Editorial Roundup: Excerpts from recent editorials

Excerpts from recent editorials in the United States and abroad:

____

Oct. 18

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the use of animals in medical training:

Washington University medical school is weaning itself off the use of cats in medical training after concluding that technological advances in simulators and mannequins reduced the need to use live animals. The transition is a responsible one we can support.

The school resisted years of pressure from animals rights groups to use alternative teaching methods and was the last in the country to use animals to train new doctors how to insert breathing tubes. The reason for not changing the training was medically defensible, and patients should appreciate that the university did not cave in to bullying tactics by animal protectionists.

Dr. Bo Kennedy, a pediatric emergency specialist with St. Louis Children's Hospital, has said that the anatomy of a cat's windpipe most closely mimicked that of a newborn infant. Using cats provided the best training ground for medical students.

Any parent who has anxiously waited while a doctor safely inserted a life-saving breathing tube into a newborn's delicate airway understands the importance of that training.

Hostile campaigns by animal rights groups have tried shaming doctors into using less-effective, alternative training methods. The right time to start such a transition is when technological advances permit doctors to simulate medical procedures as precisely as possible using mannequins instead of animals.

Intimidation and threats by some animal ethics groups caused some medical schools to lie when answering questions about their teaching methods. The groups often portray scientists and doctors as sadistically using animals in teaching and research labs, but oversight agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture have not found those portrayals to be accurate.

Scientific advances and medical training that benefit humans no longer have to come at the expense of animals, and animal experimentation should be avoided whenever possible in favor of alternative research strategies.

Most non-human scientific and medical research uses less complex animals, such as rats and mice, which tend not to generate the same levels of protest as procedures involving animals that humans empathize with. Primate research, which is highly controversial, now accounts for less than a half of 1 percent of animal research. It has, nevertheless, led to life-changing medical advances for serious public health challenges such as a treatment for deep brain stimulation in Parkinson's disease.

Safeguards and oversight that ensure animals receive humane treatment in laboratory settings help ease the moral dilemma. Washington University said cats in its training lab will be adopted by medical school employees and that no cats have been injured since the lab opened in 1988.

As public awareness increases, and technological developments lead to more lifelike mannequins and simulation devices, the use of live animals almost certainly will decrease. Federal ethical guidelines for the use of humans in research were developed only in 1974. Similar guidelines on animals are long overdue.

Online:

http://www.stltoday.com/

___

Oct. 18

The Arizona Republic on Canada's #TellAmericaItsGreat campaign:

Canadians delivered a love note to Americans via social media, and it was basically the international equivalent of taking a casserole to a neighbor in need.

Clearly our friends to the north can tell this election season is making a lot of us queasy.

The #TellAmericaItsGreat campaign includes a video in which several dozen Canadians tell us what's right about our country.

"We know you've got some really big decisions to make," says one. But "as you think about your future, we want you to know we really think you're great."

Why? There's jazz. There are the National Parks. There's America's diversity and openness. We dream big and when "things are tough, you fight to make them better."

But really.

Why?

"Sometimes friends just need to look out for each other," said Shari Walczak, a founder of The Garden collective, an image marketing agency behind the effort.

In a blog post called "A Friend in Need," the agency spelled it out:

"It's no secret that America is going through a hard time right now. The election has exposed some pretty scary realities that will likely challenge them for years to come, regardless of who's elected. They've been bombarded with a tremendous amount of negativity and it's likely that for many of them, the immediate future seems rather bleak. ... America could probably use a little cheering up."

At a time we're churning out so much rich material for comics and other peddlers of satire and one-liners, these Canadians decided a little kindness might be more helpful.

How right they are.

It's not just neighborly. It's a welcome reminder that we, the people of the United States, are bigger and better than any one election cycle.

These pro-America messages are a necessary reminder that America is better than its politicians. And that we will get through this - with a little help from our friends.

The pro-America campaign is the nice thing to do, which feeds into the stereotype about Canadians and will no doubt provide some fodder for those comics and one-line peddlers. So what? Have at it, laughmeisters.

Kindness is the only thing we need more than a good laugh right now.

We tend to undervalue power of nice

The Canadians who took the time to put together this Ode to the USA know us. In Arizona, Canadians have made significant investments in real estate and business, which builds on long-standing relationships with winter visitors.

There's an endearing sincerity to taking the time to spread a little kindness. Let's face it: The power of nice is something Americans tend to undervalue in our own celebrity-driven culture.

When things settle down - or sooner - Americans might think about a concerted effort to share some goodwill with our neighbor to the south. The U.S. presidential election has been tough on Mexico, too.

All three countries have a vested interest in taking care of the neighborhood.

Anyone who has ever gotten a casserole in a time of need knows the value of small acts of kindness.

