One of the great paradoxes of science is the unforeseen and the unintended consequences of scientific inquiry and discovery. Who could have envisioned that a simple pill designed to free women from the fear of unwanted pregnancy might lead to an explosion of promiscuous sexual activity and a world wide pandemic of sexually transmitted diseases with dire personal and economic sequelae?

This is another aspect of flawed science that gets little attention and even less understanding. Some might argue that this is not really a flaw. Science should be neutral. Knowledge should be pursued for it’s own sake without restriction. Others counter that there are things we should not know, discoveries that should not be pursued. I believe that the flaw is not in scientific inquiry but in the use to which scientific findings are put by scientists and others. The problem, of course, is that once the genie is out of the bottle it is very difficult, if not impossible, to get it back. Look at the double-edged sword of atomic energy and gunpowder, which was originally developed by the Chinese for celebrating festival occasions with fireworks.

Here is another double-edged, genie out of the bottle, example to consider. The genome of the dog has now been mapped and illustrated. It is available for research into genetic characteristics of the various breeds etc. You can now determine the genetic lineage of your pooch. Is he really a purebred Irish setter or somewhere in his distant ancestry did some rascal of a golden retriever introduce his DNA? Now we can be sure if a purebred is really pure. But this may not be without some potentially dire un-intended consequences.

Consider this scenario. A local authority, county, state etc. may decide that pit bulls are dangerous and a menace to the community and therefore should be banned. Worse yet, the canine cops may decree that all pet bulls should be euthanized because of the potential threat they pose. Don’t laugh. There are communities in the U.S. and Canada who are actually proposing this draconian measure. There have even been suggestions that any dog with any pit bull breeding, however small, should be banned and possibly subject to euthanasia. Until now this extreme measure was considered too difficult to enforce since it was difficult to truly identify what really constitutes a pit bull or a bit bull mixture. Not any more! We now have the entire genome available and can identify what percent of what breeds lurk under the fur of our faithful Fido.

The question now becomes how much of a percent of a “ banned” dog is necessary for a mongrel to be condemned? 50%, 25%, 10% or as some extremists have suggested-as little as 1%. Thus far pit bulls have borne the brunt of criticism for allegations of aggressive behavior. But how long will it be until other breeds are added to the list-German Shepherds, Dobermans, Rotweilers and Italian Mastiffs etc. And what genetic fraction will then be condemned?

How will aggressiveness be determined and who will be the arbiter? We already have a model for this, which has been in force in Germany for some time. Dogs are “tested” now in Germany for aggressive behavior and those who fail the test are euthanized as a public menace to people and other animals. The test, which consists of provoking the dog to see whether it responds calmly and in a docile manner. If it shows “aggression” by snarling, barking, baring it’s teeth it fails. The provocation may take several different forms including the use of other dogs. We used to call this baiting a dog or teasing it to get an angry response. So a dog responding to such baiting in a dog like manner would be in danger of being put to sleep - forever. What kind of standardized provocations are used if any? Who grades the response and what criteria are used? What happens if a dog is ill or pregnant or just had a bad day like most of us?

Oh yes. There is one dog that is exempt from this testing. Want to guess which one? Yep. The German Shepherd- the Dog that is responsible for more bites and attacks on humans than any other breed! But of course this is Germany, a country that refined and perfected the science of euthanasia. Will certain breeds be genetically identified and labeled as ipso facto dangerous just because of their breeding-and then eliminated? Will it be the formula that was used to identify a person as a Jew-i.e.-one drop of Jewish blood and you’re dead. Perhaps we will eventually see a master race of dogs in Germany- German Shepherds- all the others having been eliminated because of their inferior DNA.

So beware. Now that we know the dog’s genome we can easily identify those critters who don’t measure up to some overzealous “standards” of what constitutes a good dog. Perhaps annoying barking will be the next offense to gain scrutiny, or chasing after cars, or mixing it up with cats. Are you prepared to kill your dog? We already do it for babies in the womb who are an inconvenience or don’t have the acceptable DNA which we have established.

Gardasil is a new vaccine developed by Merck to protect against 4 subtypes of the human papilloma viruses Types 6, 11, 16, and 18. These types are responsible for about 85% of cervical cancer which is now recognized as being a primarily sexually transmitted disease. This vaccine was rushed into production and has been heavily advertised and promoted. Immense lobbying pressure has been applied to lawmakers across the U.S. to mandate that every young female from age 11, and even younger, up to early adulthood be required by law to be vaccinated. The aim of Merck is to have Gardasil achieve the same status as vaccines for polio, measles, mumps, rubella etc.

