Human Nature

Palin and Biden on Abortion

William Saletan — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:30:00 GMT

Tomorrow night, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin will meet in their only vice-presidential debate. Most of the discussion will be about economics and foreign policy. On the social issues, here are two questions moderator Gwen Ifill should ask.

1. Gov. Palin, you were asked this week whether it should be illegal for a girl to get an abortion in the case of rape or incest. Your answer was that the girl herself should not go to jail. What about the doctor? Should the doctor who performs that abortion face criminal penalties?

2. Sen. Biden, you said four weeks ago that you believe life begins at conception but that you can't impose your personal beliefs on other people. Yet you also voted for a law against gay marriage called the Defense of Marriage Act, and two years ago, you said this law expresses your view that "marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that." Why is it OK to impose your beliefs on gay marriage but not on abortion?

Here's all the background information Ifill will need when the candidates start fudging.

Palin's interview with Katie Couric, aired yesterday:

Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?
Palin: I am pro-life. And I'm unapologetic about my position there on pro-life. And I understand good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion and when it should be allowed. So ... I respect people's opinion on this. ...
Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ... abortion, absolutely not.

Biden on Meet the Press, Sept. 7, 2008:

Biden: I'm prepared as a matter of faith to accept that life begins at the moment of conception. But that is my judgment. For me to impose that judgment on everyone else who is equally and maybe even more devout than I am seems to me is inappropriate in a pluralistic society. ...
Tom Brokaw: But if you, you believe that life begins at conception, and you've also voted for abortion rights.
Biden: No, what [I] voted against curtailing the right, criminalizing abortion. I voted against telling everyone else in the country that they have to accept my religiously based view that it's a moment of conception.

Biden's recorded vote for DOMA, Sept. 10, 1996.

Biden on Meet the Press, June 4, 2006:

We already have a law, the Defense of Marriage Act. We've all voted—not, where I've voted, and others have said, look, marriage is between a man and a woman and states must respect that. Nobody's violated that law, there's been no challenge to that law.

Biden on CNN, June 5, 2006:

We have already passed a law saying that—and the Defense of Marriage Act, defining marriage between a man and a woman.

The Biden campaign's evasive response to a same-sex marriage question on the Human Rights Campaign's 2007 survey of presidential candidates:

Senator Biden supports letting states determine how to recognize civil unions and how to define marriage. He believes that legal recognition should not be denied to same-sex couples.

Bonus peg: Biden will speak at HRC's annual dinner Saturday night.

All yours, Gwen. Go for it.

Evolving Predators

William Saletan — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 11:39:00 GMT

Yesterday, I asked about a supposedly new device, deployed on U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), that reportedly helped turn the tide in Iraq and may to be facilitating an increase in drone-delivered missile strikes along the Afghan-Pakistan border. As cryptically described in the Los Angeles Times, the system enables "the tracking of human targets even when they are inside buildings or otherwise hidden from Predator surveillance cameras." It "gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator's lens of confirming a target's identity and precise location."

Is this technology for real? If so, what is it? Since the government isn't telling, I poked around a bit and asked readers for ideas.

Here are some possible leads. First, Slate reader mark_925 flags a list posted Friday on Aviation Week's Ares blog. The list includes several technologies that have improved U.S. efficiency at hunting and killing adversaries in Iraq. They include:

Communications intercept sensors "so sensitive that they can pick up the low-power emissions of handheld cell phones."
A targeting system called NCCT, which "instantaneously links the intelligence taken from several aircraft, ships or UAVs at once to locate, identify and target electronic emissions, including communications, and associate them with air, ground and sea radar targets."
An "IDM communications module" that links communications signals to visible sources, such as cars.
Software that facilitates "change detection" from spy aircraft.
Helmet sights that immediately translate a physically viewed object into spatial coordinates that enable fast targeting and destruction.

Second: Walter Pincus of the Washington Post flags an article in the U.S. military journal Joint Force Quarterly, written by the general who, as of today, is replacing David Petraeus as commander of multinational forces in Iraq. It credits the upturn in Iraq in part to a "surge of ... full motion video (FMV) assets." Early in the war, "Commanders were rarely allocated more than an hour of FMV a week," says the article. "Since 2003-2004, FMV within the corps has increased tenfold. ... Today, the corps can count on daily support from at least 12 FMV systems," and each brigade combat team "has an organic tactical UAV platoon that provides 18 hours of FMV coverage a day." Drones are dramatically improving military performance, not by doing the killing themselves, but by providing instant, on-demand customized intelligence to ground forces.

Third: Pincus reports that last week, a Senate subcommittee appropriated $750 million for "intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance initiatives." This compounds a $1.3 billion shift of money to ISR programs, approved by the Pentagon in July. According to Defense News, the programs include:

"$262.6 million to buy digital data links for Raven UAVs, data links and laser designators for Hunter unmanned aircraft, and various improvements for other unmanned aircraft."
"$168.5 million to buy eight Medium Altitude Reconnaissance and Surveillance airborne systems, including with $52 million for three new Constant Hawk airborne surveillance and target acquisition systems."
"$17 million to extend a contract for Scan Eagle UAV services, $15 million to buy a new Northrop Grumman-made Global Hawk UAV and associated gear and services, $26 million to purchase four Boeing-made Scan Eagles."
Imaging systems and "sensor packages" for the Air Force.

So there are some possible clues to the recent turnaround in Iraq and the more recent escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan: more UAV deployment and video, faster integration of UAV data into ground operations, more acute communications sensors, and instant targeting data on visible objects. Some combination of these technologies might account for the key breakthrough attributed to the devices now being deployed to Afghanistan: nonvisual identification and tracking of targets. Or not.

Over to you, Danger Room.

Terminator 2: Attack of the Drones

William Saletan — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:13:00 GMT

Speaking of Terminators: The drone war over Pakistan is escalating.

Boom. Sept. 4: Seven people killed in a strike on Chaar Kehl, near the Afghan border.

Boom. Sept. 5: Six to 12 more killed in a hit on Al Must.

Boom. Sept. 8: 23 dead and at least 18 wounded in a five-missile barrage on Daande Darpkhel.

Boom. Sept. 12: Twelve more dead in an attack on Tole Khel.

