Return to Transcripts main page
LOU DOBBS TONIGHT
Bush, German Chancellor Put Feud Aside; U.S. Concerned Over Possible Lifting of China Arms Embargo
Aired February 23, 2005 - 18:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ANNOUNCER: This is LOU DOBBS TONIGHT for Wednesday, February 23. Here now for an hour of news, debate and opinion is Lou Dobbs.
LOU DOBBS, HOST: Good evening.
The United States and Germany today put their differences over the war in Iraq behind them and together declared that Iran must not develop nuclear weapons.
President Bush and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, meeting in Germany, challenged Iran to give up its nuclear weapons ambitions. President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder also addressed other key issues, including the rising tensions between the United States and Syria over Lebanon and Iraq.
Senior White House correspondent John King reports.
JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): In Germany for the first time since a bitter feud over the Iraq war, a joint promise to focus more on areas of agreement, and a concerted effort by the president to allay European worries that Iran will be the next military target.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Diplomacy is just beginning. Iran is not Iraq.
KING: Mr. Bush also made clear he will not immediately push for new sanctions on Syria, saying he wants to wait and see if Damascus pulls its troops and secret police from Lebanon before May elections.
BUSH: We will see how they respond before there's any further discussions about going back to the United Nations.
KING: Just being here was significant. Back in 2003, Mr. Bush would not speak to Chancellor Schroeder for seven months because of his vocal opposition to the Iraq war. Both men now speak of a new chapter.
GERHARD SCHROEDER, CHANCELLOR OF GERMANY (through translator): We have agreed that we are not going to constantly emphasize where we're not agreeing.
KING: Still the differences were clear, just as they were at Mr. Bush's earlier stop in Brussels. Mr. Schroeder and others in Europe want to offer Iran financial and diplomatic incentives in exchange for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons.
Mr. Bush doesn't hide his contempt for Iran's leaders but tried to played down tactical differences with the European negotiators.
BUSH: It's vital that Iranians hear the world speak with one voice, that they shouldn't have a nuclear weapon.
KING: China is the latest source of transatlantic tensions. Mr. Bush is urging Europeans to keep a ban on major military sales to Beijing in place. Mr. Schroeder says the embargo will be lifted.
Before leaving Germany, this visit with U.S. troops and a spirited defense of the Iraq war.
BUSH: You have acted in the great liberating tradition of our nation.
KING: Opposition to the war is the driving force behind anti- Bush sentiment here and across much of Europe. Mr. Bush attributes the divide to different views of the significance of September 11.
(on camera) The president told a round table here that those who view the attacks on United States as a horrible but isolated incident and those, who like him, view them as a wakeup call to the global terror threat, often talk past each other, to which he quickly added, "I plead guilty at times."
John King, CNN, Mainz, Germany.
DOBBS: As John reported, Germany and other European countries are now determined to lift their weapons embargo against China. Europe, motivated by the prospect of lucrative arms sales, insists the embargo is no longer justified.
But the White House says China could use European weapons in a possible military confrontation with the United States in Asia.
Kitty Pilgrim reports.
KITTY PILGRIM, CNN CORRESPONDENT: President Bush spoke out about the threat of European arm sales to China.
BUSH: There is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China, which would change the balance of relations in -- between China and Taiwan.
PILGRIM: A succession of top U.S. officials have tried subtle pressure on Europe. First Condoleezza Rice, followed by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and now the president. The latest to raise the alarm, Henry Hyde, the powerful chairman of the House International Relations Committee, wrote in an editorial today, quote, "European security policy toward China is on a collision course with America's extensive security interests in Asia."
European defense industries are languishing and looking for new markets. European leaders, anxious for a full commercial relationship with China, have said safeguards can be written to control China's use of military technology. But experts worry about China's motives.
PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: What China really wants is these weaponry, advance technology transfers and the ability to reverse engineer some of these systems so they can do it themselves.
DOBBS: Five hundred short-range ballistic missiles are in mainland China, just across the Taiwan Strait. U.S. military forces in the region number about 45,000 in Japan, 32,000 in South Korea. Another 6,000 sailors and Marines are part of a carrier strike group in the region, and 6,000 Navy and Air Force personnel in Guam. The balance of power is shifting against Taiwan and those forces.
PORTER GOSS, CIA DIRECTOR: If Beijing decides that Taiwan is taking steps toward permanent separation that exceed Beijing's tolerance, we assess China is prepared to respond with varying levels of force.
PILGRIM: China has the second largest military budget in the world, and their China's powerhouse economy gives it the cash to buy massive amounts of arms. Up until now mostly from the Russians but increasingly likely from the Europeans, as well -- Lou.
