton Towers. Alex and I and will be there Thursday evening. Call us when you arrive at your hotel and we will give you details about dinner and/or some opportunity to get acquainted and discuss general points about the symposium the next day. 3. Have you read "Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World" by Daniel Yankelovich? In it, he quotes E.C. Ladd's definition of "values" as "...people's ideals and commitments they make, involving religious beliefs, standards for interpersonal relations, moral and ethical judgments." Of "opinions," and "attitudes," "values" are "...the most stable, enduring, and fundamental of the three categories of "public opinion." Greg Message (2/12/97,
9:18 am) The two most recent communications by our esteemed organizers and thinking clarifiers, Barry and Greg, have confirmed my suspicion that we have been thinking of "values" in two different ways. In making various devices to analyze decisions and information flows, Barry has chosen "value" as an operational measure of worth or utility. However, Greg has chosen "values" as people's subjective ideals or beliefs. We really have been mixing discussion about two different things, hence a lot of the confusion. A very difficult word, all in all. David Message (2/12/97,
12:02 pm) David: Congratulations! I am excited for the two (or rather, three!) of you. Is this your first baby, or have you been here before? As to your ethical query, its not even a close call: In fact, I think you should be excused with our compliments in either case: if the baby hasn't arrived by the weekend you need to be there in case it does, and if it does arrive before then --- how could you leave? In the grand scheme of things, this symposium, the AAAS, the HGP and even "the public discourse" fade to insignificance compared to the first weekend with a new baby. Greg, Alex: you are not going to hold him to his appointment in the face of this news, are you? As for the rest of this discussion: I'm glad we have all day in Seattle! Eric P.S.: Alex: remember to seat Celeste and Burke next to each other on the podium. platform! Message (2/12/97,
11:57 am) NOW WAIT JUST A MINUTE YOU GUYS! In the spirit of the last four week, there is more than one way to interpret Father Juengst's pronouncement (followed by a clever attempt at finesse of THE ORGANIZERS OF THIS SYMPOSIUM a.k.a. Greg and Alex...) about "birthing," "Parenthood" and Utilitarian "Belief Systems" involving such semantic issues as "worth" and "subjective ideals"...never mind "competing claims..." In that (latter) regard...but involving all of the rest of the muddy "definitions," as well...what about the "BIRTHING EVENT" about to occur at the Seattle Convention Center? Are there no "parental" responsibilities that "Doubting David" has to being present at THAT "Happening"??? How does one decide one EVENT over the other? What is the decision-making process in that case that we might construct? Doesn't THE PUBLIC have SOMETHING TO DO WITH that "little" portion of the HGP [albeit one conducted in the "private" sector...]? WELL?? I'M WAITING FOR AN ANSWER!!! [In the meantime...construct a Values Tree. Barry will help...] "THE CLARIFIER..." (a.k.a. Greg) P.S. OK, OK...I give up...but I simply can't imagine the loss of even ONE of you from the "hot dias" at the front of the room with Burke and Celeste..."facing the music" after all these weeks composing the score...ha,ha. One idea that has not been (yet) discussed. Bring David's wife (and baby) to the symposium...a really "hands on" demonstration of "bringing values" to the policy-making process would definitely make an impression on our distinguished audience...and give new meaning to what we are attempting to communicate... Any thoughts to share? See you Sunday evening! Greg |