That's about 50 fatalities in four strikes in a single week, all at the hands of unmanned vehicles. An impressive warning from the bloodless killers of tomorrow. Even before the hit on Tole Khel, the Washington Post reported, "The number of Hellfire missile attacks by Predators in Pakistan has more than tripled, with 11 strikes reported by Pakistani officials this year compared with three in 2007." According to the Wall Street Journal, "One official in Afghanistan estimated that drone usage in Pakistan has doubled since the summer, and he said missiles are now being fired at Pakistani targets virtually every day."

Why the increase? Media reports from the ground and military sources indicate several factors: 1) Pakistan isn't really helping, so we've taken the killing into our own hands. 2) We don't want to literally use our own hands, since our ground forces might be captured. So, where possible, we're using drones instead. 3) Drone attacks cause less friction with Pakistan than ground incursions do, since U.S. personnel are never at the scene. 4) We're sick of our troops being picked off in Afghanistan, so we're using drones to even the score. 5) We're relying more on drones to spy in Pakistan because we've failed to develop informants on the ground. 6) Or maybe we're getting better ground intelligence, which is giving us more hot targets to shoot at.

The most intriguing factor, however, seems to be an upgrade in drone technology. In Friday's Los Angeles Times, Greg Miller and Julian Barnes report that Predator drones "above the tribal belt along Afghanistan's eastern border" are now "equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems." The new systems permit

the tracking of human targets even when they are inside buildings or otherwise hidden from Predator surveillance cameras. Equally important, officials said, the systems have significantly speeded up decisions on when to strike. The technology gives remote pilots a means beyond images from the Predator's lens of confirming a target's identity and precise location. ... The technology allows suspects to be identified quickly. "All I have to do is point the sensor at him," said a military officer familiar with the system, "and a missile can be off the rail in seconds." The devices are roughly the size of an automobile battery, but are heavy enough that outfitted Predators in some cases carry only one Hellfire missile instead of two.

Tracking invisible targets? Nonvisual identification? Miller and Barnes don't explain how the system works. All they disclose is that it "was developed as part of a special project within the CIA's Directorate of Science and Technology." But if U.S. drone managers are willing to shed 50 percent of their missiles to make room for these target trackers, they must be pretty valuable.

The arrival of these devices in Afghanistan is only half the story. The other half is where they're coming from. They've been "instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq," according to Miller and Barnes:

A military official familiar with the systems said they had a profound effect, both militarily and psychologically, on the Sunni Arab insurgency in Iraq. "It is like they are living with a red dot on their head," said a former U.S. military official familiar with the technology who, like others, spoke on condition of anonymity because it has been secret. ... Officials said introduction of the devices coincided with the 2007 U.S. troop buildup in Iraq, and was an important, but hitherto unknown, factor in the subsequent drop in violence in that country.

How much of the credit we've given to the troop surge in Iraq actually belongs to these devices? Are they working some similar magic now in Afghanistan and Pakistan? And, if so, what the heck are they? I don't know, and the U.S. government doesn't want to tell us, but I'll keep looking for answers with my primitive human eyes. In the meantime, if you've got any good intel on them, let's hear it.

Cyborg Seniors

William Saletan — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:10:00 GMT

If you get the Human Nature RSS feed but don't check the Slate home page, you may have missed an article worth reading: How seniors became cyborgs. It's about the mechanical and electronic components we've been putting into old people to replace failing body parts. It's part of our "Geezers" issue. Take a look.

Contraceptive Fudge: Addendum

William Saletan — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:50:00 GMT

In yesterday's post on the proposed HHS abortion "conscience" regulation, I overlooked a very important quote from Secretary Leavitt. Rob Stein of the Washington Post relates the following exchange from Leavitt's Aug. 21 conference call with reporters:

But when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said: "This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area. It focuses on abortion and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that."

Ambiguity is precisely what pharmacists have asserted in lawsuits demanding the right to withhold hormonal contraceptives. While framing the regulation as neutral, Leavitt is lending support to their position. And, as noted yesterday, the regulation explicitly applies to pharmacies (see page 24 of the PDF) which dispense contraceptives but do not perform surgical abortions.

When it comes to conscience rights, I'm a libertarian. As a pharmacist, you have every right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But your customers have every right to boycott your store, and your employer has every right to fire you. If you don't like your employer's policy, open your own pharmacy.

The HHS regulation is not neutral. It uses government leverage to prevent employers from insisting that their employees honor consumer choice. In the name of one freedom, it suppresses another. And in the name of ambiguity, it lends official support to lawsuits that would extend this government intervention from abortion to contraception.

You can add your own views, pro or con, at consciencecomment@hhs.gov.

Contraceptive Fudge

William Saletan — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:34:00 GMT

HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt has issued a final version of his proposed regulation to protect medical conscience (PDF). As predicted, he has dropped the sentence that originally defined abortion as "any of the various procedures—including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."

Leavitt has also chosen to leave open the possibility that the regulation will be applied that way. In that case, it would protect a provider's right to withhold oral contraception, which theoretically could prevent implantation of an embryo. Pharmacists and Catholic hospitals are already waging legal battles to assert this right.

The proposed regulation is 42 pages long. I'm embarrassed to tell you that I read it last week during my vacation. I was looking for a definition of abortion. I'll save you the trouble: There is none. The regulation draws no distinction between abortion and contraception.

In his blog, Leavitt has twice addressed the contraception question. On Aug. 7, he said his intent was to protect the right of conscience, not to define contraceptives as abortion. This left open the obvious next question: Intent aside, does the right of conscience protected by the regulation include the right to withhold hormonal contraception on the grounds asserted by pharmacist litigants: that it might be abortifacient? Two weeks ago, I invited Leavitt to answer that question. He has ignored it.

He has, however, answered a similar challenge from Mary Jane Gallagher, the president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. In an Aug. 11 blog post, Leavitt quoted and rebutted her:

"Who's going to provide access to contraceptives services if the administration provides this large loophole to deny services?" [said Gallagher.] CQ reported Ms. Gallagher continued: "Providers are ‘given an oath—now they get to pick and choose what they want to do' if a regulation is issued, she said."