DOBBS: The issue here, it seems a difficult one for the Bush administration. In arguing against the lifting of an arms embargo by Europe, how does the United States rationalize spending all of that capital, providing over $160 billion a year in capital, to the Chinese to spend as they will on weapons or whatever?
PILGRIM: Well, it's a real object lesson in how everything is connected. And I think that everyone has to take a hard look at what exactly is going on, and the arms embargo is a very key component.
DOBBS: And certainly, it's concerning that only now are people awakening to an emerging military and economic threat posed by China. Kitty Pilgrim, thank you. Kitty Pilgrim.
President Bush is tonight in Slovakia for a summit meeting tomorrow with Russian president Vladimir Putin. The summit comes at a time of rising strain in U.S. relations with Russia. During his European tour, President Bush has repeatedly made clear his intention to challenge President Putin on his commitment to democracy in Russia.
Jill Dougherty reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) JILL DOUGHERTY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Almost four years ago when Mr. Bush first met Russian President Vladimir Putin in Slovenia, it seemed he'd found a kindred spirit when it came to democratic values.
BUSH: I was able to get a sense of his soul. He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country.
DOUGHERTY: How the Bush administration says it's worried about the country Mr. Putin is creating.
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, SECRETARY OF STATE: It is important that Russia make clear to the world that it is intent on strengthening the rule of law, strengthening the role of an independent judiciary, permitting a free and independent press to flourish. These are all the basics of democracy.
DOUGHERTY: When it comes to people power revolutions like Ukraine's, George Bush may think it's democracy in action, but Vladimir Putin does not.
A senior U.S. diplomat says President Bush will raise the issue of values, quote, "as a friend who wants to be a partner, not to isolate Russia." But Mr. Putin thinks isolating Russia may be what George Bush has in mind.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): I don't think this is the purpose of the American policy, although we will have a meeting with President Bush that's scheduled for the near future, and I will certainly ask him if this is really the case.
BUSH: The door is open.
DOUGHERTY: While the U.S. president may be on a mission to spread democracy throughout the world, the Russian president says his country already has democracy, Russian-style.
DOUGHERTY: And you're certainly hearing that tone from President Putin this week. In fact, just the other day in an interview with Slovak journalists, he said that Russia is going to pursue democracy, but he added, it's going to be taking into consideration the realities of life in Russia today -- Lou.
DOBBS: Jill, President Putin has been constraining democracy's progress in Russia, particularly over the past six months. Institutions being constrained, as well. Is there any suggestion of a furtherance of democracy within Russia?
DOUGHERTY: Well, you know, the way President Putin would look at that is he's doing what has to be done in a country that has some very severe problems. So his -- I think the interesting thing, Lou, will be his interpretation of what democracy is in his country and President Bush's understanding of what democracy is in the west. And that's where the crunch really is. DOBBS: Another crunch, potentially, and that is what seems to be an emerging relationship, a stronger relationship between Russia and China. Any sense on the part of the Russian government as to what direction we can expect that to go?
DOUGHERTY: They're certainly moving very far ahead on that relationship. Interestingly, too, because you could perceive China as a threat, economically and otherwise, to Russia. But they are moving on that front, as well.
I think traditionally, Lou, Russia has looked at different power centers, and they are now trying to create a certain power center with China, although that could be playing with fire diplomatically and economically.
DOBBS: Jill Dougherty, thank you very much.
Another key issue for President Bush and President Putin when they meet is Russia's support of Iran and its nuclear weapons program.
President Bush says all options, including military action, are available to the United States in the effort to deal with Iran's nuclear threat. The U.S. strategy towards Iran may draw on lessons from another nuclear showdown with North Korea a decade ago.
Senior Pentagon correspondent Jamie McIntyre reports.
JAMIE MCINTYRE, CNN SR. PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): All this week while traveling in Europe, President Bush has sent a mixed message, dismissing the idea the U.S. is considering bombing Iran's suspected nuclear sites, while refusing to rule out such an attack in the future.
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous. Having said that, all options are on the table.
MCINTYRE: In fact, the U.S. came close to carrying out a preemptive strike against North Korea in 1994. As Pentagon officials later confirmed, plans were seriously considered to use cruise missiles and stealth aircraft to destroy North Korea's nuclear reactor.
The air strike option was reject by then Defense Secretary William Perry, who decided not to risk all-out war on the Korean peninsula. A war the Pentagon projected could result in one million casualties on both side.
The crisis was averted when North Korea agreed to freeze its program in return for nuclear technology that did not produce raw materials for nuclear weapons. But that 1994 agreement didn't stop North Korea from working on nuclear bombs in secret, and now claiming to possess them. Fast forward to 2005 in Iran, which claims its nuclear program is peaceful and transparent. Unlike in North Korea 11 years ago, Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and the locations of many are unknown. While a single strike might set back Iran's nuclear ambitions, experts say it would not shut them down.