Let's respond with generosity of spirit

The American family is feeling bruised and bitter, but we still share common values and a long history of getting through tough times together. One of the characteristically American attributes mentioned in the Canadian video is our generosity in the form of charitable giving.

Right now, we need to respond to each other with generosity of spirit.

Sounds like a fairy tale, doesn't it?

Yet Americans responded to the #TellAmericaItsGreat campaign with #ThankYouCanada.

Sure. It's a small thing - especially if you stay tightly wrapped in a cloak of cynicism.

But it's also a kindness that speaks to what's good in us and our international neighbors. This is a good time to look for our better angels.

Online:

http://www.azcentral.com/

___

Oct. 18

The Boston Globe on Trump's attempt to delegitimize the election:

With the election quickly approaching, and millions of early votes already cast, the third and final presidential debate, on Wednesday night, is unlikely to change the trajectory of the race. But it could nonetheless be the most consequential for the nation's future if Donald Trump uses his platform in Las Vegas to double down on his destructive, baseless attacks on the legitimacy of the political system. If he does, the remaining Republicans on his side must make clear that their allegiance to their nominee ends Nov. 8.

Trump's claims that the election is "rigged" against him have no basis in fact. Election fraud in the United States is so rare as to be nearly nonexistent. All 50 states and countless local boards control their own elections, and rigging the vote on a nationwide basis would be nearly impossible. The actual counting of votes is closely watched by observers from both parties. Early voting is underway across the nation, and no credible allegations of fraud have emerged.

Yet Trump continues to call into question the integrity of the election, in Twitter blasts and intemperate speeches. Conspiracy theorists have always camped out on the fringes of American political life, but for a major-party nominee to validate them crosses a line. Such talk is "cancerous to a republic," said Representative Scott Rigell, a Virginia Republican, since it diminishes confidence in election results and the peaceful transfer of power. And it comes with clear racial undertones, since Trump insinuates that fraud is likely to take place in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago.

At the debate, Trump must either present actual evidence to back up his fraud claims or publicly retract them. It would certainly be in his interest to cool his rhetoric if he actually wants to win the election. First, whining about nonexistent fraud hardly helps Trump motivate his voters - if the fix is already in, why bother voting? Additionally, many undecided voters rightly doubt whether Trump is fit to hold the office. The debate might be his last chance to change that impression by behaving in a manner that reminds voters of a president, not a talk-radio crackpot.

But nothing about the conduct of Trump's campaign so far suggests he cares about the damage he may inflict on the country. He is fomenting unrest and whipping up his followers to believe they are being cheated by a vast conspiracy. But his fellow Republicans do not need to follow him down that dark road. The Republicans who have stuck by their candidate will have a lot to answer for after the election, but the least they can do is draw a line in the sand now. If Trump loses and fails to concede the election, for the good of the nation his party will need to step in and concede it for him.

Online:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/

___

Oct. 19

The New York Times on Social Security being at stake on Nov. 8:

There is no overstating the extent to which Americans rely on Social Security. The program provides monthly benefits to some 60 million people, mostly retirees for whom the modest payments - about $1,300 a month on average - represent half to all of their income. As the population ages in coming decades, Social Security will only become more important - and, unfortunately, less reliable. According to the latest projections, the system will come up short in 2034, unless reforms are undertaken before then to strengthen its finances.

After emerging briefly as an issue in the primaries, Social Security has not received the attention it deserves in the presidential contest. In fact, the words "Social Security" and "retirement" were not mentioned in the first two presidential debates by either the moderators or the nominees. In other settings, however, the candidates have presented starkly different views of the program. Understanding the differences is vitally important to Americans' lives.

Hillary Clinton has proposed raising payouts for people whose benefits often prove inadequate, especially surviving spouses and people who left the work force to care for sick relatives. She would also increase revenues to the system by raising the ceiling on wages subject to payroll taxes, currently $118,500. That reform is overdue. In recent decades, the wage ceiling has not kept up with the income gains of high earners; if it had, it would be about $250,000 today.

Mrs. Clinton has also made clear what she wouldn't do. She would not support reforms that require low- and middle-income people to pay more or accept less. She would not divert Social Security payroll taxes into private investment accounts, a favorite idea among Republicans. She would not lower Social Security's cost-of-living adjustment, or raise the retirement age, currently 67 for people born in 1960 or later. (Both ideas have broad Republican support and narrow Democratic support.)

She is right on all counts. Privatization would weaken Social Security while exposing retirees to the risks of losing money in the stock market and outliving their savings. There is no compelling evidence that the current cost-of-living adjustment is too high. Raising the retirement age for everyone - an idea based on the simplistic assertion that everyone is living longer - would mostly harm lower-income workers because the wealthy are increasingly outliving the poor.