So, according to Ms. Gallagher's ideology, if a person goes to medical school they lose their right of conscience. ... There is something I'd like to point out to Ms Gallagher and the people she represents. It is currently a violation of three separate federal laws to compel medical practitioners to perform a procedure that violates their conscience.

Gallagher is explicitly talking about contraception. And Leavitt's response is to invoke conscience rights.

Last week, Leavitt said some practitioners might "press the definition" in the final HHS regulation and argue that hormonal contraception is abortion. They certainly will. Pharmacists for Life International is already on the case. So is the Christian Legal Society. Concerned Women for America says the equation of hormonal contraception with abortion, explicit in the original draft of the regulation, was right all along.

And when these litigants argue that the regulation implicitly covers contraception, they'll have lots of help from Leavitt. They can cite his response to Gallagher. They can also point out that the regulation explicitly lists pharmacies as a category of "affected entities." (See Page 24.) Last time I checked, pharmacies didn't do surgical abortions.

The argument on the other side will be that Leavitt has said he's not targeting birth control. "This regulation is not about contraception," he said in a conference call last week. "It's about abortion and conscience." But Leavitt has said the same thing about abortion itself. "This is not a discussion about the rights of a woman to get an abortion," he wrote in his blog. "This is about the right of a doctor to not participate if he or she chooses for reasons they consider a matter of conscience." Leavitt's point, in other words, is that the regulation doesn't ban anything; it just protects the right not to facilitate it. As he put it in the conference call, "There is nothing in this rule that would in any way change a patient's right to a legal procedure." But in asserting this right of refusal, the rule doesn't distinguish between surgical abortion and theoretically abortifacient drugs.

The rule is open to public comments until Sept. 20. You can submit your comments to consciencecomment@hhs.gov. Here's mine: Mr. Secretary, if this rule doesn't extend the right of refusal to hormonal contraception, say so.

Phelps-Cavic Reconsidered

William Saletan — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:56:00 GMT

Yesterday I asked whether Michael Phelps lost to Milorad Cavic in the 100-meter butterfly final at the Olympics. I took a pretty good pounding in the Fray.

Looks like I deserve it.

The reason I looked back at Phelps-Cavic this weekend is that Omega finally released its pictures of the finish. Because Omega is the official timekeeper and its pictures had previously been withheld, I attributed great importance to them. And the company's characterization of the pictures as proving Phelps won was total garbage.

As many of you point out, the fact that these pictures prove nothing proves nothing, since we had better pictures from underwater to begin with. I'd seen the underwater shots on TV, but I hadn't looked at them closely on the Web. Look at the sequence:

Right before the swimmers touch

The touch

A closeup of Cavic's fingers, cropped from the preceding photo (No. 5):

Phelps has clearly touched at this point. Has Cavic touched? His left middle finger is bent back. But if you look at the first of these three photos (No. 4), you can see that the finger is also bent back slightly as he's approaching.

My eye says the finger isn't touching yet. But my eye, as a judge of Olympic photo finishes, sucks. So here are two ways of resolving the question.

1. Do a CSI-style 3-D analysis of photo No. 6, the close-up. See if you can assess the height of Cavic's fingers relative to the cross on the wall. Assuming the fingers are pretty well below the top of the cross, case closed.

2. Calculate the delay between touch and pad compression using the speed of the race. If the speed is fast enough that the delay can't equal one one-hundredth of a second, case closed. There's already a Fray thread pursuing this calculation.

One fascinating thing in underwater photo No. 5: Even if Cavic is touching, you can see that Phelps is touching harder. Theoretically, thanks to the touch pad, that could be enough to win him the race, even if the touches were virtually simultaneous.

Olympic Inflation

William Saletan — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:41:00 GMT

Can we please stop fussing over every new Olympic record?

A new record means that an athlete using today's equipment outperformed an athlete using yesterday's equipment. It's not a fair fight.

In swimming alone, today's advantages include:

1. LZR Racer suit. It reduces friction (compared with skin) and is structurally designed to compress and streamline the body for maximum speed. Estimated drag reduction: 5 percent to 10 percent. Estimated average improvement in top swimmers' best times: 2 percent. Designed by NASA scientists and computers, among others. Cost: $500.

2. Pool depth. This is the deepest pool ever used in the Olympics. Depth disperses turbulence, reducing resistance.

3. Pool width and gutters. Two extra lanes at the margins disperse waves to gutters, reducing ricochet and resistance.

4. Lane dividers. The plastic ones in Beijing deflect turbulence down instead of sideways, reducing resistance.

5. Starting blocks. Nonskid versions have replaced the old wooden ones, boosting dive propulsion.

6. Video. Recordings and analysis identify target variables such as stroke distance and turns.

7. Medical tests. Swimmers are blood-tested after each race to measure lactic-acid buildup.

8. Sports scientists. They run the monitoring and analysis. The U.S. swim team has four.

And here's a partial list of advances in other sports:

1. Lighter shoes. The latest material is carbon nanotubes.

2. Asymmetric shoes. Stronger carbon base in the right shoe tilts you to the left to increase speed as you round the track. Left shoe is designed to stabilize you.

3. Ice vest. It lowers your temperature before the race so you can delay overheating for better performance.

4. Hypoxic tents. Sleeping in low-oxygen chambers increases red blood-cell levels.

5. Aluminum javelins. They reduce vibration compared with the old carbon ones.

6. Bicycle wheels. Front wheels with fewer spokes (eight instead of 32) reduce weight and air resistance. So do composite one-piece rear wheels. All frames are carbon.

Michael Phelps' coach says the LZR suit is fair. "Everybody is in the suit so it's across the board," he argues. That may be true of today's top swimmers. But it's not true of yesterday's. So comparing today's performances to the performances of 20, eight, or even four years ago—which is what "new Olympic record" means—is generally unfair.

If you want to compare today's athletes to yesterday's, the ideal method would be an inflationary formula. We already calculate how much $1 in 1980 would be worth today, based on price increases. We ought to be able to devise a similar multiplier for each Olympic event, based on average year-to-year improvement among top athletes. Averaging would wash out idiosyncratic ups and downs. The effects of aging could be measured and factored out.