FRANK GAFFNEY, CENTER FOR SECURITY POLICY: What you are going to be able to do if you do attack them is probably not much more than interrupt, disrupt or degrade for a time the onward march of the Iranians toward nuclear weapons.
MCINTYRE: And Lou, the risk of retaliation is much different, too. While North Korea was poised to go south with its million-man army, Iran has no obvious military target. It has missiles, but they can't reach the United States. It could launch them against U.S. forces in the region, or it could disrupt shipping in the Persian Gulf, or possibly simply resort to supporting anti-U.S. terrorism around the world -- Lou.
DOBBS: Which would, I think by any standard in this new era in which we live, one of preemptive strikes, certainly not be acceptable to the U.S. government. And it is beginning to appear to much of the west, including Europe, what then is the United States expected to do here from the Pentagon's point of view, Jamie?
MCINTYRE: Well, the point here is that the military option, which wasn't a great one in the case of North Korea in 1994, is even less palatable now. But the problem is, that option failed. North Korea apparently has achieved nuclear weapons...
MCINTYRE: ... and the problem here is the times against the United States. If it wants to consider, though, a preemptive strike, Pentagon officials say there's two key things. It has to be coupled with a strong warning that any retaliation would be suicide for the regime in Iran, and it has to be coupled with very strong evidence to the rest of the world that the strike was justified.
DOBBS: Jamie, thank you very much. Jamie McIntyre, our senior Pentagon correspondent.
Next here, a new threat to our national security. How so-called free trade agreements are crippling family farms in this country. For the first time, the United States is depending upon foreign imports for food.
Also, a new warning from the World Health Organization tonight about the deadly Bird Flu. I'll be talking about one of the world's top experts on the disease.
And freedom of speech at Harvard. Freedom of speech a controversy at one of the world's leading universities, and that university's president is under fire for his comments about women and math and science. We'll have a spirited debate, joined by three leading professors here tonight.
Stay with us.
DOBBS: For the first time in our history, the United States will import more food than we export. The agriculture industry, one of the last few remaining areas of our economy, still running a trade surplus. But now the Department of Agriculture says we're losing that edge as well. Some lawmakers say our so-called free trade policies are solely to blame.
Lisa Sylvester reports from Washington.
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Once considered the bread basket of the world, the United States is poised to become a net importer of food. For the first time since the 1950s, the country is expected to not record an agricultural surplus this year.
GEORGE NAYLOR, NATIONAL FAMILY FARM COALITION: It's a wake-up call, and family farmers should be producing the food in this country, and doing it in a way that's good for our environment and provides economic opportunity in rural America. And that's not going to happen as long as we have free trade agreements like CAFTA or NAFTA or the World Trade Organization.
SYLVESTER: While agribusiness run by large corporations have thrived under the trade agreements, family farmers have been pinched. Until 1996, the United States set a minimum price for agricultural goods, including corn and soybeans. Since then, in the face of global competition, U.S. farmers have had to sell their goods at below the cost of production.
In 2003, the United States had a $10.5 billion surplus. In 2004, a $9.6 billion surplus. This year, the surplus is expected to be zero.
SEN. BYRON DORGAN (D), NORTH DAKOTA: Our trade policies are off track, and nobody seems to care about it. The administration snores through it. The Congress sleeps through it. And meanwhile, we are the largest debtor nation in the country, our manufacturing businesses are being hollowed out. Now farmers and ranchers are discovering that they've lost the trade surplus they've had as well.
SYLVESTER: A weak dollar was expected to be the saving grace for the family farmer because it would have made U.S. exports relatively cheaper. But that has not proven to be the case.
SYLVESTER: Senator Dorgan is among those calling for a moratorium on new trade agreements, including the Central American Free Trade Agreement that the Bush administration is hoping to push through Congress -- Lou. DOBBS: Hoping now to push through Congress, Lisa, after lacking the political courage to put it before Congress and to move it before the presidential elections. Thank you very much, Lisa Sylvester.
As we become increasingly reliant upon cheap foreign imports of food, we also continue to export hundreds of thousands of American jobs to cheap foreign labor markets each year. Erie County in Upstate New York has been devastated by the loss of manufacturing jobs to cheap foreign labor competition. Now the county can no longer afford to provide basic services to its residents. And the residents can no longer afford to pay the taxes.
Bill Tucker has the story.
BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There's a tax revolt under way in Upstate New York. Erie County is running short of dollars, and the choices in Buffalo are as harsh as its winter: raise taxes or cuss services. Already parks have been closed, cutbacks and layoffs planned for the police department, library closings planned. More than a quarter of the county's employees expected to be put out of work.
