සිවුමංසල කොලූගැටයා #25: “බටහිර විද්‍යාව”, “සාම්ප්‍රදායික දැනුම” සහ දකුණු අප‍්‍රිකාවේ බිහිසුනු HIV/AIDS මංමුලාව

In my Ravaya column (in Sinhala) for 31 July 2011, I look back at South Africa’s HIV/AIDS misadventure under President Thabo Mbeki, who refused to accept the well-established scientific consensus about the viral cause of AIDS and the essential role of antiretroviral drugs in treating it. Instead, he and his health minister embarked on a highly dubious treatment using garlic, lemon juice and beetroot as AIDS remedies — all in the name of ‘traditional knowledge’.

It turned out to be a deadly experiment, and one of the worst policy debacles in the history of public health anywhere in the world. In 2008,  A study by Harvard researchers estimated that the South African government could have prevented the premature deaths of 365,000 people if it had provided antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and widely administered drugs to help prevent pregnant women from infecting their babies.

There are lessons for all governments addressing complex, technical issues: do not allow a vocal minority to hijack the policy agenda, ignoring well established science and disallowing public debate on vital issues.

South African cartoonist  Zapiro lampooned President Mbeki's HIV folly
South African cartoonist Zapiro lampooned President Mbeki’s HIV folly

AIDS රෝගය මුලින් ම වාර්තා වී වසර තිහක් ගත වී තිබෙනවා. අමෙරිකාවේ මුල් වරට මේ රෝග ලක්ෂණ සහිතව රෝගීන් වාර්තා වන්නට පටන් ගත්තේ 1981දී. එයට හේතුව HIV නම් වයිරසය බව සොයා ගත්තේ ඊට දෙවසරකට පසුව.

අද HIV/AIDS ලෝක ව්‍යාප්ත වසංගතයක් හා ලෝකයේ ප්‍රධාන පෙළේ සංවර්ධන අභියෝගයක් බවට පත්ව තිබෙනවා. අළුත් ම සංඛ්‍යා ලේඛනවලට අනුව 2009 වන විට HIV ශරීරගත වී ජීවත්වන සංඛ්‍යාව මිලියන් 33ක්. අළුතෙන් ආසාදනය වන සංඛ්‍යාව වසරකට මිලියන් 2.6ක්. HIV ආසාදන උත්සන්න අවස්ථාවේ AIDS රෝගය ඇති වී මිය යන සංඛ්‍යාව වසරකට මිලියන් 2ට වැඩියි.

HIV/AIDS ගැන විවිධ කෝණවලින් විග්‍රහ කළ හැකියි. දුගී දුප්පත්කම, බලශක්ති අර්බුද, පරිසර දූෂණය හා ගැටුම්කාරී තත්ත්වයන්ට මුහුණ දෙන දියුණුවන ලෝකයේ බොහෝ රටවලට ගෙවී ගිය දශක තුන තුළ HIV/AIDS නම් අමතර අභියෝගයට ද මුහුණ දීමට සිදු වුණා. එයින් දැඩි සේ පීඩාවට පත් දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවේ HIV/AIDS ප්‍රතිපත්තිය වසර ගණනක් අයාලේ ගිය කථාවයි අද විග්‍රහ කරන්නේ. මෑතදී මා නැවතත් දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවට ගිය අවස්ථාවේ මගේ දැනුම අළුත් කර ගන්නට ලැබුණු නිසායි.

ලෝකයේ වැඩි ම HIV ආසාදිත ජන සංඛ්‍යාවක් සිටින රට දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවයි. 2007 දී HIV සමග ජීවත් වන දකුණු අප්‍රිකානුවන් සංඛ්‍යාව මිලියන් 5.7 ක් පමණ වුණා. එනම් මුළු ජනගහනය මිලියන් 48න් සියයට 12ක්. එය එරට සෞඛ්‍ය අර්බුදයක් පමණක් නොව සමාජයීය හා ආර්ථීක ප්‍රශ්නයක් ද වෙනවා.

ජනාධිපති නෙල්සන් මැන්ඩෙලාගේ 1994-99 ධූර කාලයේ HIV/AIDS පිළිබඳව දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවේ සෞඛ්‍ය ප්‍රතිපත්ති සකස් වූයේ ලොව පිළිගත් වෛද්‍ය දැනුම හා උපදෙස් මතයි. HIV සමග ජීවත් වන අයට හැකි තාක් කල් නීරෝගීව දිවි ගෙවන්නට ඖෂධ සපයන අතරේ වයිරසය පැතිරයාම වැළැක්වීමේ දැනුවත් කිරීම් හා මහජන අධ්‍යාපන ව්‍යාපාරයක් දියත් වුණා.

Thabo Mbeki (left) succeeded Nelson Mandela
Thabo Mbeki (left) succeeded Nelson Mandela

එහෙත් ඔහුගෙන් පසු ජනාධිපති වූ තාබෝ එම්බෙකි (Thabo Mbeki) මේ ගැන ප්‍රධාන ප්‍රවාහයේ වෛද්‍ය විද්‍යාත්මක දැනුම ප්‍රශ්න කරන්නට පටන් ගත්තා. වෛද්‍ය විශේෂඥ දැනුමක් නොතිබුණත් තියුණු බුද්ධියකින් හෙබි එම්බෙකි, මෙසේ අසම්මත ලෙස සිතන්නට යොමු වුණේ HIV/AIDS ගැන විකල්ප මතයක් දරන ටික දෙනකුගේ බලපෑමට නතු වීම නිසයි.

මේ අයට ඉංග්‍රීසියෙන් AIDS Denialists කියනවා. ඔවුන්ගේ තර්කය AIDS රෝගය හට ගන්නේ HIV වයිරසය නිසා නොව දුප්පත්කම, මන්ද පෝෂණය වැනි සමාජ ආර්ථීක සාධක ගණනාවක ප්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙසින් බවයි.

එම්බෙකිගේ සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමතිනිය (1999-2008) ලෙස ක්‍රියා කළ මාන්ටෝ ෂබලාලා සිමැංග් (Manto Tshabalala Msimang) මේ අවුල තවත් ව්‍යාකූල කළා. HIV ආසාදනය පාලනය කරන බටහිර වෛද්‍ය විද්‍යාවේ ඖෂධ වෙනුවට සම්ප්‍රදායික අප්‍රිකානු දැනුමට අනුව සුදුළුෑනු, දෙහි සහ බීට්රූට් යුෂ ගැනීම සෑහෙන බවට ඇය ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ ප්‍රකාශ කළා!