The economic stakes in this campaign are enormous- billions of dollars in profits are in the offing for Merck so it is not surprising that the Gardasil campaign has employed a high pressure sales pitch not only to the public and health professions but especially state governors and legislators. Some very questionable tactics have been employed by Merck; so much so that a number of health professionals have objected to Merck’s tactics and Merck has moderated some of its more blatant attempts at influencing lawmakers.

Nevertheless several states, including Texas, have either mandated or are considering requiring this vaccine be given to girls as young as 9 or 11 years of age, despite the fact that even in this promiscuous era, very few 11 yr old girls are sexually active and at risk for HPV infection. Remember that this is a vaccine being required to allegedly prevent a disease that is acquired by voluntary sexual activity, unlike measles, polio etc. which you can get by inadvertent exposure.

The vaccine, simply put, should be a strictly voluntary choice, not rammed down our throats by scientifically unsophisticated lawmakers being pressured and paid off by a big drug company with its desire for immense profits. Of interest is the allegation of a connection between Merck and Texas Gov. Rick Perry who issued an executive order mandating that all girls entering the 6th grade in Texas be vaccinated with Gardasil.

But there are other and more important considerations. Remember the swine flu vaccine fiasco? Gardasil is another vaccine with disturbing similarities to that episode. We do not have good data for how long the vaccine will remain effective nor the true extent of side effects. In fact, there are disturbing reports of serious consequences including deaths after getting this vaccine.

It is a very expensive experiment foisted on the public to enrich a company with a history of past drug fiascos and cover ups - remember Merck’s arthritis drug Vioxx? Three shots are required at a cost of about $300-400 plus the cost of office visits. The drug does not protect against all of the HPV strains that can potentially cause cervical cancer, and, in fact, is not 100% effective against the 4 primary strains targeted by the vaccine.

There is no doubt that HPV is prevalent in the U.S. - but most women’s immune systems clear the virus. The percent of women who get cervical cancer from HPV is small and growing smaller. Improved screening procedures have greatly reduced the incidence of cervical cancer; so why the big rush to vaccinate the 9 and 11 yr old girls? The answer: money. If we eliminate or greatly reduce cervical cancer via pap testing and other screening - then we don’t need an expensive, variably effective and potentially dangerous vaccine. Better get the vaccine to market quickly before there is no need for it. Use up the ice before it melts.

Another problem with Gardasil is the potential it has for lulling us into a false sense of security. If a young female takes the vaccine there is the danger that the feeling of protection against HPV will cause her to let her guard down about unprotected sex. “I don’t have to worry now since I got the vaccine - so I can be less careful about my sexual encounters.” But the vaccine does not protect against all strains of HPV, nor is it 100% effective against the four strains it is aimed at. Nor does it protect against other STDs, So, we have a false sense of protection and the potential, actually, of greater exposure to other variants of HPV, many, perhaps even more aggressive and dangerous than the four we aim at. Additionally, human nature being what it is, we may overlook the fact that there are many other STDs that may infect us for which Gardasil provides no protection and which may be obscured in our minds by our reliance on the vaccination.

Many people feel that this vaccination is another Trojan Horse with the intended purpose of promoting and enabling even more promiscuity among our young and immature population. The not so subtle message is: get the vaccination so that you can have sex without worrying about getting infected with HPV. But what about other sexually transmitted diseases? What about so called safe sex? If we preach and practice safe sex, then what is the need for Gardasil? If you are a stockholder in Merck you already know the answer to this question.

Why should 9 yr old girls be required to be vaccinated when less than one third of girls under age 18 are sexually active? Girls under 12 are much less likely to be sexually active. Ask yourself, “How long does the vaccine remain effective?  Three years? Five years? When will a booster be needed? We know from past experience that vaccines, contrary to earlier claims, can lose their effectiveness over time. By mandating early and unnecessary vaccination Merck positions itself for a lot of repeat profits from booster shots.

We have spoken before about the effects of flawed and false science. When science is used to deliberately advance a particular agenda or point of view--political, religious, economic or for personal power and prestige then all of science becomes suspect; the good along with the bad. There is a kind of Gresham’s law in science also. Just as bad money (debased or devalued) forces out good money in Gresham’s economic example so too does bad science push out good science. When people are victimized by bad science they are tempted to suspect all science.