may be recognition elements for these HMG-containing proteins. The researchers speculate that if high levels of HMG-domain proteins could be delivered selectively to cancer cells, this could potentially enhance those cells' sensitivity to damage by cisplatin. Experiments are under way to test this approach. The cisplatin-DNA structure they obtained also could facilitate efforts to design less toxic cisplatin analogs. Stu Borman
scientific endeavors, in technology, in research and development. The plan now being considered by the Congress will cut vital research and development by a third, and any number of other related endeavors by that much or more. We could have a balanced budget to show for it tomorrow, but a decade or a generation from now our nation will be much the poorer for doing that." One congressional aide was especially critical of the speech and what he termed its lack of aggressiveness. "What I look for in a speech like that," he said, "is what around here we call 'the action verb'—specific things for people to do when the problem is defined." He noted several members of Most years, award of the National Congress hoped the President's speech Medals of Science and of Technology is would provide a focal point to orgaa buoyant White House affair at which nize groups of universities, to highthe president makes pleasant remarks light for people at the grassroots levels about R&D, expresses some humorous how damaging planned GOP cuts in awe toward the enterprise, and mixes a federal research programs would be to higher education. bit with recipients and invitees. This year's event, held last week, "But as it was, we only received the was expected to be somewhat different. speech the morning after it was givPresident Clinton was expected to de- en," the source said. He added that liver a major science and technology Rep. George E. Brown (D-Calif.), the policy speech and Washington, D.C/s leading House Democrat on science technical community was geared to and technology policy, was initially not hear a vigorous defense of Administra- even invited to the ceremony: "We had tion programs and an attack on Con- to invite the White House to invite gress for drastic cuts in them. George." In the end, the event was like most What is happening these days is previous ones. Instead of a hard-nosed, that Democratic House and Senate action-item address on what Congress backers of science and technology are is doing to his R&D budget, Clinton delivered a talk very friendly to science and enamored of technology, but merely lamenting the goings-on in Congress. He underscored the importance of such threatened programs as the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program and the Defense Department's Technology Reinvestment Program. The White House Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP)—which, according to some sources, prepared a stronger draft than Clinton presented—did its best to put a positive spin on the talk. An OSTP spokesman pointed out that Clinton had never before devoted a speech solely to science and technology, and he said all the things a president needs to say to keep such a presentation "presidential." Clinton's strongest lines were: "I have proposed a balanced budget plan that sustains our investment in Clinton: sustaining our investment
Clinton science speech disappoints some
seeking bipartisan support for key programs and trying to coordinate strategy with the White House. The aim is to convince the Administration to propose high enough funding for key programs in the fiscal 1997 budget so that Congress will find them difficult to cut. Politics is the key. One Senate source notes how the Administration's Clean Car Initiative—which Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Science Committee, originally derided and opposed as "corporate welfare"— eventually received Walker's support. How? Top Detroit auto executives invited Walker, a racing buff, for a few spins around their test tracks and a little conversation, as well. His opposition eventually dissipated. Wil Lepkowski
Judge lets surgeon sue breast implant makers Silicone breast implant makers already confronting billions of dollars in costs to compensate women who allege the implants made them ill may now face additional claims from plastic surgeons. A New York state judge has ruled for the first time in the U.S. that a physician may sue implant manufacturers under consumer fraud laws to recoup alleged damages to his practice. The decision not only opens the door to thousands of similar suits against implant makers, but also may allow physicians to sue pharmaceutical manufacturers for damages to their practice stemming from manufacturers' misrepresentation of drugs. Judge John Leone of the New York Supreme Court for Richmond County, the Staten Island borough of New York City, allowed a New York City plastic surgeon to proceed with his suit alleging "damage to his reputation, loss of patients due to negative perception of breast implant procedures, and economic harm to the growth of his practice." The surgeon will seek "several million dollars" in damages from implant maker Bristol-Myers Squibb, notes his New York City-based attorney, David A. Green. The surgeon's complaint against Dow Corning cannot proceed until the company emerges from bankruptcy. OCTOBER 23,1995 C&EN 7