BRUCE FISHER, ERIE COUNTY DEPUTY EXECUTIVE: We're talking about almost 2,500 employees. And that includes employees that are trauma center, that includes all the school nurses. We're talking about evidence technicians. We're talking about people who patrol the roads, we're talking about people who plow the roads.
TUCKER: County officials blame payments to Medicaid and state pensions for their troubles, while admitting the region's economy is not nearly as strong as its neighbor and U.S. trading partner across Lake Erie, Toronto, Canada. One local manufacturer puts it in blunt terms.
JACK DAVIS, SAVEAMERICANJOBS: We're getting hammered by the Chinese products coming in here. The WTO and the NAFTA are killing us. Globalization is not working, and if you come to Buffalo you see the true story.
TUCKER: Davis says that real wages have declined in the county, while prices, including those to heat home and put gas in cars, have risen. Meaning people can't afford a tax increase.
Official notices of the layoffs are expected to go out over the next few days. There's no doubt about who will feel the pain first.
ED WILLIAMS, ELECTRICIAN: Any time you start laying off a policeman or not prosecuting criminals, when criminals -- if they have the impression that they can commit crimes and not be held accountable to it, it's going to affect poor people. It's going to happen right in the inner city and right down where people are the poorest at.
(END VIDEOTAPE) TUCKER: Now, there's a vicious cycle here. Community-cut services businesses are less likely to move to the community. But, raising taxes has exactly the same effect. And Lou, workers get trapped either way.
DOBBS: Bill, thank you very much.
Well, tonight's thought is on exporting America. The manufacturing corporation, except in comparatively few instances, no longer represents a protecting care, a parental influence over its operatives. It is too often a soulless organization, and its members forget that they morally -- they are morally responsible for the souls and bodies, as well as for the wages of those whose labor is the source of their wealth.
Tonight, an urgent warning about the Bird Flu which has already killed dozens of people in Asia. Why global health officials now say the world is in grave danger of a deadly pandemic. That story is next here.
DOBBS: A frightening new warning tonight from the World Health Organization about the deadly Bird Flu. The World Health Organization says the world is in grave danger of a global pandemic that they now say could kill hundreds of -- excuse me, tens of millions of people. And it says it's not a question of if, but rather when that deadly Bird Flu will strike.
Mike Chinoy reports from Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
MIKE CHINOY, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): They look like they are preparing to tour a bioweapons facility, but in Vietnam these days, this is the only truly safe way to visit a poultry farm. So great is the danger from Avian Flu.
We joined dozens of international experts on the disease as they inspected safety measures at this state-run chicken farm near Ho Chi Minh City. Avian Flu has caused the deaths of tens of millions of birds here and killed dozens of people in recent weeks. That's fueled fears it could mutate into a form that spreads easily among humans and spark a global pandemic.
(on camera): However effective the measures at this farm, experts say the Avian Flu virus is now so well entrenched throughout Asia it's no longer possible to talk about eradicating it. And that makes the disease a time bomb.
DR. HANS TROEDSSON, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: We would see millions of people dying. We will have a pandemic that would shut down societies and communities. And conservative estimations says -- it's saying maybe five million to seven million deaths.
That's conservative. We could be up to 50 or 100 million deaths. CHINOY (voice-over): Dr. Hans Troedsson is the WHO's man in Vietnam. At an international conference here, he and his colleagues are trying to develop strategies to reduce the risk of Avian Flu, but also to prepare for the worst.
DR. SHIGERU OMI, WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION: Hospital (ph) in particular will come under great strain. And normal functions of society will be disrupted because so many people will be sick or too afraid to go to work. And, obviously, the economic cost will be enormous.
CHINOY: Controlling Avian Flu, though, means changing age-old patterns of behavior. Just down the road from that big chicken farm, we found families raising chickens with no precautions at all. "I don't keep my chickens in cages," says Nuin Zin Twi (ph). "I take good care of them. And if they get sick, I just bring them to the vet."
No one wears protective clothing here. Kids play next to the chickens. It's a typical scene in rural Vietnam, and it's precisely the kind of setting where the virus could again jump the species barrier and set the stage for a potential global public health disaster.
Mike Chinoy, CNN, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
DOBBS: I'll be talking shortly with one of the world's most preeminent experts on infectious diseases to talk about preparations to deal with the Bird Flu.
Next, the science of sex and gender. Why one theory about the differences between men and women has divided part of Harvard and some of the country. Three distinguished women professors of physics, chemistry and biology, and the author of the new book "Gender Matters" join me.
Stay with us.