මේ නිසා HIV වයිරසයට ප්‍රහාර එල්ල කිරීම වෙනුවට දුප්පත්කම පිටුදැකීම කළ යුතු යයි ස්ථාවරයකට එම්බෙකි යොමු වුණා. HIV මර්දන සෞඛ්‍ය කටයුතු අඩපණ කරන්නටත්, මහජන සෞඛ්‍ය සේවා හරහා ඖෂධ ලබා දීම නතර කිරීමටත් එම්බෙකි රජය පියවර ගත්තා.

HIV සමග ජීවත්වන බහුතරයක් දකුණු අප්‍රිකානුවන්ට AIDS රෝග ලක්ෂණ පහළ වී නැහැ. HIV ශරීරගත වීමෙන් පසු වසර හෝ දශක ගණනක් ජීවත්වීමේ හැකියාව අද වන විට වෛද්‍ය විද්‍යාත්මකව ලබා ගෙන තිබෙනවා. එහෙත් ඒ සඳහා නිතිපතා Anti-Retroviral (ARV) ඖෂධ ගැනීම අවශ්‍යයි.

බොහෝ දියුණු වන රටවල අඩු ආදායම් ලබන HIV ආසාදිතයන්ට මේ ඖෂධ ලබා දෙන්නේ රජයේ වියදමින්. HIV ආසාදිත කාන්තාවන්ට ARV ඖෂධ නිසි කලට ලැබුණොත් ඔවුන් බිහි කරන දරුවන්ට මවගෙන් HIV පැතිරීම වළක්වා ගත හැකියි. එහෙත් එම්බෙකි රජය HIV වයිරසය ගැන විශ්වාස නොකළ නිසා ප්‍රජනන වියේ සිටින HIV ආසාදිත කාන්තාවන්ට එම ඖෂධ දීමත් නතර කළා.

දකුණු අප්‍රිකාව ජාතීන්, භාෂා හා දේශපාලන පක්ෂ රැසක සම්මිශ්‍රණයක්. එමෙන් ම 1994 සිට නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍යය හා රාජ්‍යයේ බල තුලනය පවතින රටක්. ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සම්ප්‍රදායයන් හා ආයතන ප්‍රබල කරන්නට සැබෑ උත්සාහ ගන්නා රටක්.

මෙබඳු රටක වුවත් වසර කිහිපයක් පුරා ජනාධිපතිවරයාට හා සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමතිනියට මෙබඳු ප්‍රබල ප්‍රශ්නයකදී මේ තරම් අයාලේ යන්නට ඉඩ ලැබුණේ කෙලෙසදැයි මා එරට විද්‍යාඥයන් හා මාධ්‍යවේදීන් කිහිප දෙනකුගෙන් ඇසුවා. ඔවුන් දුන් පිළිතුරුවල සම්පිණ්ඩනය මෙයයි.

තාබෝ එම්බෙකි යනු වර්ණභේදවාදයට එරෙහිව දශක ගණනක් අරගලයක යෙදුණු,  පාලක ANC පක්ෂයේ ප්‍රබල චරිතයක්. ඔහුගේ දේශපාලන කැපවීම පිළිබඳව විවාදයක් නැහැ. මැන්ඩෙලා 1994දී ජනාධිපති වන විට එම්බෙකි උප ජනාධිපති වුණා.

1994-99 කාලය තුළ එරට ආර්ථීක වර්ධනයට හා සමාජ සංවර්ධනයට නායකත්වය සැපයූ ඔහු අප්‍රිකානු කලාපයේ දක්ෂ රාජ්‍ය තාන්ත්‍රිකයකු ලෙස නමක් දිනා ගත්තා. මැන්ඩෙලා එක් ධූර කාලයකින් පසු කැමැත්තෙන් විශ්‍රාම ගිය විට එම්බෙකි ANC ජනාධිපති අපේක්ෂකයා වී ජයග්‍රහණය කළා.

පරිණත දේශපාලකයකු රටේ ජනාධිපති ලෙස මහජන ඡන්දයෙන් තේරී පත්ව සිටින විටෙක, වැරදි උපදෙස් නිසා එක් වැදගත් ප්‍රශ්නයක් සම්බන්ධයෙන් ඔහු නොමග යාමට අභයෝග කරන්නේ කෙසේ ද? දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවේ වෛද්‍යවරුන් හා අනෙක් විද්වතුනට තිබූ ප්‍රශ්නය එයයි. සාම්ප්‍රදායික දැනුම එක එල්ලේ හෙළා නොදැක, එහි සීමාවන් ඇති බව පෙන්වා දෙමින්, රටේ නායකයා හා සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමති සමග හරවත් සංවාදයක යෙදෙන්නට සීරුවෙන් හා සංයමයෙන් කටයුතු කරන්නට ඔවුන්ට සිදු වුණා.

South African cartoonist Zapiro ridicules HIV denialist health minister 'Madam Beetroot'
South African cartoonist Zapiro ridicules HIV denialist health minister ‘Madam Beetroot’

ANC පක්ෂය තුළ ම එම්බෙකිගේ HIV/AIDS ස්ථාවරය ගැන ප්‍රශ්න මතු වුණා. එහෙත් මැන්ඩෙලා මෙන් විකල්ප අදහස් අගය කිරීමේ හැකියාවක් එම්බෙකිට නොතිබූ නිසාත්, ජනාධිපති හැටියට වඩා ඒකමතික පාලනයක් ඔහු ගෙන යන්නට උත්සාහ කළ නිසාත් පක්ෂය ඇතුළෙන් දැඩි ප්‍රතිරෝධයක් ආවේ නැහැ.

2002 දී පැවති ANC පක්ෂ රැස්වීමකදී මැන්ඩෙලා මේ ගැන සාවධානව අදහස් දැක් වූ විට එම්බෙකි හිතවාදියෝ ‘ජාතියේ පියා’ හැටියට අවිවාදයෙන් සැළකෙන මැන්ඩෙලාට වාචිකව ප්‍රහාර එල්ල කළා. එයින් පසු මැන්ඩෙලා ද තම අනුප්‍රාප්තිකයාගේ HIV/AIDS ප්‍රතිපත්ති ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ ප්‍රශ්න කිරීමෙන් වැළකුණා.

