In a rare though hardly surprising development, two evolution researchers at the University of Chicago have the top two books in the “Evolution” category at amazon.com. (It’s hardly surprising because the university’s graduate program in ecology and evolutionary biology is consistently ranked the best in the nation… end of gratuitous plug.) The #1 bestseller in the category is Neil Shubin’s “Your Inner Fish,” and #2 is Jerry Coyne’s new hardcover, “Why Evolution Is True.”

Now it’s turned into a well-nigh Darwinian struggle to see who can claim and keep the top spot, with Jerry openly yearning to wrest away Neil’s bestseller mojo.

In truth they’re both fine books with very different audiences, and Science Life is shamelessly exploiting both authors. We’ve already run interviews with Neil on misconceptions about evolution and other topics, and soon we’ll have a dialogue with Jerry about the links between biology and ideology. For a preview, check out Jerry’s recent essay in The New Republic on why efforts to reconcile evolution and religion are doomed to fail. I disagree with him on some points, including the minor issue of whether God exists. But he’s certainly right that a religion that takes evolution seriously might look very different from the religious views that most believers hold. I wrote about the same subject for the Chicago Tribune magazine last year, complete with a colorful description of Jerry’s own de-conversion experience.

UPDATE: Now Jerry is in the lead, and Neil is second. The Botany Pond grudge match continues…

This was a long but exhilarating day for Janet Rowley, who was at President Obama’s side as he signed the executive order creating a new stem-cell policy. I caught up with her by phone in D.C. this afternoon as she waited for her plane back to Chicago. Rowley said the day’s events made her think back to the first meeting of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, where her views in favor of embryonic stem cell research put her at odds with the administration.

“To be there today at the White House and see this signing, for me it was like coming full circle,” Rowley said. “When you saw the enthusiasm of the scientists who were there, the people from Congress, the patient advocates who were so important in keeping this issue alive during the dark years, if you will. It was just an unbelievable experience.”

For Rowley and other researchers, one of the most welcome themes of the day was what Rowley called “the de-linking of science and politics.” In fact, despite the historic nature of the stem-cell policy change, the other document Obama signed may have more far-reaching effects - a presidential memorandum on scientific integrity. That directive calls for more transparency in science and technology issues before the government, without suppression of findings for political reasons.

Although the Bush administration is over, the Council on Bioethics is slated to last until at least November of this year, and Rowley continues to serve on it. She said she believes some of the group’s reports have made an impact, if only to reflect how divided the country was on many issues in bioethics. Such groups can continue to address legitimate moral concerns; as Rowley said, “It’s very important because scientists have to reassure the rest of the country that we’re not out to make a bunch of clones or zombies.”

Another note: Friday’s analysis of the next steps for the NIH is up at the Huffington Post’s Chicago site; you can see it here.

Nice line - “There’s no finish line in the race of science.” He’s right to make clear that cures won’t come quickly. In fact he implied that many treatments will not come even in the lifetime of the next generation. 

The scientist at Obama’s right-hand side as he signs the executive order is Janet Rowley, M.D., a pioneering cancer researcher here and former member of Bush’s Council on Bioethics.

The Washington Post reported this afternoon that President Obama plans to lift the Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research funding via executive order on Monday. Now comes the hard part - implementing a stem-cell policy that’s meaningful, has full ethical protections and unlocks the scientific talent that’s been held back the last eight years.

One insider point to watch on Monday is whether someone from the National Institutes of Health will help explain the new funding channels for this research. It’s a question of some urgency. Just this week, the NIH released a set of “challenge grant” topics that are eligible for a pool of $200 million as part of the new federal economic stimulus act. The NIH site describes the qualifying projects as those which “address specific scientific and health research challenges in biomedical and behavioral research that will benefit from significant 2-year jumpstart funds.” Embryonic stem-cell research would seem a natural fit - especially since the Bush administration held it back for years - but it’s not clear yet that Obama’s rule change has come in time for stem-cell grant seekers to get a share of the stimulus money. That’s one reason why Obama’s delay in announcing changes to the stem-cell policy was a bit puzzling. Many observers - including me - expected him to lift the restrictions his first week in office.