DOBBS: As we have reported, Harvard University president Lawrence Summers Is under fire in some quarters for making comments about women in science that were at the least politically incorrect. Summers suggested last month that one of the reasons he enumerated that women were underrepresented in science positions at top universities could be because among other differences, a difference in intrinsic aptitude between men and women.
Hi comments created an uproar amongst the faculty at Harvard. Several students and faculty members have actually called for Summers to resign. Others say the controversy is simply overblown. They want the former treasury secretary to remain.
The Harvard controversy, however has opened a larger debate about men and women in science, the science of sex and certainly academic freedom.
My guests tonight have unique perspectives on this debate. Lisa Randall is professor of physics at Harvard University. She has been critical of Harvard President Lawrence Summers and joins us tonight from Boston. Professor, good to have you with us.
LISA RANDALL, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Thank you. It's nice to be here.
DOBBS: Dr. Leonard Sax is the author of "Why Gender Matters: What Parents and Teachers Need to Know About the Emerging Science of Sex Differences." Joining us tonight from Washington. Good to have you with us.
DR. LEONARD SAX, AUTHOR: Thanks for inviting me.
DOBBS: And Robin Garell, professor of chemistry and faculty chair at UCLA joining us tonight from Los Angeles. Thanks for being here Professor.
And joining me here in New York, Carol Shoshkes Reese, professor of Biology at New York University.
CAROL SHOSHKES REISS, NYU: It's my pleasure to be here.
DOBBS: Good to have you all here. Thank you, professor.
Let me begin in the interest of proximity, with you, professor. Is this much ado about nothing? The fact that a faculty could actually react so emotionally, so passionately over what were extemporaneous remarks that we're told were designed to be provocative?
SHOSHKES REISS: They certainly were designed to be provocative. I don't think they were extemporaneous. I believe he had written comments. This is an ongoing, long-standing problem at Harvard. I was on the faculty there from '78 to '91, and women were discriminated against, and our ability to be promoted through the system was made intrinsically difficult.
DOBBS: I think we should go to a current professor Harvard. That professor, Lisa Randall. Do you agree with Professor Shoshkes Reiss?
RANDALL: There definitely is a problem. One of the problems was clear was there just weren't a lot of professors being hired -- women professors being hired in the last few years. So there clearly is a problem somewhere.
I think to say that it was just provocative and emotional is sort of underplaying just the fact that the remarks were not really correct. And in a society where, you know where women are already having kind of a hard time just because there aren't that many of them, to emphasize and attribute it to intrinsic aptitude is just not a constructive approach. DOBBS: The approach is mine. And I want to be provocative. And I want to find out why the faculty of Harvard, and I should make a full disclosure, I attended Harvard University, graduating at the peak of emotion, freedom of expression if you will, in 1969, when the issues were civil rights and the Vietnam War and professors and teachers were standing on chairs and tables in dining rooms screaming at one another debating issues. What in the world is going on that people should be so sensitive at Harvard that they can't listen to a Harvard professor lay out provocatively, through intent, a number of elements in his discourse that, frankly, it seems to me, at least, to be scientifically based because there is no adequate science on it?
RANDALL: Wait a second. Scientifically based because there's no adequate science? I think we have a little bit of a problem there.
But let's go back to the other issue. Let's ask, why are we picking this particular question to ask? Why not ask a question that might actually be constructive. Such as, we know that there are sociological and cultural factors. So, why don't we first address those and then see if there's still a difference.
I mean, why ask this question that we actually know can't be answered. Why not ask questions like, hmm, there seem to be a lot more women in science now than there were 10 years ago. There also seem to be a lot more women doctors and lawyers now than there were 10 years ago. So why is that? So those are questions we might actually be able to answer scientifically and there is some science for it.
DOBBS: Let's go to Robin Garrell and see if the professor has an answer for us from UCLA.
ROBIN GARRELL, CHEMISTRY PROFESSOR, UCLA; Well, in fact, there are extensive studies that show there are very small differences in the cognitive abilities, the thinking abilities of men and women. And there are a large number of studies that show many factors in our environment -- education, sociology, influence women's choices and that there are many bias built into the system that discourage women in particular from persisting in the sciences.
DOBBS: Let me ask you, Professor Garrell, President Summers said, he acknowledged that there were intrinsic differences, that there was discrimination and socially imposed choices on women. And he hoped he was wrong in his construct of the order in which he felt those were causal factors. Why should that provoke such passionate response?
GARRELL: Well, I agree with the previous comment that he hit a nerve. But it's more than that. It's one thing to put forward a hypothesis. But as scientists, we base hypotheses on facts. And in fact, there are many studies that show if there are innate differences, they're quite small. And they can't explain the large differences in persistent.
