WSU to Study Iraq Toxins' Effect
Spokesman-Review
by Bert Caldwell
Research to examine how exposure might damage offspring of soldiers
Washington State University scientists will use a $1.7 million grant to study what multi-generation genetic damage might be done by toxins U.S. troops could encounter in Iraq.
The research using laboratory rats, not humans, will be the first for the military to examine the epigenetic effects of pesticides, herbicides and other compounds, said lead scientist Michael Skinner, director of the university's Center for Reproductive Biology.
Previous studies have looked at the health effects of other substances, notably the Agent Orange used to defoliate jungles in Vietnam, on the soldiers directly exposed, he said, not on their children or grandchildren.
"The science really had not caught up with the trans-generational stuff," said Skinner, one of several WSU pioneers in the field of epigenetic, or multi-generational, inheritance.
Besides herbicides and pesticides – which and in what combinations has not been determined – the study also will look at the effects of explosives residues, he said.
The four-year study will allow researchers to see how any changes in genetic chemistry that develop are passed along through two subsequent generations of rats, he said, noting that only the first two years of research have been funded.
Among the problems that might develop are kidney disease, or changes in the male and female reproductive organs, he said.
If any genetic markers are identified in rats, Skinner said, follow-up research could look at whether they might show up among members of the military as well.
That would be of particular interest to Dave Holmes, interim chief operating officer of the Institute for Systems Medicine, which was awarded the U.S. Department of Defense grant passed through to Skinner.
Holmes' son, Tim Hammond, did two tours in Iraq with the U.S. Marine Corps.
"They sprayed all kinds of stuff on them," Holmes said.
Although the grant money, the first awarded ISM, will fund work in Pullman, he said the organization's supporters hope any subsequent clinical studies will be done in Spokane.
"There's a lot of excitement about making it happen," he said.
"Fighting for Our Veterans-Supporting Our Troops"
Proudly Serving All Branches & All Eras Since 1999
Search Veterans' Voice Site Below
Entire web
Report: Military could be underestimating troops’ compensation
To see the full GAO report, click here.
The added benefits and incalculable hardships faced by U.S. troops make it difficult to compare their pay to similar careers in the private sector, according to a new report from the Government Accountability Office.
Past studies have shown that servicemembers are compensated favorably when compared to their civilian counterparts, especially when adding in benefits such as food, housing and health care. For instance, a 2006 study by CNA Corp., sponsored by the Department of Defense, found that enlisted servicemembers earned an average of $4,700 more per year than comparable civilians, while officers made $11,700 more. Add in health care, retirement and additional tax breaks, and the difference between military and civilian pay jumped to $13,360 for enlisted servicemembers and $24,870 for officers.
Yet the GAO report, which was released Friday, said the military might be underestimating compensation because past studies often failed to take into account health benefits, retirement, commissary privileges, burial expenses and other forms of payment, such as hazardous duty pay or signing bonuses.
The GAO study — required by the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act — compared troops’ pay and benefits with those of comparably situated private-sector employees to assess how the differences affect recruiting and retention of members of the armed forces.
For some careers, the GAO found when benefits such as health care, retirement and commissary privileges are added in, serving in the military might be more lucrative: a military registered nurse’s total compensation is $37,000 more than a civilian nurse’s, according to GAO estimates. And a military truck driver earns about $13,500 more than a civilian driver, according to the GAO. But in other sectors, such as information technology, civilians are better paid.
Still, the GAO noted that comparisons between compensation packages in military and civilian careers are often nebulous because the benefits provided by military service can easily shift. The study recommended the DOD standardize an assessment method for making year-to-year comparisons.
While recruiters are eager to tout the military compensation, they are less likely to discuss the fact troops often deploy to places where they could die, the study found. The study also said there are other hardships unique to servicemembers, including hardscrabble working conditions, myriad deployments with long separations from family members, and frequent moves that make it harder for spouses to establish careers in one place.
“Nonmonetary considerations complicate military and civilian pay comparisons because their value cannot be quantified,” the report said.
Another challenge when comparing civilian and military compensation packages is the military cannot hire experienced employees. The military must grow and train its leaders because there is no outside labor market for an infantry battalion commander. Therefore, the loss of such an experienced commander to the private sector must be taken into account when total compensation packages and bonuses for troops are calculated.
“Unlike nearly all other organizations, the uniformed services have closed personnel systems,” the report said. “By contrast, most other organizations can and do hire from the outside at all levels. Thus, the failure to meet recruiting or retention goals at lower levels in a given year can have significant consequences for a service’s ability to produce experienced leaders for years to come.”