එම්බෙකි හිතවාදියෝ එතැනින් නතර වුණේ නැහැ. සිය නායකයාගේ අසම්මත HIV/AIDS න්‍යායට එරෙහිව කථා කරන විද්‍යාඥයන් හා වෛද්‍යවරුන්ට මඩ ප්‍රහාර දියත් කළා. දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවේ සිටින ලොව පිළිගත් ප්‍රතිශක්තිවේදය පිළිබඳ විශේෂඥයකු වූ මහාචාර්ය මක්ගොබා (Prof Malegapura Makgoba) ජනාධිපතිගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටියා ලොව හිනස්සන මේ න්‍යායෙන් අත් මිදෙන ලෙස.

මේ මහාචාර්යවරයා බටහිර විද්‍යාවට ගැතිකම් කරන, අප්‍රිකාවේ සාම්ප්‍රදායික දැනුම හෙළා දකින්නකු ලෙස ජනාධිපති කාර්යාලය විසින් හදුන්වනු ලැබුවා. සුදු ජාතික හෝ ඉන්දියානු සම්භවය සහිත විද්වතකු ජනාධිපති මතවාද ගැන ප්‍රශ්න කළ විට එය ‘කළු ජාතික නායකයාට අවමන් කිරීමේ’ සරල තර්කයකට ලඝු කරනු ලැබුවා.

මේ මඩ ප්‍රහාර හා රාජ්‍ය යාන්ත්‍රණයට එරෙහිව හඬක් නැගූ සුදු හා කළු ජාතික දකුණු අප්‍රිකානුවන් ටික දෙනකු ද සිටියා. ඔවුන් විද්‍යා ක්‍ෂෙත‍්‍රයෙන් පමණක් නොව සාහිත්‍ය, කලා සහ සාමයික ක්‍ෂෙත‍්‍රවලින් ද මතුව ආවා.

එහිදී  දැවැන්ත කාර්ය භාරයක් ඉටු කළේ කේප්ටවුන්හි ආච්බිෂොප් ඩෙස්මන්ඩ් ටූටූ. වර්ණභේදවාදයට, අසාධාරණයට හා දිළිඳුබවට එරෙහිව දශක ගණනක් තිස්සේ අරගල කරන, 1984 නොබෙල් සාම ත්‍යාග දිනූ ඔහු, මුළු ලෝකය ම පිළිගත් චරිතයක්. 1994න් පසු ඡන්දයෙන් බලයට පත් හැම රජයක ම හොඳ දේ අගය කරන අතර වැරදි ප්‍රතිපත්ති නොබියව විවේචනය කරන්නෙක්.

ඩෙස්මන්ඩ් ටූටූ මුලදී පෞද්ගලිකවත් පසුව මහජන සභාවලත් එම්බෙකිගේ HIV/AIDS මංමුලාව ගැන කථා කළා. මහජන උන්නතියට ඍජුව ම බලපාන මෙබඳු ප්‍රශ්න සම්බන්ධයෙන් විවෘත සංවාදයක් පැවතිය යුතු බවත්, බහුතර විද්වත් මතයට ගරු කිරීම ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී රජයක වගකීම බවත් ඔහු අවධාරණය කළා.

2004 දී එක් ප්‍රසිද්ධ දේශනයකදී ඔහු කීවේ: “සුදු පාලකයන්ට එරෙහිව අරගල කරන සමයේ අපි ඉතා ප්‍රවේශමෙන් කරුණු ගවේෂණය කර, තර්කානුකූලව ඒවා ඉදිරිපත් කළා. දැන් ටිකෙන් ටික ඒ වෙනුවට එහෙයියන්ගේ හා ප්‍රෝඩාකාරයන්ගේ සම්ප්‍රදායක් ඉස්මතු වෙමින් තිබෙනවා. HIV/AIDS ගැන ජනාධිපති එම්බෙකිගේ විශ්වාස මීට වඩා බෙහෙවින් විවාදයට ලක් කළ යුතුයි. අභියෝග හා විවාදවලට ලක් කිරීමෙන් සත්‍යයට හානි වන්නේ නැහැ. එය වඩාත් නිරවුල් වෙනවා. මෙසේ ප්‍රශ්න කිරීම නිසා මා ජනාධිපතිගේ හතුරකු වන්නේ නැහැ. ජනසම්මතවාදී සමාජවල නායකයා කියූ පළියට යමක් පරම සත්‍යය වන්නේ නැහැ. එය තර්කානුකූල හා සාක්ෂි මත පදනම් වී ඇත්දැයි විවාදාත්මකව විග්‍රහ කිරීම අත්‍යවශ්‍යයි.”

1991 නොබෙල් සාහිත්‍ය ත්‍යාගය දිනූ සුදු ජාතික දකුණු අප්‍රිකානු ලේඛිකා නැඩීන් ගෝඩිමර් ද මේ සංවාදයට එක් වුණා. 2004 දී ඇය ප්‍රසිද්ධ ප්‍රකාශයක් කරමින් කීවේ ජනාධිපති එම්බෙකීගේ අනෙක් සියළු ප්‍රතිපත්ති තමා අනුමත කරන නමුත් HIV/AIDS ගැන ඔහුගේ ස්ථාවරය පිළි නොගන්නා බවයි.

දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවේ ස්වාධීන ජනමාධ්‍ය ද ජනාධිපති හා ඇමතිනියන්ගේ HIV/AIDS මනෝ විකාර දිගට ම විවේචනය කළා. ඇමතිනියට Madam Beetroot හෙවත් ‘බීට්රූට් මැතිනිය’ යන විකට නාමය දෙනු ලැබුවා. එහෙත් මේ දෙපළ දිගු කලක් තම වැරදි මාර්ගයෙන් ඉවත් වූයේ නැහැ. විවේචකයන්ගේ දේශපාලන දැක්ම, ජාතිය හා සමේ වර්ණය අනුව යමින් මේවා හුදෙක් ‘විරුද්ධවාදීන්ගේ කඩාකප්පල්කාරී වැඩ’ ලෙස හඳුන්වා දුන්නා.

