This paper analyzes the roots and implications of conflict between the conduct of science and government predilections in the United States, including the security state and neoconservative control of Washington. Three major conflicts are discussed: the emergence of new security and secrecy regimes that seek control of science; religiously derived moral viewpoints that seek to limit scientific research; and the purposeful shaping and censoring of scientific findings for political gain. All three policy issues, argues the author, have their roots in a growing public mistrust of science and its purposes, but also the actions of the current presidential administration. What is needed, he states, is a set of rules rooted in several common understandings or rules. First, policies resting on scientific or technological issues, like all public policies, are decided in the end not just by experts but by a variety of people and interests. Second, objective scientific results, tested by repeated efforts at confirmation, are necessary (though not sufficient) elements in such policy decisions. Third, if the scientists responsible for those findings are controlled or silenced by particular policy interests, or committed in advance to any particular category of policy outcome, the resulting decisions are likely to be wrong. If adopted in advance of the installation of the next administration, or at the outset, such a set of rules could be seen a forward-looking improvement in governance, rather than as yet another criticism of what has been going on in this one.

The question of whether omega-3 fatty acids present in fish reduce cardiovascular risk is controversial. Numerous in vitro studies have demonstrated that fish oil is associated with cardiovascular benefits, but clinical studies have been inconclusive. In particular, several prospective epidemiological studies have shown that men who eat some fish have decreased incidence of death from myocardial infarction compared to men who eat no fish. In addition, increasing fish intake was correlated with decreased risk. At the same time, other studies have failed to show a correlation between consumption of omega-3 fatty acids from fish and coronary disease in men. While in these studies men who reported no fish consumption had the highest risk of fatal coronary disease, increasing fish intake was not associated with fewer deaths due to myocardial infarction. Further research involving randomized, controlled clinical trials is required to determine possible beneficial effects of fish oil in order to make dietary recommendations.

In recent years, concern over the environmental impacts of natural rubber culti- vation has generated considerable interest in eco-certification, a form of private environ- mental regulation designed to encourage more sustainable land-use practices. This paper explores the emergence and potential sovereignty implications of this approach to envi- ronmental control with an emphasis on the natural rubber industry. I argue that although eco-certification is advocated as a form of networked governance representing a range of political interests, the way certification programs position themselves as transparent and accountable alternatives to state-based regulation potentially serves to delegitimize the role of the state in the arena of environmental regulation.