Around research centers like the University of Chicago, stem-cell scientists are poring over such details. I just spoke with John Cunningham, M.D., a specialist in pediatric stem-cell transplantation, who directed me to the brand-new NIH list of “Highest Priority Challenge Topics.” (You can see a more researcher-oriented application guide here.) Stem-cell research is on the list, but not specifically the embryonic stem-cell research that’s been subject to Bush’s limits. I count five topics that relate to iPS cells - short for induced pluripotent stem cells - which were discovered in 2007 and seem to have many of the properties of embryonic stem cells but are derived from adult cells. That’s fantastic because iPS cells deserve more study. But embryonic stem-cell research never appears by name, except to say that “iPS cells act like embryonic stem cells.”

This is an important point because as Cunningham said, “One of the things that lifting the current ban should allow us to do is really test whether iPS cells and embryonic stem cells have similar properties.” In theory the current challenge grant list could include work with embryonic stem cells, since some of the topics are broad enough to encompass work with several different cell types. For example, Topic 11, “Regenerative Medicine,” contains a broad opportunity to “Develop cell-based therapies for cardiovascular, lung, and blood diseases.” That could cover some work with embryonic stem cells, as could some of the items under the general category of stem cells.

But none of this is set in stone. What the president says on Monday may signal whether broader embryonic stem-cell funding will begin with the stimulus package, or whether scientists - and patients - will have to wait longer to start seeing more progress. Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Here’s a take on the news in an e-mail from embryonic stem-cell researcher and friend of the blog George Q. Daley, M.D., of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute and Children’s Hospital Boston: “I am brimful of hope and excitement about the announcement on Monday. I’ll be there, and I expect Obama to lift the restrictions and usher in a whole new era of scientific openness and opportunity for stem cell research. The future looks bright indeed for stem cell research.”

This was a great idea [NOTE: The link no longer brings up the forum; see below]. Just browsing through the sessions, it’s a very high quality discussion, with a lot of focus on improving preventive care - a huge issue in underserved areas.

UPDATE: The streaming video is no longer up, but the White House blog thread on the forum is here.  There should be a summary report out soon, and I’m sure people here will comment on the process as it goes along. See more coverage here, here and here.

An interesting nugget from the community discussions the administration has held on health care reform: One-fifth of participants cited the lack of emphasis on prevention as a top concern, even more than were concerned about the quality of care.

Pancreatic cancer has made an unusual amount of news lately, with the very public struggles of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs, and actor Patrick Swayze. The diagnosis can be dire news; the mean survival time following diagnosis is often measured in months, though that can vary depending on how far the tumor has progressed.

I recently talked with Irving Waxman, M.D., about why the disease is so difficult to treat, and how he finds hope in this relatively bleak arena. Here’s a snippet:

Q: We’re attuned to thinking that pancreatic cancer is a very bleak diagnosis, and clearly it is. So how do you and patients keep up hope in a seemingly hopeless field?

Waxman: That’s a very good question. I think that chemotherapy today has entered in my opinion, in the last decade, what we call smart chemotherapy. We’ve stopped using some of the “one agent kills everything” drugs, and now we try to be a little bit smarter, doing targeted therapy that affects a specific part of the growth. Every day there are new protocols, new clinical trials, and we have some going on here. The new therapies may not cure the disease, but they can definitely slow its progression. And with better imaging modalities we can now detect growths at a smaller size.

But in general your point is well taken. It is still a devastating disease. There is a wonderful organization, Pancan [the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network], and they do an amazing job of giving support and information for the patients, and they are also involved in philanthropy and research grants. It’s really a tremendous organization that gives a lot of hope for patients, and that’s an important resource.

Below you can see more of Waxman’s explanation of why pancreatic cancer is so difficult to detect and treat. He describes the organ’s location as a highway junction within the body where numerous arteries and veins crisscross, making it difficult to operate if a tumor is locally advanced. He also discusses the encouraging prospects for better early screening of the disease.