2002 වන විට ANC පක්ෂය තුළින්, රට තුළින් හා ජාත්‍යන්තර විද්වත් සමූහයා වෙතින් මතුව ආ ප්‍රබල ඉල්ලීම් හමුවේ ජනාධිපති එම්බෙකි එක් පියවරක් ආපස්සට ගත්තා. එනම් ආන්දෝලනයට තුඩු දුන් HIV/AIDS ප්‍රතිපත්ති ගැන මින් ඉදිරියට ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ කිසිවක් නොකීමට. ජනාධිපති මෙසේ මුනිවත රැක්කත් සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමතිනියගේ අයාලේ යාම තවත් කාලයක් සිදු වුණා.

2003 දී විශ්‍රාමික අමෙරිකානු ජනාධිපති බිල් ක්ලින්ටන් එම්බෙකි හමු වී පෞද්ගලික ආයාචනයක් කළා. නොමග ගිය දකුණු අප්‍රිකානු HIV/AIDS ප්‍රතිපත්ති නැවත හරි මඟට ගන්නට ක්ලින්ටන් පදනම විද්වත් හා මූල්‍ය ආධාර දීමට ඉදිරිපත් වූ විට එම්බෙකි එය පිළි ගත්තා. (මෙය ප්‍රසිද්ධ වූයේ වසර ගණනාවකට පසුවයි.)

එහෙත් එරට HIV/AIDS ප්‍රතිපත්ති යළිත් ප්‍රධාන ප්‍රවාහයට පැමිණීම එම්බෙකිගේ ධූර කාලය හමාර වන තුරු ම හරිහැටි සිදුවුණේ නැහැ. 2008 සැප්තැම්බරයේ ඔහු තනතුරින් ඉල්ලා අස් වූ පසු කෙටි කලකට ජනාධිපති වූ කලේමා මොට්ලාතේ තනතුරේ මුල් දිනයේ ම එම්බෙකිගේ සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමතිනිය ඉවත් කළා. ඒ වෙනුවට HIV/AIDS සම්බන්ධයෙන් කාගේත් විශ්වාසය දිනාගත් බාබරා හෝගන් සෞඛ්‍ය ඇමති ලෙස පත් කළා. ඇය ප්‍රතිපත්ති හරි මගට ගන්නට හා ARV ප්‍රතිකාර ව්‍යාප්ති කරන්නට ඉක්මන් පියවර ගත්තා.

එහෙත් ඒ වන විට අතිවිශාල හානියක් සිදු වී හමාරයි. 2008 නොවැම්බරයේ අමෙරිකාවේ හාවඩ් සරසවියේ පර්යේෂකයෝ ගණන් බැලීමක් කළා. 2002-2005 වකවානුවේ නොමග ගිය HIV/AIDS ප්‍රතිපත්ති නිසා ප්‍රතිකාර හා සෞඛ්‍ය පහසුකම් අහිමි වූ දකුණු අප්‍රිකානුවන් සංඛ්‍යාව පිළිබඳව. ඍජු හෝ වක්‍ර වශයෙන් 365,000ක් දෙනා මේ අවිද්‍යාත්මක ප්‍රතිපත්ති නිසා අකාලයේ මිය ගිය බව ඔවුන්ගේ නිගමනයයි. (ක්‍රමවේදය සඳහා බලන්න: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr09aids/)

මේ ජීවිත හානි වලට වගකිව යුත්තේ කවුද?

දිවි සුරකින දැනුම සම්බන්ධයෙන් සෙල්ලම් කරන්නට යාමේ අවදානම හා එහි භයානක ප්‍රතිඵලවලට දකුණු අප්‍රිකාවේ HIV/AIDS මංමුලාව මතක හිටින පාඩමක්.

A ‘Greek’ among Geeks and Greens…

Asking questions. Connecting the dots. Explaining matters.

These actions sum up what I have been doing in the spheres of communication and development for over 20 years. They form the cornerstone in my attempts to make sense of our globalised world and heady times.

As a journalist, I was trained to look for what’s New, True and Interesting (‘NTI Test’). Early on, I went beyond just reporting events, and probed the underlying causes and processes. With experience, I can now offer my audiences something more: perspective and seasoned opinion.

I look back (slightly) and look around (a lot) in a half-hour, in-depth TV interview with media researcher/activist and fellow citizen journalist Sanjana Hattotuwa. This was part of The Interview (third series) produced by Young Asia Television, and broadcast on two Sri Lankan TV channels, TNL and ETv on May 8 (with repeats).

Watch the full interview online: Sanjana Hattotuwa talks to Nalaka Gunawardene

Nalaka Gunawardene from Young Asia Television on Vimeo.

I have always worn multiple ‘hats’, and dabbled in multiple pursuits rather than follow narrow paths of enquiry. I see myself continuing to oscillate between the ‘geeks’ and greens, and where possible, bridging their worlds.

I sometimes feel a strange kinship with the ancient Greeks, who first asked some fundamental questions about the universe. They didn’t always get the answers right, and neither do I.

But it’s very important that we question and critique progress – I do so with an open mind, enthusiasm and optimism.

Note: I was also a guest in the first series of this show, in February 2009, which led to this blogpost.

Cooling without warming: Cool Biz for a safer future?

Image courtesy - Paradise Island Resort, Maldives
Paradise, The Maldives. 10 May 2011

I’m sitting in Paradise – and freezing. This isn’t quite what I imagined it to be.

Well, actually I’m attending a serious inter-governmental meeting being held at the Paradise Island Resort and Spa in the Maldives.

The setting is exotic enough – I’m near some of the finest beaches and bluest seas in the world. It’s a cloudy day outside, with tropical sunshine interrupted by occasional showers. We’re just a few hundred kilometres north of the Equator.

But it’s whole different world inside the meeting room. We have no windows and are visually cut off from the scenery. And the air conditioning is too strong. Even the 50 or so people inside the room don’t emit enough body heat to counter the chill spilling out from the ceiling.

Paradise (resort) isn’t alone. Across tropical Asia, our public offices, hotels and shopping malls just love to freeze us out.

This habit has a particular irony at this meeting. Convened by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), it’s discussing how to stay cool without killing the planet.

To be precise, how air conditioning and refrigeration industries can continue their business – and keep cooling people and goods – without damaging the ozone layer or warming the planet.