Olympic inflation indexing wouldn't devalue new records. It would isolate and elevate records that truly stand out. Scores of media reports have boasted that every team in this year's 4 x 100 men's swimming relay beat the time that won that event four years ago. But by inflationary standards, the British, who beat the 2004 winning time by three-tenths of a second in constant time, actually failed to keep pace with it. The Americans, who beat it by five seconds, produced a genuine achievement.

And now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to watch the latest high-definition broadcast from Beijing on my 46-inch flat-screen TV. It beats the crap out of the 20-inch tube I was squinting at in 2004. But that doesn't make my eyesight any better.

Birth-Control Blur

William Saletan — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:42:00 GMT

Last Tuesday, I wrote about a draft regulation, circulated by the Department of Health and Human Services, that would protect the right of private employees to refuse to facilitate any abortifacient chemical or activity. The draft rule defined abortion as "any of the various procedures—including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action—that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation." It would thereby encompass the right to withhold oral contraception, which theoretically could prevent implantation of an embryo.

On Friday, HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt wrote a blog post about the draft rule. According to the Washington Post, Leavitt "denied that [the] draft regulation would redefine common birth control methods as abortion and protect the rights of doctors and other health-care workers who refuse to provide them."

Really? Where's the denial?

Here's the relevant part of Leavitt's post:

An early draft of the regulations found its way into public circulation before it had reached my review. It contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true.
The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn. However, the issue I asked to be addressed in this regulation is not abortion or contraceptives, but the legal right medical practitioners have to practice according to their conscience and patients should be able to choose a doctor who has beliefs like his or hers.
The Department is still contemplating if it will issue a regulation or not. If it does, it will be directly focused on the protection of practitioner conscience.

Leavitt's post says his intent is to protect the right of conscience, not to define contraceptives as abortion. It doesn't deny that the final version of the rule will have the effect of treating some contraceptives as abortion. And there's every reason to believe it will do just that.

Leavitt writes as though conscience protection is a separate issue from the blurring of abortion with contraception. It isn't. A rule that guarantees the pro-life conscience rights of doctors, pharmacists, and other private employees is limited only by what those employees believe. And what many of them believe, as the Post's Rob Stein has documented, is that oral contraceptives are wrong because they can prevent implantation.

If you think Leavitt won't extend conscience protections that far, you haven't met his boss. Nine years ago, when George W. Bush was running for president, Tim Russert asked him: "Do you believe life begins at conception?" Bush replied: "I do." Two years later, as he prohibited federal funding of embryo-destructive stem-cell research, Bush repeated, "I think life begins at conception." Referring to pre-implantation embryos, Bush wrote that "it is unethical to end life," even to save the lives of others.

How can Leavitt fail to extend conscience protections to a pharmacist who refuses to fill a birth-control prescription because, like Bush, he believes that life begins at conception? If that belief is good enough to bar funding of stem-cell research, why isn't it good enough for the pharmacist?

If Leavitt really wants to clarify this question, he can do so by writing one more post in which he stipulates that the HHS rule, if issued, will not extend to drugs or procedures that act prior to implantation. I'm betting a month's supply of birth-control pills that he won't.

The Price of Survival

William Saletan — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:49:00 GMT

When is a life-threatening disease not worth treating? When something else will kill you first.

This week, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force issued new guidelines for prostate cancer screening. The New York Times explains:

Prostate cancer often progresses very slowly, and a large number of these cancers discovered through screening will probably never cause symptoms during the patient's lifetime ... Past task force guidelines noted there was no benefit to prostate cancer screening in men with less than 10 years left to live. ... The new guidelines take a more definitive stand, however, stating that the age of 75 is clearly the point at which screening is no longer appropriate.

Well, sort of. The new guidelines do draw the line at 75. But the rationale hasn't really changed. Here's the key paragraph from the report:

In men age 75 years or older, the USPSTF found no direct evidenceof benefits of prostate cancer screening. However, the USPSTFwas able to establish an upper bound for the potential magnitudeof the benefit of treating screening-detected prostate cancerin this age group, by extrapolating from evidence of treatmentfor clinically detected prostate cancer in this age group. For a population of men with an average life expectancy of 10years or fewer, the USPSTF determined that the benefits of prostatecancer screening and treatment would range from small to none.

In other words, men 75 years or older aren't worth screening because their life expectancy is 10 years or less. This matches the logic of the previous guidelines ("Older men ... who have a life expectancy of fewer than 10 years are unlikely to benefit") and, as the report notes, similar guidelines issued by professional medical associations. It also matches a study, cited in the key paragraph, that compared "radical prostatectomy" to "watchful waiting" in two groups of men. The study found that with prostate removal, "The absolute reduction in the risk of death after 10 years issmall."

More to the point, the 75-10 equation matches current U.S. life expectancy tables. The guidelines clearly identify life expectancy as a key factor in setting limits to screening:

The USPSTF found convincing evidence that treatment for prostatecancer detected by screening causes moderate-to-substantialharms, such as erectile dysfunction, urinary incontinence, boweldysfunction, and death. These harms are especially importantbecause some men with prostate cancer who are treated wouldnever have developed symptoms related to cancer during theirlifetime.

According to the latest U.S. government data, remaining life expectancy for a 75-year-old man is 10.8 years. But that number applies only to the most recent year on the table, 2005. If you scan up the column of numbers, looking back in time, you'll see that remaining life expectancy for men at 75 has been edging up. Since 1980, it has increased by two years. And if you look at tables going further back, you'll see that a 75-year-old man today can expect as much remaining life as a 70-year old man could expect in 1975.

In other words, life expectancy is increasing, and as it does, the age at which slow diseases are worth testing and treating also increases. Three decades ago, by the logic of the 10-year limit, a 70-year-old man wasn't worth screening for prostate cancer. Today, he is. We have extended his remaining life to the point at which prostate cancer would shorten it. By preventing and treating other diseases, we have made this one worth preventing and treating, too.

So don't count on the screening line to hold at 75. Over the next few decades, it could easily rise to 80.

One way to look at this trend is that the job never ends. The more we accomplish, the more work we have to do. It's exhausting. Maybe we should back off and respect nature's limits.