And there are many studies that show unconscious biases on the part of very intelligent, well intentioned people, like college presidents, do account for the fact that there aren't so many women choosing to become scientists and engineers.
DOBBS: Dr. Sax, your thoughts? You've been studying gender differences. We have seen a sweep over the past 20 years of unisex learning, of unisex approach. Why doesn't that work?
SAX: Well, there is actually a lot of relevant research, of which Dr. Summers was not aware. One of the important studies that I present in the book, a recent study of over 500 normal children, show that the different regions of the brain develop in a different sequence in girls compared with boys.
In boys, the areas involved in spatial relations develop much earlier than girls -- than in girls. And with due report to Dr. Garrell, the variation is small.
And the difference between the sexes is very large and I encourage each of the speakers tonight to look at this study. It's important work and many other studies like it.
DOBBS: It's important everyone understand what you just said.
SAX: Yes, the regions involved in spatial relations, geometry, math, develop earlier in boys than in girls. The region involved in language and reading and comprehending develop earlier in girls than in boys. If you ignore those differences and teach the same subjects in the same way to girls and boys, by age 10, by age 12, you'll have girls who think they can't do geometry and who think they can never do geometry, but in fact that girl may be a math prodigy, she might be the next Einstein, but she'll never know it.
GARRELL: That's right. We're filtering out the late bloomers.
SAX: Exactly. Filtering out the late bloomers.
That may be one reason studies have shown girls who go to all girls schools are 6 times as likely, subsequently, to major in subjects like math and science in college.
SHOSHKES REISS: I agree with that, absolutely.
DOBBS: Dr. Shoshkes Reiss just said she agreed with you.
SHOSHKES REISS: I am the product of Bringwar (ph).
DOBBS: An all-girls school.
SHOSHKES REISS: Can I say that there are also people who do these studies, like professors at Harvard, who have spoken to, who say that actually what's amazing is how similar the development of men and women's brains or boys and girls brains are.
I don't think it's so simple. And also there are studies that show, actually, development is affect by genetic factors. So to just say they are intrinsically different is still -- it's just not that scientific yet. DOBBS: Well, again to be fair, President Summers said, intrinsic differences. He didn't stress the degree, nor did he enumerate or describe them. And he included two others that are also important.
I think what really fascinates me is that Harvard, and each of the distinguished universities represented by you panel members, reacting as I said passionately, emotionally, and I understand that.
But this is really, basically -- it has taken on the vigor, the energy of, for crying out loud, a witch hunt, because the men chose not to couch his remarks and stylistically, politically correct terms.
RANDALL: That's not true. In fact, there was a meeting of the faculty yesterday, and the faculty was extremely generous. The faculty has not been treating it as a witch hunt. People are upset because this is the kind of thing that condones, for example, one of the professors in my department who agrees with Summers used to be in charge of graduate admissions. And if you wonder why there would be more women, well, that could account for it. But I think, in terms of actually attacking him on this issue, people have really tried to focus on -- at least as far as the women in science, they've really focused on that. The attacks have been about other things, too.
DOBBS: Yes, Well, let's talk about some of the other things. And one of them is the science that we're discussing here, and Dr. Sax you were alluding to it. And I'd like any of you to jump into this. But the fact is, it's sort of remarkable to me that there isn't definitive science on some of these differences.
SAX: But we do have good evidence of interventions you can take. And I would encourage the leadership at Harvard to look, for example, to Duke University, where they went through this evaluation a few years ago. And they said, you know what, let's create a women's college within Duke University. It's called the Baldwin Scholars Program. And I just spoke this afternoon with Donna Lisker (ph) who's the director of that program. She said it's amazingly popular among the young women there, all of whom chose to attend a co-ed school, but they want to be part of this women's college within the larger co-ed context, where they have women living together and studying together. I think that's the kind of solution that might be very practical.
RANDALL: And I've also heard there are problems at Duke University, where there's actually a lot of harassment of the women faculty. So, you wonder if in that environment students prefer that kind of thing.
DOBBS: It's -- it's -- the irony here is, that Harvard has worked mightily, spending great money and moving progressively forward to bring an all-men's institution, that is Harvard College, and an all-women's institution, Radcliffe, together to bring equality in education. This gets to be sort of mind numbing in the fad of the day. I don't think anyone would doubt we're richer for the fact that we have men and women learning together. The fact that there's a choice for women or a choice for men, in terms of going to a gender specific school, if you will. It seems to me to be regressive. RANDALL: But, Lou, we're not pillaring him. We just want -- we just want this situation to be better. I think to characterize it as sort of crazy people yelling is kind of silly. I mean, we're just trying to make the situation as good as it can be.