It’s the semi-annual meeting of government officials from across Asia who help implement the Montreal Protocol to control and phase out several dozen industrial chemicals that damage the ozone layer in the upper atmosphere.

A nitpicker in Paradise? Photo by Darryl D'Monte

Adopted in 1987 and now ratified by 196 countries, it is the world’s most successful environmental treaty. It has reversed a catastrophic loss of ozone high up in the Earth’s atmosphere, and prevented tens of thousands of cases of skin cancer and cataract.

A landmark was reached at the end of 2009, when it succeeded in totally phasing out the production and use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) — chemicals that had helped the cooling industries for decades. Now, a bigger challenge remains: removing two other widely used gases known as HCFCs and HFCs.

Both were originally promoted as substitutes for CFCs in the early days of the Protocol. HCFCs are less ozone-damaging than CFCs, while HFCs are fully ozone-safe. However, both have a high global warming potential — up to 1,700 times that of Carbon dioxide — and therefore contribute to climate change.

It was only a few years ago that scientists and officials realized that there was little point in fixing one atmospheric problem if it aggravated another. So in 2007, the Montreal Protocol countries agreed to address the climate impacts of their work.

The Montreal Protocol now encourages the countries to promote the selection of alternatives to HCFCs that minimize environmental impacts, in particular impacts on climate change.

The air conditioning and refrigeration industries are being encouraged to switch from HCFC to substitutes ahead of the global phase-out deadline of 2030. Alternatives — including natural refrigerants such as ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons — are entering the market for many applications.

Parallel to this, consumers are being encouraged to opt for newer appliances that are both ozone-safe and climate friendly.

It takes time and effort for this message to spread and take hold. Many users — especially in the developing countries — only consider the purchase price of appliances and not necessarily the long-term energy savings or planetary benefits.

Events like the first Asian Ozone2Climate Roadshow, held in the Maldivian capital Malé from 8 to 12 May 2011, are pushing for this clarity and awareness. It’s still an uphill task: too many people have to be won over on too many appliances using a wide range of chemicals and processes.

And sitting here at my freezing corner of Paradise, I feel we should add another message: conserving energy includes a more rational and sensible use of air conditioning.

Perhaps we should promote and adopt the Japanese practice of Cool Biz.

Introduced by the Japanese Ministry of Environment in the summer of 2005, the idea behind Cool Biz was simple: ensure the thermostat in all air conditioners stayed fixed at 28 degrees Centigrade.

CoolBiz Logo
That’s not exactly a very cool temperature (and certainly no freezing), but not unbearable either.

The Cool Biz dress code advised office workers to starch collars “so they stand up and to wear trousers made from materials that breathe and absorb moisture”. They were encouraged to wear short-sleeved shirts without jackets or ties.

A Cool Koizumi: Leading from the front...
Then Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi himself set the tone, wearing informal attire. But then, he was already known for his unorthodox style.

Clothes designers and retailers chipped in, with clothes offering greater comfort at higher temperatures.

Cool Biz changed the Japanese work environment – and fast. I remember walking into a meeting at a government office in Tokyo a few weeks after the idea had been introduced, and finding I was the most formally dressed.

The Japanese like to count things. When the first season of Cool Biz ended, they calculated the countrywide campaign to have saved at least 460,000 tons of Carbon dioxide emissions (by avoided electricity use). That’s about the same emissions from a million Japanese households for a month.

The following year, an even more aggressive Cool Biz campaign helped save an estimated 1.14 million tons of Carbon dioxide – or two and half times more than in the first year.

The idea also traveled beyond Japan. In 2006, the South Korean Ministry of Environment and the British Trade Union Congress both endorsed the idea.

This summer, the seventh since Cool Biz started, there is an added reason for the Japanese to conserve energy. As the Asahi Shimbun reported on 28 April 2011: “In what has been dubbed the ‘power-conserving biz’ campaign, many companies plan to conserve energy during the peak summer period in light of expected power shortages caused by the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant.”

Meanwhile, the rest of us freeze-happy tropical Asians can evolve our own Cool Biz practices – we don’t need to wait for governments and industry to launch organized campaigns.

For a start, we – as consumers or patrons – can urge those who maintain public-access buildings to observe voluntary upper limits of cooling. Sensitive thermostats can automatically adjust air conditioner operations when temperatures rise above a pre-determined comfortable level.

It all depends on how many of us pause to think. Of course, we can also continue business as usual – and freeze ourselves today for a warmer tomorrow.

The sun sets in Paradise too - photo by Nalaka Gunawardene

Gasping for Fresh Air in Delhi and Colombo: Miles to go before we can breathe easily!

CSE TVEAP Media Briefing on Air Qualitry Issues in Colombo, 27 April 2011

Almost exactly four years ago, I wrote a blog post called Gasp! Asthma on the rise – and we made it all possible. I argued how we who suffer from Asthma — and our numbers keep increasing — are also contributing to making the bad problem worse.

So I write, speak and make films about clean air entirely with an enlightened self interest: I want to breathe more easily. This week, just a few days ahead of the annual World Asthma Day, I once again declared this as I opened a Media Briefing on the Challenges of Air Quality and Mobility Management in South Asian Cities organised in Colombo today by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), New Delhi and TVE Asia Pacific.

I held up my life-saving inhaler that I always carry around wherever I go, and am never more than a few feet away from. This is not theatrics, but drama in real life. Almost exactly a year ago, I was rushed to hospital at night for nebulisation. I don’t suffer such attacks too often, thank goodness, but I also don’t want to take chances — as I can never count on good air in my home city.

And I’m far from being alone. Wherever I go, I find increasing numbers of fellow asthma sufferers: we gripe and groan, but only a few among us realise that our lifestyles, choices and apathy contributes to the worsening quality of our air.

Almost every South Asian city today is reeling under severe air pollution and gridlocked urban traffic congestion. Colombo, a medium sized city by South Asian standards, has the (slight) advantage of the sea breeze flushing out part of its polluted air — but Greater Colombo is still struggling with polluting fuels, outdated vehicle technologies and rising numbers of private vehicles leading to massive congestion. Air quality levels vary considerably as we travel to the interior of the island, but some provincial cities now have mounting air pollution problems.

Finding the 'Common Air' in everybody's self interest...