The other perspective is that there's nothing more liberating -- nothing more human -- than shattering old expectations. This boring little tweak in the recommendations for prostate cancer is actually this week's episode of the biggest story in the universe: biological emancipation. In the beginning, we accept a cause of death as nature's course. Then we call it a disease and study it. Then we push life expectancy to the point at which the disease is worth treating. The truest measure of progress isn't what we achieve. It's what we undertake.

No Chubby For Old Men

William Saletan — Thu, 07 Aug 2008 11:45:00 GMT

If you're looking for interesting bathroom reading, allow me to recommend Urology. The July issue is chock full of page-turners: "Robotic Prostatectomy," "Scrotal Mass with Bladder Outlet Obstruction," "Histologic Comparison of Pubovaginal Sling Graft Materials," "Multi-Drug-Resistant Bacteremia After Transrectal Ultrasound Guided Prostate Biopsies," and my favorite, "Modern Management of Adult-Acquired Buried Penis" (it's "a result of obesity" - don't ask).

Seriously, though, I want to talk about an article in the July issue. It's called, "Does ‘Normal' Aging Imply Urinary, Bowel, and Erectile Dysfunction?" Here are key excerpts from the abstract:

We assessed if urinary, bowel, and sexual dysfunction and associated bother were part of the "normal" aging process in the general male Dutch population. ... Three thousand eight hundred ten (3810) men responded (81%), mean age 67 years, range 58 to 78. ... Bowel dysfunction and bother were not related to age. Erectile dysfunction was reported by 19%, ranging from 12% in the youngest to 26% in the oldest group ...

Conclusions: Urinary and bowel dysfunction were not part of the "normal" aging process. Erectile dysfunction was significantly more prevalent in older men.

And here's the headline on the Reuters write-up: "Erectile dysfunction may be ‘normal' with age."

The curious thing here is the word normal. It's being used in this context to mean age-related. Most men in the sample didn't have erectile dysfunction. But because ED's frequency increases with age, and because we think of aging as a universal process accompanied by physical decline, ED seems normal.

Since "urinary and bowel dysfunction were not part of the ‘normal' aging process," the authors conclude, they "may well be related to prior treatment" in men who have been treated for prostate cancer. This appears to make them logical targets for prevention or remedy. Does the opposite implication follow for ED? Does its "normality" make it a less compelling target?

There are many plausible ways to think about normality and health. Age-dependence is one of them. To me, the authors' framework makes sense: Medicine should focus first on maladies that strike some people unusually early in life. Maladies that accumulate with age are less unfair. They're also less tractable, since they're more biologically inherent.

ED, however, is a confounding example because it's in the process of being transformed from a "normal" to a commonly treated condition. Bob Dole made his famous ad for Viagra in 1999, when he was 76. In the last decade, 35 million men have used Viagra. Millions more have taken similar drugs such as Cialis or Levitra. Modern man has set out to conquer the ancient loss of manhood.

Which brings us back to the question posed in Urology: Does normal aging imply ED? The answer seems to be: It used to. And that's not just a change in the way we think about erections. It's a change in the way we think about aging.

The Gambling-Addiction Defense

William Saletan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:34:00 GMT

Chalk up another victory for the gambling-addiction defense.

Yesterday, attorneys for Tim Donaghy, the former NBA referee who admitted to betting on basketball games he officiated, filed a psychological "evaluation" that blames his crimes on compulsive gambling. The author is Stephen Block, a gambling treatment counselor. Sample quotes from the evaluation, as reported by the Associated Press: 1) "In my professional opinion, Mr. Donaghy would never have committed these offenses if he was not a pathological gambler." 2) "His gambling history demonstrates the need to gamble to fulfill the underlying need for 'action.' " 3) "He could not stop himself from gambling." The Washington Post supplies one more: 4) "His judgment and insight were impaired by his gambling behavior."

The plea worked. Today, Donaghy was sentenced to 15 months in prison instead of the 27 to 33 months that had been expected. According to the Post, the judge "said she took Donaghy's gambling addiction into account, as well as his cooperation with the government's investigation." Reuters quotes the judge on Donaghy's gambling addiction: "Although it contributed to his criminal conduct, it does not excuse it." No excuse, but a nice contribution: His sentence gets halved.

I'm not going to sit here and claim that compulsive gambling doesn't exist. But disorders that are powerful and real for some people have a way of being diagnosed in other people who don't share many of the symptoms but just happen to need a legal excuse. In this case, all we have is an evaluation solicited and supplied by the defendant's attorneys.

More to the point—and this is the crazy part—in this case, the crime is gambling. If you plug that information into the evaluation, here's what it boils down to: "Mr. Donaghy would never have committed this gambling if he was not a pathological gambler." No kidding! He committed gambling because "he could not stop himself from gambling," because "his judgment and insight were impaired by his gambling." How do we know his gambling is compulsive? Because of his "gambling history." The circularity is shameless.

And don't even get me started on the idea that Donaghy had a "need to gamble to fulfill the underlying need for 'action.'" An "underlying need for action" pretty well describes the motivation for half the world's crimes.

If you really believe Donaghy's gambling was addictive, don't just make it a mitigating factor in sentencing for the crime of gambling. Abolish the crime. Because a crime can't excuse itself.

Jihadettes, Again

William Saletan — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:45:00 GMT

The female suicide bombers have struck again. And again. And again.

Yesterday morning, I wrote about a woman who blew herself up in Iraq last Thursday. The body count in that attack was eight. I don't remember what the count was in terms of how many women had done the deed this year.

Anyway, that number is already obsolete. By the end of the day, three more women had killed themselves. The body count in yesterday's attacks exceeds 60, with more than 200 others wounded. The Los Angeles Times reports:

According to U.S. Army figures, 27 suicide attacks this year have been carried out by women, compared with eight in all of 2007 ... A tally by The Times indicates that about a quarter of all suicide attacks this year in Iraq have been conducted by women.

Again, the Washington Post explains why women are delivering the bombs:

Wearing their flowing black garments, they can carry hidden explosives past most checkpoints because customs of modesty prevent male guards from frisking them. On Monday, four female suicide bombers in two Iraqi cities used this tactic to enter areas defended by hundreds of soldiers and police officers.