DOBBS: Well, you say that, but at the same time, I wonder. Because what are you going to say, for example, Professor Randall, when all of the women who are now moving into college, they outnumber men now. What will you be saying in 10 years as we're discussing the failure of men to be moving into these prestigious and important and high-performance jobs like you and all your professor colleagues here now hold.
RANDALL: I can't wait to see that outcome. I'm looking forward to that.
DOBBS: That's politically incorrect, Professor Randall. My goodness, we're going to have a storm of protests.
RANDALL: I'm really glad you think that will happen.
DOBBS: Can we -- can...
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE) that they're still...
DOBBS: Look, I'm sorry. Go ahead, professor.
GARRELL: The fact remains that there are still biases all along the way, that people need to be better aware of. People examining identical resumes, one with man's name at the top and one with a woman's name will consistently rate the man higher. They will say he's more competent and more accomplished. And if that happens at the stage of college admissions and writing letters of recommendation, and in choosing which applicants to interview for faculty positions, then the system gets skewed right back to advantage men.
DOBBS: And the idea that -- that Larry Summers put forward, that high-performance women, and each of you certainly is in that case, and Dr. Sax, I'm not leaving you out of this. You're in a high- performance job of your own, but certainly, it's a quite different world than the one inhabited by these high-performance women in their careers. Is there a self-selection here. Is because of the choices imposed by both biology in society, child rearing falls upon women. The demands of family, typically fall disproportionately on women. I would love to hear your thoughts on how that influences, because it's also one of the critical issues that Larry Summers raised.
SHOSHKES REISS: It's always a matter of juggling and making decisions and prioritizing things. I have two children and yet I'm a tenured full professor, and at the top of my field and able to do this. It's my experience that the successful women are far more successful, far more organized, perhaps even brighter and more effective than their male colleagues. Women have different styles in doing their science. Women have different styles in their publications and their communications. And in some ways, these different styles set things up that were handled differently be the system. Men are more, in general, more self-promoting. I don't want to get into stereotypes, because we can fall into (UNINTELLIGIBLE).
DOBBS: Well, you've already done it twice. You've declared you're brighter and you've declared men are more self-promoting;
SHOSHKES REISS: No, it's my experiences that my colleagues, that are at this level are more effective, are brighter.
REISS: And are able to juggle these things as well.
DOBBS: Professor Garrell, your thoughts?
GARRELL: Well, frankly, I think both men and women would be more successful if we all had wives to support part of our support system. But what we're find now is that male graduate students are choosing not to go into academics, because they want a more family friendly balanced life just like many women -- many choose to have.
DOBBS: And Professor Randall?
RANDALL: I think we should look to where people have dealt with this issue more effectively. I mean, there are people where it -- I mean, there's a lot of lawyers that work 80-hour weeks, too. And we should look at what they've done and see, can we help address the issue in academia as well.
DOBBS: And can we all agree that maybe there's still room for freedom of expression and academic freedom in our universities?
RANDALL: Go for it. Go for it.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Absolutely.
DOBBS: Good deal. You know what, as the father of two boys and two girls, I want to tell you all precisely where I come down on this issue. I see absolutely no difference in intellect, talent, between the genders whatsoever.
GARRELL: It's great to hear that and we encourage them all to pursue their dreams.
DOBBS: Absolutely, everyone in this country. And thank goodness we all have that opportunity. And at least those who perhaps have to work a little harder because of economic circumstances, we're working hard to give them a chance, too. It's a great country and we thank you all for being here to exercise your freedom of expression.
DOBBS: We want to hear from you on this very important issue. Do you believe there's a greater emphasis on political correctness than on academic freedom in our universities these days, yes or no. Cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results a little later, right here. Tonight, a dire prediction about the bird flu. Why World Health officials now say it could spread from Asia and literally kill millions of people around the globe. That's next.
DOBBS: As we reported earlier, the World -- Health Organization now says the world is in grave danger of a bird flu pandemic that would kill millions of people.
Joining me now from Montreal, one of the world's leading experts on infectious diseases, Dr. Donald Low. The head of -- he is the head microbiologist at Mt. Sinai Hospital in Toronto. Dr. Low, good to see you. Thank you for being here.
DR. DONALD LOW, MICROBIOLOGIST, MT. SINAI HOSPITAL: Glad to be here, Lou.
DOBBS: You have, on this broadcast over the years, heightened our awareness and our consciousness about the possibility of a pandemic. Do you see as a result of what's happening in Asia right now a heightened risk?
LOW: Well, there's no doubt that this is a reason to be concerned. I mean, as I said before, it's been over 30 years since we've had a pandemic. We're due for one. If we look at the avian influenza strain that has been transmitted from birds to humans, it meets all the criteria of the next pandemic strain. So there is definitely reason to be concerned.