This is why we collaborated with CSE, which has a long track record in knowledge-based advocacy for clean air in India and other countries of developing Asia, to organise this event. It was an open forum where air quality experts in Sri Lanka and India engaged Sri Lankan journalists and broadcasters on the status of Sri Lanka’s air quality and what it can learn from the neighbouring countries.

In my remarks, I said: “The quest for clean air in developing Asia is much more than a simple pollution story. It has many layers and complex links to government policies, regulation, industrial lobbies and technology options.

I added: “Our big challenge, as professional story-tellers, is to ask tough questions, seek clarity and then connect the dots for our audiences. At stake is our health, prosperity and indeed our very lives. Air pollution kills, slowly but surely!”

See my PowerPoint presentation:

Read more: Gasping for Fresh Air, Seeking More Liveable Cities in South Asia

Wiz Quiz 10: Japan’s struggle with the four elements

Image courtesy Vision Magazine
Earth, water, fire and air.

These are the four basic elements of matter as seen in ancient Greek, Hindu and other traditions. Each had different names for them, but the concepts were similar.

And in recent days, Japan has been experiencing multiple disasters involving all these elements.

It started with the 9.0-magnitude megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 2.46 pm Japan time on 11 March 2011. Its epicentre was 130 kilometres off the east coast of the Oshika Peninsula of Tohoku, near Sendai. The earthquake triggered highly destructive tsunami waves of up to 10 meters (33 ft) that struck nearby coastal areas minutes after the quake, and in some cases travelled up to 10 km (6 miles) inland. The earthquake and tsunami waves killed over 5,000 people, caused massive property damage and started fires in some affected locations. Most worrying was the damage caused to the Fukushima II nuclear power plant where reactors damaged by the quake and tsunami led to an accidental leak of radioactivity.

Japan has a long history of living and coping with disasters, but the magnitude and confluence of multiple disasters has plunged the country into the worst crisis since the Second World War. This week’s Wiz Quiz devotes several questions to the history and science of tsunamis.

As it turns out, thanks to Japan’s strict building codes and preparedness, the country could absorb much of the powerful earthquake. But the massive tsunami is what caused most of the damage — there is little defence against the mighty waves that come roaring inland, wiping out everything in their path…

Read Wiz Quiz 10: Japan’s struggle with four elements

T (Tambiaiah) Sabaratnam: Fond farewell to a pathfinder science journalist

Tambiaiah Sabaratnam
I seem to be writing a few fond farewells to fellow travellers every year, becoming an obituarist of sorts in that process. I don’t go to funerals if I can help it (they’re too depressing), and instead I withdraw to a corner to write my memories. Some are published; others are privately circulated.

I’ve just published such a tribute on veteran Lankan journalist T (Tambiaiah) Sabaratnam, who died on March 5 aged 79. He was a senior colleague when I entered the world of journalism in the late 1980s. He retired (sort of) in 1997, but remained active in the world of media to the very end.

He was an outstanding journalistic story-teller. As I wrote in the tribute: “He was a pathfinder and leading light in Sri Lankan science journalism for over a generation. Throughout his long association with the English and Tamil press, he advocated the pursuit of public science: tax-payer funded scientific research for the benefit of the people and economy.”

Here’s another excerpt, more personalised:
“He was a source of inspiration and encouragement to me during my early years in science journalism. Our paths crossed often in the late 1980s and early 1990s when he and I covered many of the same scientific events. He was approachable and helpful, but I could never bring myself to call him ‘Saba’. When I knew him, he had already been in journalism for longer than I’d been alive. To me, he was always ‘Mr Sabaratnam’.

“He reached out despite our generational, media house and other divides. He was genuinely interested in my progress as a science journalist, and offered me advice on both style and substance. Occasionally, he also cautioned about on various ‘pitfalls’ in the local scientific scene — personal rivalries, exaggerated claims or oversized egos.”

Read the full tribute on Groundviews.org: Tambiaiah Sabaratnam (1932 – 2011): The Storyteller of Public Science

Read compact version in Daily News, 15 March 2011: Tambiaiah Sabaratnam (1932 – 2011): Storyteller of public science

Resilience 2011: Banging Heads together to make lives better

What does Livelihood Resilience mean to them?

I am at Resilience 2011: Asia Regional Conference on Building Livelihood Resilience in Changing Climate, being held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, from 3 – 5 March 2011. It is jointly organised by Wetlands International-South Asia (WISA), International Development Research Center (IDRC), The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Cordaid and ekgaon technologies

The conference has attracted three dozen researchers, practitioners and policy makers from across the Asia Pacific region, and from different ‘domains’: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and disaster management; Ecosystem services and conservation; and livelihoods and socio-economic development.

I like hobnob with researchers and activists from whom I learn much. As a science and development communicator, I sit through their often very technical discussions and find ways of relating them to the bigger realities. For a start, I created a word map of the keywords being used in the conference. That gives an idea of concerns at a glance.

I then tried to make sense of the conference introduction note, published on the event website. It looks and reads like the work of a committee, and not the easiest to read and absorb unless one is deep immersed in these areas. Since most of us aren’t, I spent an hour or two rewriting it in my own language. Here it is — my version of what Resilience 2011 conference is trying to accomplish:

Building Livelihood Resilience in Changing Climate Asia Regional Conference
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 3 – 5 March 2011
A layman’s interpretation of the vision, scope and aims of the conference

Asia, home to over 60 per cent of all human beings, is the largest and most diverse geographical region in the world. It is also a region of sharp contrasts and disparities in economic and social development.

Some Asian economies have been growing faster than any other on the planet, and even the global recession has not slowed them down too much. This growth has helped push tens of millions of people out of poverty during the past three decades. Yet, Asia still has the largest number of people living in poverty and food insecurity.

In some respects, gains have been lost. For example, the UN Millennium Development Goals Report for 2010 revealed that the proportion of undernourished Asians has increased recently to levels last seen during the 1990s. Two thirds of the world’s undernourished people live in Asia. At the same time, the natural resources on which food supplies depend – land, water and biodiversity – are degrading rapidly. Food shortages and water scarcities are already being experienced, or anticipated, in many countries.