The New York Times adds:

Police officers interviewed at the scene said that the authorities had heard that six women would blow themselves up in the area. "We can't search women," complained Atheer Allawi, a police officer. "They are wearing abayas, and God knows what they can hide under them."

And again, Iraq failed to provide enough female security officers to do the job. The Associated Press reports:

Iraqi security forces had deployed about 200 women this week to search female pilgrims in Kazimiyah, but the attacks took place along the procession some six miles southeast of the shrine. There were too few women guards to search people in the procession itself.

The bombings will continue until we get the message: Stop treating women as though they're too meek to fight and kill. They're already killing. Search women. Deploy women.

Jihadettes

William Saletan — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:48:00 GMT

Another suicide bombing in Iraq last week. Another female perpetrator. The bomb "killed a pro-American Sunni militia leader, an Iraqi police captain, a local politician, and five other people," according to Friday's New York Times. Apparently, it's "at least the 16th time that a woman has donned a bomb and exploded herself in Diyala Province since last year."

Why women? The Times explains:

Wearing billowy, black head-to-toe garments, the female bombers have been able to conceal powerful explosives and slip into crowded areas too heavily guarded for a male suicide bomber to ease through undetected. While men often undergo physical searches, Islamic rules do not allow male security officers to pat down women.

How many more women have to blow themselves up before we get the message? Female suicide bombing is a logical extension of suicide bombing. Suicide bombing exploits your disbelief about what people will do. Female suicide bombing exploits your disbelief about what a particular group of people—women—will do. Your biases are no longer somebody else's problem. They're your problem. Look for Arab bombers, and terrorists will send an American-born Hispanic instead. Look for men, and they'll send a woman.

Actually, I don't like the way I wrote that. These women aren't just "sent" by somebody else. We've had enough socio-babble about how women commit such atrocities because they've been "marginalized" and "exploited" by men. It reminds me of the pro-life dogma that women shouldn't be prosecuted under abortion bans because the woman is just the abortionist's pawn. Spare these women your condescension. If you're going to make abortion a crime, charge the woman. If you're handling security where bombs are a threat, search everyone. And if you don't have enough female security officers to search the women, go hire some.

But this is just a Muslim problem, right? We Judeo-Christian Americans don't have these hang-ups, right? As the Washington Post noted two months ago:

In Afghanistan as well as Iraq, female soldiers are often tasked to work in all-male combat units -- not only for their skills but also for the culturally sensitive role of providing medical treatment for local women, as well as searching them and otherwise interacting with them.

But—oops!—the Post story is about Pfc. Monica Brown, who won

a Silver Star in March for repeatedly risking her life on April 25, 2007, to shield and treat her wounded comrades, displaying bravery and grit. She is the second woman since World War II to receive the nation's third-highest combat medal. Within a few days of her heroic acts, however, the Army pulled Brown out of the remote camp in Paktika province where she was serving with a cavalry unit -- because, her platoon commander said, Army restrictions on women in combat barred her from such missions.

Enough with the sexism. We can't afford it.

Heartless Pigs

William Saletan — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 11:45:00 GMT

Last week, during the discussion of Spain's new animal rights legislation, I pointed to an article by Donald McNeil Jr. in the July 13 New York Times. McNeil asked whether the most advanced animals, the great apes, deserved the "most basic right—to not be killed for food." My answer was yes. In fact, I'd argue—hypocritically—that it's wrong to kill animals for food, period. It's brutal and unnecessary.

But let's make the question a bit tougher for you animal lovers. Is it wrong to grow and kill animals for transplantable tissue?

I ask because a report out of England this week suggests that animals may become a rich source of tissue for repairing human bodies. "Currently, the use of animal tissue for human transplant is restricted, and of limited effectiveness," the BBC observes. The Daily Telegraph explains why:

Surgeons have been able to transplant heart valves from pigs into patients for more than a decade, but these have a limited life span as they do not become populated by the patients own cells and are unable to repair any damage, meaning they must be replaced every 10 years. For young patients this poses a particular problem as the valves do not grow with the child and so must be replaced frequently.

But scientists now think they may have figured out a solution. Professor John Fisher, a biological engineer at the University of Leeds, explains the method they've been successfully testing:

We can take a tissue from an animal, remove all the cells that carry the signals that trigger the immune system so just the biological scaffold is left. When this is implanted, the patient's own cells then grow in to replace the original cells we have removed. This has advantages as the transplant can then grow with the patient. ...

The patient's own cells then grow in. The transplant can then grow with the patient. I hope you "human dignity" fans on the right realize the import of what he's saying. He's talking about an animal tissue structure incorporating human cells and growing inside a human body. The code words are recellularization (PDF) and in vivo regeneration. In other words, interspecies integration. You can read all about it at the Web site of Fisher's company, Tissue Regenix.

But the harder question is for animal rights advocates. Fisher and his colleagues are collaborating with a British agency "to develop the technique so they can create new heart valves for children," the Daily Telegraph reports. Their research "opens the way for a range of new procedures using animal parts." So while tissue regeneration in vivo reduces the need to repeat each transplant, it will apparently increase "use of animal tissue such as blood vessels, tendons and bladders" overall, according to the BBC. The point of all this work, according to Tissue Regenix, is to "address the chronic shortfalls in donor tissue availability."

We're not talking anymore about killing animals for food. We're talking about killing them for transplantable body parts. Animal rights vs. children's lives.

Liberals often challenge pro-lifers with a dilemma: In a burning fertility clinic, you can save either a 5-year-old girl or a tray of 10 frozen embryos. The point of the challenge is to test whether pro-lifers really believe that an embryo is equal to a child. Now animal rights advocates, the pro-lifers of the left, face their own dilemma: save the girl or spare the pig?

Offed With Your Head

William Saletan — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 13:31:00 GMT

The Human Nature article on Slate's cover today is about a military drone-piloting system that looks like a video game but kills real people. You control it with joysticks and buttons. The company that developed it, Raytheon, sees it as a logical progression for recruits who come into the military knowing how to play games like Doom and Halo.

The question is: Will the transition be too smooth? Will these young pilots, reclining comfortably in their "virtual cockpits" in Nevada as their drones fly over Iraq, feel as though they're playing a game?

