SPARSELY, SAGE AND TIMELY

As The World Wobbles

Coastal Gardener columnist Russell Ridge of Inverness Ridge (no relation,
as he likes to say) and I are having a minor dispute about the Swedish
study of elk saliva. The study found that branches bitten off by elk grow
110 percent faster than normal.

Ridge is correct that researcher Margaret Bergman (from the Department of
Animal Ecology at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences)
conducted her study with deer that look more like moose than tule elk. In
fact, an English-language translation of her obtuse paper about saliva uses
the word "moose," not "elk." My vintage Encyclopedia Americana, on the
other hand, says there are no moose of the American variety in Europe.

And there the dispute takes up. Ridge insists Bergman's test animals were
indeed moose as we know them, and he can produce authorities that say the
North American moose and the European elk are the same critter. I continue
to insist they're similar but not the same, and I have a Canadian study
that says "elk" or "moose" such as Bergman's are only "a close relative of
the North American moose."

In any case, the question that Ridge and reporter Ivan Gale have raised in
The Light remains unanswered. Will the saliva of tule elk on Pierce Point
cause the brush they nibble on to grow faster - even while they eliminate
other brush by tromping on it? Park Service biologist Sarah Allen says she
welcomes a study of the effects of tule elk saliva. However, if the study
is going to get anywhere, I think we first ought to reach agreement on the
nomenclature.

Of course, the number of Americans able to conduct scientific research is
shrinking rapidly. At the very time Baby Boomers are retiring and college
tuition is soaring to meet rising costs, state and federal aid for college
education is plummeting.

As the Federal Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance reported
last month, almost half (48 percent) of scholastically qualified high
school graduates cannot afford a four-year college if they come from a
family earning less than $25,000 a year. Students from somewhat better off
families fare almost as poorly. Forty-three percent of qualified graduates
from families earning $25,000 to $50,000 a year can't afford four-year
colleges either.

Nationwide, that's 400,000 students. And the advisory committee predicts
it's going to get worse quickly. A mere eight years from now, 4.4 million
qualified graduates will not be able to afford a four-year college and two
million will not be able to afford taking any classes from even
less-expensive, two-year colleges.

Already, there is not enough federal aid for college education, and
although President Bush proposes to raise aid by 8 percent next year, given
the current shortfall and the increasing number of students, this country
is actually losing ground. In short, we have reached the point where the
descendants of any couple now earning less than $50,000 per year are pretty
much fated to be members of a socio-economic underclass.

Nonetheless, the Bush Administration feels good about what it's doing for
American youth. A national Pride Survey of 100,000 sixth to 12th graders
found that only 22.3 percent of them used heroin, cocaine, marijuana,
hallucinogens, or other illicit drugs in the past 12 months.

These results amount to the "best report on adolescent behaviors in over a
decade," gushed Pride Survey officials last week. Under federal law, the
survey is supposed to gauge the effectiveness of US drug policies.

"Following 9/11, Americans seemed to refocus on family, community,
spirituality, and nation," claimed survey author Thomas Gleaton. Really? In
fact, his survey also found that 37 percent of high school seniors used
illicit drugs in the past year and two thirds of all high school students
drank alcohol.

Gleaton did point out, however, that this is "the lowest [level of
drinking] in the 15-year history of the Pride Survey." Whoopee! So who
deserves credit for the fact that a third of American high school students
still haven't taken up drinking and that only three out of eight seniors
use illicit drugs?

"Parents and teachers are warning students about drug use and encouraging
kids to nurture other interests by joining extra curricular school and
religious activities," responds the Pride Survey, as quoted by the
Associated Press. "Kids who are...encouraged to engage in extra curricular
activities are less likely to take drugs, the survey found."

That's probably why the US Supreme Court last month ruled it was not an
"unreasonable search," as defined by the Bill of Rights, for schools to
randomly give drug tests to students involved in extra curricular activities.

I'm just unclear on one point. Were the justices trying to help the Pride
Survey by giving schools license to confirm its conclusions? Were the
justices trying to avoid exposing drug users by letting schools randomly
test only those students least likely to use drugs? Or were they trying to
discourage drug users from getting off drugs through anything as
non-punitive as extra curricular activities, which would put them at risk
of being tested?

No wonder Americans feel so good about everything these days. Inside the
Beltway, it's pure opera buffa. Aren't the justices and the president they
put in office just a hoot?