Despite those lines in the sand, Mrs. Clinton's plan allows for compromise with Republicans who favor cutting benefits to keep the system viable. Her opposition to raising the retirement age across the board, for example, does not preclude benefit cuts for high-income recipients. This fix can be made simply by adjusting the formula used to calculate benefits for high earners.

Donald Trump has said he would not cut benefits. But it's fair to ask whether he can honor this pledge while at the same time honoring two other promises - to slash taxes and raise military spending - that, together, would lead to explosive federal deficits unless there were spending cuts in large programs like Social Security. And Mr. Trump has dodged the solvency issue. Absent benefit cuts, the only sure way to shore up the system's finances is to increase revenue, an option that Mr. Trump has never broached.

Mr. Trump's approach - no benefits cuts and no tax increases - closes off both avenues to solvency. Which, in the long run, would essentially bankrupt the system.

Mrs. Clinton's path, by contrast, would help to provide for the long-term health of Social Security, enhance benefits for the neediest and continue guaranteed benefits for all who pay into the system.

Online:

http://www.nytimes.com/

___

Oct. 17

The Washington Post on Trump's claims that the election is rigged:

What has allowed the United States to last for so long as a democracy, when so many other countries have failed? There are many factors, but none is more fundamental than this: When we hold elections, the losing party acknowledges the legitimacy of the winner, and the winner allows the loser to survive to fight another day.

Now, for the first time in modern history, a major-party candidate rejects both sides of that equation. If he loses, Donald Trump says, it will be due to cheating that makes the result illegitimate. If he wins, he will imprison his defeated opponent.

Many Americans may not have given much thought to what a breathtaking departure this represents, because until now we have had the luxury of never having to think about such things. We have been able to take for granted the quadrennial peaceful transition of power. We watch from a distance when political parties in one foreign country or another take up arms after losing an election. We look, as at something that could never happen here, when a foreign leader sends an opponent to jail or into exile. This can happen in Zimbabwe, we think, or Russia, or Cambodia, but not here. Not in the United States.

The Republican nominee is saying that he will make it happen here. He tells Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee, that if he were president, "you'd be in jail." He nods approvingly and chimes in when his crowds chant, "Lock her up." He warns that a vast if fuzzily defined conspiracy of global bankers, media companies and election officials is gearing up to steal the election. "The election is rigged," he says. "It's rigged like you have never seen before. They're rigging the system."

We have endorsed Ms. Clinton for president, contending that she is well qualified, well prepared and likely to do a good job. But to voters who disagree - who have never voted for a Democrat, say, or who question our assessment of her qualifications - we would argue that Mr. Trump's challenge to the very core of our democracy nonetheless provides strong reason to vote for her.

You may disagree with Ms. Clinton about Obamacare, Russia policy or Planned Parenthood. She may, as president, take actions that deeply upset you. But you can be certain that if Republicans take issue with her, she will not order them jailed.

With Mr. Trump, if the candidate himself is to be believed, there is no such certainty. A voter's first obligation should be to preserve the republic which has been, for so long, the envy of the world.

Online:

https://www.washingtonpost.com

___

Oct. 18

China Daily on China's latest manned space mission:

A Long March-2F carrier rocket carrying the Shenzhou XI manned spacecraft blasted off from the launch pad at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in Northwest China's Gansu province, at 7:30 am on Monday, heralding the start of China's sixth manned space mission.

Jing Haipeng and Chen Dong, the two astronauts charged with carrying out the mission, are to stay in the Tiangong II space laboratory for 30 days, testing rendezvous and docking technologies, verifying the life support capability of the docked spacecraft and lab, and conducting scientific research and engineering experiments.

In the past 18 years since 1999, 11 Shenzhou spacecraft have been successfully launched into space, and the missions have developed from unmanned ones to the manned ones, with each one making new and significant progress.

Now Jing and Chen are taking the next big steps in the nation's space journey and making a new contribution to the building of China into a space power.

While a country's science and technology reflect the strength of its overall development, space technology reflects the overall capability of a country's development in science and technology.

Now China is the third country after Russia and the United States that has independently developed advanced space technology and conducted manned spaceflights.

Compared with Russia and the United States, China was underdeveloped at the beginning and still trails behind in many aspects. But the country has never given up on its resolve to catch up with the world's leaders in science and technology, as its leadership understands the importance of science and technology for a nation's development.

That explains why China has achieved such a lot in the development of its space technology in the past two decades and is striving to make new breakthroughs.

And as the world's second-largest economy, China wants to make its due contribution to the development of human civilization. Conducting space exploration not only has the potential to expand human knowledge of the universe in which we live, it also extends the cooperation of major powers in the peaceful utilization of space.

We are looking forward to the return of the two astronauts, whose experiments conducted in the Tiangong II space laboratory will hopefully further our understanding about human endurance in space and so contribute to future human exploration of the universe.

Online:

http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/