Now imagine taking this merger of games and killing one step further. Imagine controlling the drone directly with your mind. Imagine firing the missile just by thinking it.

Imagination is a dangerous thing. It can already fire weapons in video games. Here's the report from this weekend's Sunday Telegraph:

British scientists are turning the vision into reality with a device that allows objects to be manipulated with brain waves. The prototype ... can already be used to play simple computer games. By imagining a movement, the wearer of the hat-shaped device can tell the computer to move an object around a screen or a robot around a room. ...
The development came as the video games maker Nintendo disclosed that it wanted to build on the success of the motion-sensitive technology used in the best-selling console, the Wii, by developing games that can be controlled by thought.
To pick up the signal from the brain, the scientists use a cap fitted with electrodes that detect changes in the electrical activity produced by the neurons. When a person wearing the cap imagines a particular action, such as moving a hand, it produces a distinct pattern of signals that a computer learns to recognise.

While Nintendo works on deploying this technology, two other companies are already there, according to the New York Times:

Put on the headset, made by Emotiv Systems in San Francisco, and when a giant boulder blocks the path in a game you are playing, you can levitate it—not by something as crude as a keystroke, but just by concentrating on raising it, said Tan Le, Emotiv's president. The headset captures electrical signals when you concentrate; then the computer processes these signals and pairs a screen action with them ... Emotiv plans to have its noninvasive, wireless EPOC headset ($299) on sale in time for Christmas, Ms. Le said. ... So far, [Emotiv's R&D manager] said, all 200 testers of the headset had indeed been able to move on-screen objects mentally.
Another headset, the Neural Impulse Actuator ($169), just released by the OCZ Technology Group in Sunnyvale, Calif., has three sensors in a headband that pick up electrical activity primarily from muscles and convert it into commands ... Players of shooting games, for instance, may use eye movement to trigger a shot, shaving milliseconds off of their response time and sparing their hands.

Scientific American has more on how the Emotiv headset reads your mind.

So now we're looking at two mergers: mind-controlled action with video games, and video games with killing. Firing weapons with your mind used to be imaginary. Now, like so many imagined things, it's becoming real.

Age, Wealth, and Medicare

William Saletan — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:59:00 GMT

Should Medicare pay big bucks to extend people's lives past 100?

I've been noodling that question since Friday, when the New York Times ran a story headlined, "Rise Seen in Medical Efforts to Treat the Very Old." The story focused on a woman who got a pacemaker and defibrillator a month before her 100th birthday, apparently courtesy of Medicare. Estimated cost: $35,000. The doctor who did the surgery "said that he has implanted about two dozen devices like hers in patients 90 or older over the past five years," according to reporter Anemona Hartocollis. Other doctors said they've done similar procedures on patients in their mid- to late-‘90s.

There's going to be a lot more of this, Hartocollis pointed out. Doctors say they're doing more and more bypasses, cancer surgeries, cataract operations, and joint and valve replacements on people 90 or older. The population of U.S. centenarians (people 100 or older) has nearly doubled since 2000. Trends suggest that within 40 years, it could exceed 1 million.

The objection to spending Medicare funds on all these procedures is obvious: The money would be better spent on younger patients.

The rebuttal offered in the Times is that people who survive to very old age are particularly healthy. They've "demonstrated a survival prowess," said one medical expert. "The older you get, the healthier you've been." The implication is that they're worth spending money on because they'll live longer.

I wonder whether this rebuttal looks at the question the wrong way. Suppose we were talking about wealth instead of age. A woman with an unusually large fortune asks for an investment in some project of hers. Her advocate points out that people with lots of wealth tend to have accumulated it through unusual talent or connections and are therefore more likely to get the best return on money invested in them.

We'd see that argument as rewarding and compounding inequality. Why not look at age the same way? Isn't health, like wealth, an unequally distributed asset? Isn't it, in fact, the ultimate asset? And if that's the case, should we means-test people on Medicare not just for wealth, but for age?

Actually, means testing is the wrong term. Age isn't really a means; it's more like an end. So let's call it an ends test. The theory is that just as some people have enough money, others have had enough time.

If you make it to 100 and can fund your own surgery, that's terrific. But Medicare should focus its resources on people who haven't been as lucky as you. Living to 99 is no tragedy. It's a blessing.

Fetal Separation

William Saletan — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:32:00 GMT

Starting this week, under orders from the state attorney general and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8^thCircuit, medical providers in South Dakota must present a scripted statement to women who seek abortions. The script, dictated by the legislature three years ago, declares that any abortion "will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being."

Until now, I wasn't aware that the fetus—a term that, according to the South Dakota law, includes "the implanted embryo"—was a whole, separate, living human being. I thought it was ... you know ... implanted. I mean, I'm just a guy, not really an expert or anything. But, um, placenta? Umbilical cord? Do those terms ring a bell? And that's not even getting to the tricky stuff, like the role of maternal RNA in directing embryonic growth or all the work done by the womb to facilitate the embryo's attachment and nourishment.

I have to say, it's a relief to learn that the embryo is so complete and independent. I mean, it solves the whole problem. Here's this woman who just wants to be separated from her embryo. And lo and behold, it's already separate! No need to agonize. Just detach it and let it grow. It's separate, it's whole, it's living. Cancel the abortion. Perform a separation instead.

Sure, some cranky district attorney might take you to court, claiming your separation was really an abortion. Make sure you countersue for legal costs, because you've got a slam-dunk case. The law under which you're being prosecuted doesn't just declare that embryos and fetuses are separate. It also defines abortion as "the use of any means to intentionally terminate the pregnancy of a woman known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the fetus."

How can South Dakota claim that you should know separation will kill the fetus, when South Dakota has insisted on informing you, prior to the procedure, that the fetus is already whole and separate?

Don't give me some medical-school mumbo jumbo about obstetrics. The legislature mooted all that blather when it superimposed its judgment. Fetuses are whole and separate. Therefore, being a law-abiding citizen, you have no reason to believe that separation will cause fetal death. Therefore, under the law's terms, separation is not abortion. No need to bother with the onerous paperwork and liability threats the legislature has assigned exclusively to abortion. You're not in the abortion business anymore.