Growing number and intensity of disasters adds further pressures. According to the international disaster database EM DAT, Asia accounted for nearly half (46 per cent) of the all water related disasters in the world, and 90 per cent of all affected people during 1980 to 2006. During this period, disasters in Asia caused a total of US$ 8 billion worth of economic damage. These disasters impacted disproportionately on the poor and vulnerable sections of society.

Climate change impacts will make this situation worse for everyone, and especially for the poor who already have limited options and ability to adjust to rapid changes. It is now clear that all efforts aimed at reducing poverty and protecting the socially vulnerable groups need to factor in the additional pressures created by changing climate.

To cope with these challenges, we need better understand how livelihoods are threatened, and what strategies can be adopted to improve resilience especially at the grassroots. Researchers and practitioners in natural resource management and poverty reduction are now focusing more and more on the nexus between resources, climate changes and livelihoods.

New ways of looking at the inter-linked challenges have emerged:
• Humanitarian aid workers active on disasters now focus on disaster risk reduction, expanding the scope of risk management to include preparedness and risk reduction.
• Development practitioners working on poverty reduction emphasize on increasing access to various capitals to help address disaster risk and poverty.
• A ‘systems approach’ is being used to look at poverty in broader terms of well-being of people and ecosystem services of Nature.

In addition, researchers and activists emphasize the value of freedoms for participation, economic facilities, social opportunities, transparency guarantees, protective security and ecological security. It is only by ensuring these freedoms that the poor will have a meaningful chance to assert their rights and make their own choices in what they do, and how they do it.

The slowly but steadily warming planet challenges everyone to rethink their conceptual frameworks, and redefine or reconfigure how they work. If there is one thing certain about these uncertain and turbulent times, it is business-as-usual won’t do!

What do we seek to achieve?

Each sector has accumulated a knowledge base, set of best practices and lessons learnt exist within individual domains. Each sector’s theories, approaches and actions within various domains differ on how to make livelihoods more resilient, especially in the often harsh realities of the developing world.

They are all necessary, but not sufficient. Taken individually, no single approach or solution can help make everybody’s livelihoods resilient from the multitude of pressures and impacts. Yet, what one strand cannot withstand on its own, a bundle of strands very likely can: bringing different areas of research, advocacy and practice is the way forward to ensuring better resilience at the grassroots.

This is easier said than done. Both researchers and practitioners have long worked in their own silos or compartments, with occasional nods at each other’s work and periodic exchanges. From this, we need to evolve more integrated framework that brings in the ecologists, disaster managers, social scientists and everyone else who share an interest in making lives better at the grassroots and at the bottom of the income pyramid.

The Kuala Lumpur conference attempts to address this formidable challenge. It will provide a common platform to practitioners and researchers from various ‘domains’ related to livelihoods to work out a shared vision on livelihoods resilience by seeking answers to these questions:
• What are the existing challenges to achieving livelihood resilience?
• What are the gaps in existing livelihood frameworks in relation to disaster, climate change adaptation and conservation in addressing livelihood resilience?
• What are the challenges in scaling up pilot models of Livelihood Resilience?
• How does social adaptation occur in resilience building?

Resilience 2011: Staying Alive on a warming planet – exploring choices

Keywords of sessions at Resilience 2011 Conference: Courtesy Wordle.net

I am in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, attending the Resilience 2011: Asia Regional Conference on Building Livelihood Resilience in Changing Climate, being held from 3 – 5 March 2011.

The conference brings together researchers and practitioners from three fields: Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and disaster management community; Ecosystem services and conservation community; and the livelihoods and socio-economic development community. Although their work overlap part of the time, they don’t converge too often.

I will blog on different aspects of the conference, trying to connect the dots, and relating the micro to the macro as I often do in my own work communicating development.

There are many issues, topics and discussions under the broad theme of protecting Asian livelihoods from climate change impacts. For a start, I used Wordle to build a word map, displaying proportionate use of keywords in the conference sessions. The above and below are the word clouds it generated (same words, displayed in different modes).

The conference is organised jointly by Wetlands International-South Asia (WISA), International Development Research Center (IDRC), The Climate and Development Knowledge Network (CDKN), Cordaid and ekgaon technologies of India.

New column in Ravaya newspaper: Little Boy asking Big Questions…

Graphics identity for my new Ravaya column As a journalist, I was trained to look for what’s New, True and Interesting (‘NTI Test’). Early on, I went beyond just reporting events, and probed the underlying causes and processes. With experience, I can now offer my audiences something more: perspective and seasoned opinion. These are needed today more than ever as we wade through massive volumes of information, trying to make sense of it all.

I’ve been privileged to chronicle and comment on the closing decade of the 20th Century and the opening one of the 21st – years of unprecedented change, and considerable turmoil, in my country (Sri Lanka), region (Asia) and the world. In my chosen areas of science, technology and sustainable development, changes have happened at a dazzling and often bewildering speed.

As a science writer and development film maker, I work with researchers, activists and officials across Asia who struggle to balance ecological concerns with economic development imperatives. I call myself a ‘critical cheer-leader’ of their efforts. Through TVE Asia Pacific, SciDev.Net and my other affiliations, I seek to enhance the public understanding of complex issues and choices required in pursuing sustainable development.

I sometimes feel a strange kinship with the ancient Greeks, who first asked some fundamental questions about the universe. They didn’t always get the answers right, and neither do I. But it is very important that we question and critique progress – I do so with an open mind, enthusiasm and optimism. On some occasions, this involves asking uncomfortable questions that irk those in positions of power and authority. In that sense, I sometimes play the role of that little boy who told the Emperor had no clothes on. (Does anyone know what happened to the boy after that?).

This is the basic premise for a new weekly newspaper column I am writing from this month in the Sinhala weekend newspaper Ravaya. A few weeks ago, the executive editor of Ravaya invited me to write a regular column, which I accepted after some hesitation. My hesitation was not about them; it was about my own ability to express myself in Sinhala, a language I studied more than a quarter century ago, but have not worked in for over 20 years. But I’ve decided to take it on as a challenge, and see how far I can go and how well I can write on topics and issues that are close to my heart: science, technology, environment and development. The first column has just appeared in the Ravaya issue for 6 Feb 2011.

Ravaya: Always Open for Debate

I have been a regular reader of Ravaya in all its 25 years of publication. As I wrote in a book review last year: “It is an extraordinary publication that has, for nearly a quarter of a century, provided a platform for vibrant public discussion and debate on social and political issues. It does so while staying aloof of political party loyalties and tribal divisions. While it cannot compete directly (for circulation) with newspapers published by the state or press barons, this sober and serious broadsheet commands sufficient influence among a loyal and discerning readership.”

Published by a company owned by journalists themselves, Ravaya is almost unique among Lankan newspapers for another reason: its columnists and other contributors are allowed to take positions that are radically different from those of its formidable editor, Victor Ivan. I’m not sure how soon I will get to test this, but such pluralism is very rare in today’s mainstream media in Sri Lanka.

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster, 25 years later: Communication Lessons

Space Shuttle Challenger's smoke plume after in-flight breakup that killed all seven crew members

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. It was the worst accident in the history of manned space exploration up to that time. All seven crew members died in the disaster — among them was Christa McAuliffe, who was selected to be the first teacher in space, and the first strict civilian to go to space as part of the US space programme.

Challenger was destroyed as it broke up in mid-flight in the second minute of its 10th mission, on 28 January 1986 at 11:38:00 am Eastern Standard Time. The break-up was later found to have been due to the failure of an O-ring on its right solid-fuel rocket booster (SRB). The O-rings are used to seal the joints between the multiple segments of the SRBs.

STS-51-L crew (front row) Michael J. Smith, Dick Scobee, Ronald McNair; (back row) Ellison Onizuka, Christa McAuliffe, Gregory Jarvis, Judith Resnik.

While the presence of Christa McAuliffe on the crew had provoked some media interest, shuttle launches had become commonplace by this time and there was little live broadcast coverage of the launch. The only live national TV coverage available publicly was provided by CNN.

Challenger Disaster Live on CNN

The accident was thoroughly investigated and has been well documented. What interests me are the communication lessons drawn from the incident – it continues to be cited as a case study in subjects as diverse as engineering safety, the ethics of whistle-blowing, effective communications, and the perils of group decision-making.

According to the Wikipedia, Roger Boisjoly, the engineer who had warned about the effect of cold weather on the O-rings, left his job at Morton Thiokol and became a speaker on workplace ethics. For his honesty and integrity leading up to and directly following the shuttle disaster, Roger Boisjoly was awarded the Prize for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Many colleges and universities have also used the accident in classes on the ethics of engineering.

Information designer Edward Tufte has used the Challenger accident as an example of the problems that can occur from the lack of clarity in the presentation of information. He argues that if Morton Thiokol engineers had more clearly presented the data that they had on the relationship between low temperatures and burn-through in the solid rocket booster joints, they might have succeeded in persuading NASA managers to cancel the launch.

To me, it was extraordinary how President Ronald Reagan handled the aftermath of the tragedy. On the night of the disaster, he was scheduled to give his annual State of the Union Address. He postponed it by a week and instead gave a national address on the Challenger disaster from the Oval Office. The speech, written by author Peggy Noonan who was the president’s primary speech writer, is a fine piece that combines grief, tribute and resolve in just the right proportions. No lofty intellectualisation or pontification. Just plain, short sentences that appeal to the hearts. Ably delivered by the Great Communicator, it remains an excellent study in how a national leader can counsel a nation in grief without descending into either despair or denial. Draw your own contrasts with other tragedies before and since.

Ronald Reagan’s speech to the nation after the Challenger Shuttle explosion

President Reagan spoke at 5 pm EST from the Oval Office at the White House. The address was broadcast live on nationwide radio and television. Here is the full text of his speech (emphasis is mine):


Address to the Nation on the Explosion of the Space Shuttle Challenger

January 28, 1986

Ladies and gentlemen, I’d planned to speak to you tonight to report on the state of the Union, but the events of earlier today have led me to change those plans. Today is a day for mourning and remembering. Nancy and I are pained to the core by the tragedy of the shuttle Challenger. We know we share this pain with all of the people of our country. This is truly a national loss.

Nineteen years ago, almost to the day, we lost three astronauts in a terrible accident on the ground. But we’ve never lost an astronaut in flight; we’ve never had a tragedy like this. And perhaps we’ve forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they, the Challenger Seven, were aware of the dangers, but overcame them and did their jobs brilliantly. We mourn seven heroes: Michael Smith, Dick Scobee, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. We mourn their loss as a nation together.

For the families of the seven, we cannot bear, as you do, the full impact of this tragedy. But we feel the loss, and we’re thinking about you so very much. Your loved ones were daring and brave, and they had that special grace, that special spirit that says, “Give me a challenge, and I’ll meet it with joy.” They had a hunger to explore the universe and discover its truths. They wished to serve, and they did. They served all of us. We’ve grown used to wonders in this century. It’s hard to dazzle us. But for 25 years the United States space program has been doing just that. We’ve grown used to the idea of space, and perhaps we forget that we’ve only just begun. We’re still pioneers. They, the members of the Challenger crew, were pioneers.

And I want to say something to the schoolchildren of America who were watching the live coverage of the shuttle’s takeoff. I know it is hard to understand, but sometimes painful things like this happen. It’s all part of the process of exploration and discovery. It’s all part of taking a chance and expanding man’s horizons. The future doesn’t belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we’ll continue to follow them.

I’ve always had great faith in and respect for our space program, and what happened today does nothing to diminish it. We don’t hide our space program. We don’t keep secrets and cover things up. We do it all up front and in public. That’s the way freedom is, and we wouldn’t change it for a minute. We’ll continue our quest in space. There will be more shuttle flights and more shuttle crews and, yes, more volunteers, more civilians, more teachers in space. Nothing ends here; our hopes and our journeys continue. I want to add that I wish I could talk to every man and woman who works for NASA or who worked on this mission and tell them: “Your dedication and professionalism have moved and impressed us for decades. And we know of your anguish. We share it.”

There’s a coincidence today. On this day 390 years ago, the great explorer Sir Francis Drake died aboard ship off the coast of Panama. In his lifetime the great frontiers were the oceans, and an historian later said, “He lived by the sea, died on it, and was buried in it.” Well, today we can say of the Challenger crew: Their dedication was, like Drake’s, complete.

The crew of the space shuttle Challenger honored us by the manner in which they lived their lives. We will never forget them, nor the last time we saw them, this morning, as they prepared for their journey and waved goodbye and “slipped the surly bonds of earth” to “touch the face of God.”