Look, I don't like abortions. Fortunately, neither do the women who ask for them. Most abortions happen because women get pregnant when they're not ready. Prevent the pregnancy, and you prevent the abortion. So, here's a word of advice to legislators like those in South Dakota: Stop withholding birth control and stop lying to women about their bodies. You can't even keep your lies straight. That's how you ended up telling doctors to tell women that separation will kill a separate human being. See you in court.

Crap and Trade, Revisited

William Saletan — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:43:00 GMT

Last week, I looked at the economics of pay toilets and argued that the toilets should pay you. In India, a pilot project is cleaning up the environment and trying to generate fertilizer by paying people to use "eco-sanitation" toilets. Meanwhile, American cities are charging people to use expensive, high-tech, energy-consuming Automated Public Toilets (APTs). Does the American approach really make sense?

Now it turns out that in at least one city, we're not even getting nicer toilets for our money. Two days ago, Seattle dumped its APTs. Reason No. 1: They'd been taken over by druggies and hookers. Reason No. 2: They were "less cost-effective than regular public restrooms."

And how. Unlike other cities, Seattle wasn't charging APT users. But the eye-popping number is the cost of its units. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that according to the manufacturer, "A single stall automated toilet now goes for $200,000 to $220,000 plus on-site installation." And that's not even the real number, by a long shot. The total cost to the city, including maintenance, has been about $1 million per toilet.

How can toilets cost that much? Read the reviews. They have "handsfree washing and drying ability and an emergency button that automatically dials 911." They have "automated floor scrubbers" and are "cleaned by jets of water between each use." They have "metal doors that open at the press of a button and stay closed for up to 20 minutes. The units clean themselves after each use, disinfecting the seats and power-washing the floors."

Nice, huh? So how did they get taken over by junkies and prostitutes?

One reason seems to be that Seattle put them in places where that was likely to happen. Another reason could be that the toilets were free. I doubt it, since free APTs on skid row in Los Angeles haven't suffered the same fate. A third explanation is privacy: 20 minutes to yourself in a sealed chamber is perfect for taking care of your next fix or giving a blow job.

The toilets ended up so gross and scary that even homeless people wouldn't use them. One woman supplies this fantastic quote to the New York Times: "I used to smoke crack in there. But I won't even go inside that thing now. It's disgusting."

As a result, the APTs failed at the basic job of any public toilet: curbing outdoor excrement. A city spokesman ruefully tells the Seattle Times: "Even when these restrooms were running, we were still getting reports of people urinating and defecating in public." The spokesman says that at this point, Seattle "doesn't have a plan for providing public-restroom services" and is still "trying to figure it out."

Here's a wild idea: Bag the high-tech fetish. Put up plain old public toilets. That seems to be the lesson from yesterday's New York Times:

Rather than automated toilets, some cities are looking for cheaper alternatives that would be cleaned by human attendants. One prototype, to be installed next month in Portland, Ore., would cost $50,000 each, compared with some $300,000 for an automated unit. Randy Leonard, a Portland city commissioner, helped design that toilet, which in addition has open gaps at the top and bottom of the door, a feature discouraging drug abuse, prostitution and the like. But given that lesser privacy, it is unclear how popular such a toilet might be ...

Sorry, folks: Lesser privacy is the price you have to pay to keep out the druggies and hookers. And human attendants are the price of keeping toilets affordable. For the cost of one APT, you could put up six to 20 of those low-tech Portland units.

Now, if the Indians can just figure out how to monetize the waste, we can start paying users. Eco-san, anyone?

Diets and Reality

William Saletan — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 15:04:00 GMT

There's quite a dustup over the diet study published today in the New England Journal of Medicine. The study reports that for two years, 322 "moderatelyobese" people were assigned "to one of three diets: low-fat, restricted-calorie;Mediterranean, restricted-calorie; or low-carbohydrate, non-restricted-calorie." On average, each participant lost 6 to 10 pounds.

In her New York Times blog, Tara Parker-Pope laments the study's findings. "All it really showed is that dieters can put forth tremendous effort and reap very little benefit," she writes. Her report is headlined, "More Evidence That Diets Don't Work."

Diet guru Dean Ornish disagrees. Writing in Newsweek, he calls the study "extremely flawed" because participants "on the ‘low-fat' diet decreased their total fat intake from 31.4 percent to 30.0 percent, hardly at all." Their diet "was based on the American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, which I have long criticized as not being enough of a change in diet to show much benefit."

Which writer is correct? Both, and neither. The study's lesson isn't that "diets don't work" or that the only diets worth studying are more radical. The lesson is that there's a tradeoff between results and compliance.

Look at the study's abstract on the NEJM Web site. It begins, "Background: Trials comparing the effectiveness and safety ofweight-loss diets are frequently limited by short follow-uptimes and high dropout rates." Scroll down, and you'll see that the first finding reported isn't average weight loss. It's compliance. "Results: The rate of adherence to a study diet was 95.4% at 1year and 84.6% at 2 years."

In other words, the study was designed in part to measure the cost of making diets easy enough to maintain. The lead author makes this clear in an interview with Parker-Pope:

In order to keep participants on the diet for long term as a way of life, we did not impose extreme diet protocols. More dramatic diet protocols could probably reduce more weight for the short term, but participants would have dropped out.

So Parker-Pope is right that the average weight loss was depressingly modest, and Ornish is right that more radical diets would probably have produced better results. But Ornish is wrong that this amounts to a damning flaw in the study, and Parker-Pope is wrong that it shows "diets don't work." The study set out to see what would happen if people were put on diets that the vast majority of them could psychologically sustain for two years. What happened was that by making the diets sustainable, the researchers made them less potent at reducing weight.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: Compliance is part of a diet's effectiveness. Unless you plan on jailing people and sliding food under the door, their ability and willingness to adhere to the regimen are crucial factors in whether it works. If you want to complain about flaws in diet studies, complain about the studies with high dropout rates, which conveniently eliminate the real-world failure of diets that reduce weight if perfectly followed but are, for too many people, unsustainable.

This study isn't one of them. The news it brings is bad but important: We have to figure out how to design diets that are both potent and sustainable. We're not there yet.