But on the other hand, we've never been in a situation like this where we've been able to actually watch this kind of evolution unfold before us. And maybe -- and maybe this will allow us to possibly slow the development of this or even possibly even prevent it.
DOBBS: Possibly prevent it. Dr. Anthony Fauchi, as you know, with the National Institutes of Health here saying 2 million doses of vaccine have already been created to set the basis for vaccination. But is that kind of vaccine against a flu virus that has not yet crossed species, is it truly effective?
LOW: We don't know that. And the concern is, even if this vaccine is effective, will we have enough of it, if -- when the pandemic happens, if it does happen, when it does happen? Will one dose be enough? And will one dose be enough? Will we require, actually, 2 doses of the vaccine for it to be effective? So, there's lots of concern about the vaccine, despite the advances in technology and making these vaccines in the industry that's available to do it for us.
However, we do have also antiviral drugs. And that's something that we never had during the previous pandemics. We never had drugs that not only could treat patients with influenza, but actually could prevent influenza. So, that's another positive thing going for us.
DOBBS: And in Asia, just about a 70 percent mortality rate so far of those cases identified. Could those anti-viral drugs be shipped to Asia to help those people who seem at higher risk of being infected?
LOW: Well, that's right. Will we be able to get the drugs to where they are needed? But more importantly, will we have enough of the drugs? Because currently, there's only one manufacturer. It's Roche. We only one manufacturing facility in the world that's going to be able to provide us this drug. So will this drug, will we be able to get it where we need it?
DOBBS: Will we be able to get it where we need it? Is there an effort underway to ramp up those anti-viral drugs?
LOW: Well, I'm not aware that there's more than just the one central processing plant for this agent. Some countries have already made stockpiles of the oseltamivir, which is the drug which we use. Other countries are planning to do it. But -- so a lot will depend on if this happens and when it happens.
DOBBS: Dr. Low, we thank you, as always, for being here. We appreciate your educating us each time.
A reminder now to vote in our poll tonight. It was the issue of our panel discussion, "do you believe there's a greater emphasis on political correctness than on academic freedom in our universities these days? Yes or no." Please cast your vote at loudobbs.com. We'll have the results for you in a few minutes. Please stay with us.
DOBBS: Some of the nation's leading doctors and scientists are in Miami tonight. They're focusing on breast cancer, a disease that strikes 1 in every 7 women in this country.
Tonight, Paula Zahn looks at this critically important issue on CNN in her special report called "Breast Cancer: Survivor Stories."
Paula Zahn is with us here tonight. This has got to be a difficult story to report.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: It's a difficult story and a deeply personal story for me. Not only do I interview Carly Simon, who talks about her battle and Lynn Redgrave who talks, quite poignantly, about her fight, I interview my own mother who is a two-time breast cancer survivor.
But perhaps the most surprising turn in this whole hour is when we hear from Tommy Thompson, the former secretary of Health and Human Services who talks about, at one time, holding one of the most powerful jobs in Washington when it comes to medicine, and feeling helpless to helping his own wife who was diagnosed with breast cancer and his daughter.
But right now, we're going to show you a short clip from Carly Simon when she talks about how at first she couldn't even buy into the diagnosis. (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
CARLY SIMON, SINGER/SONGWRITER: When I was first diagnosed, I heard about it over the phone, and I went into swift denial. And I put my head down on the table, still with the phone in my hand saying, this can't be. This just can't be true. It's impossible.
DOBBS: That is tough stuff.
ZAHN: It's tough stuff, but it's an inspiring hour because we're talking about survivors, women who have benefited from the great advances in medicine. And 30 years ago if these women had been diagnosed, chances are they might not be alive today. But women are finding their cancers earlier, along with the doctor's help, of course, and mammograms.
DOBBS: And the science is moving ahead so that those 1 in 7 women in this who are diagnosed have a far, far better chance of survival.
ZAHN: There's a startling conclusion drawn from Larry Norton, probably one of the most respected doctors in this field in the world who says tonight it is possible that your daughters and my daughter will never have to worry about breast cancer again. If we continue along these tracks and the advances.
DOBBS: From his lips to God's ear.
ZAHN: We're all praying for it.
DOBBS: Paula Zahn, thank you. And we'll be watching at 8:00 Eastern right here on CNN. That's the Paula Zahn special report.
Still ahead, the results of our poll tonight. A preview of what's ahead tomorrow. And a reminder, 8:00 eastern, 5:00 pacific, PAULA ZAHN NOW. Breast cancer survivor stories. Please join us.
DOBBS: The results of our poll. Almost 90 percent of you say there is a greater emphasis on political correctness than on academic freedom in our universities.
Thanks fro being with us tonight. "ANDERSON COOPER 360" is next. Good night from New York.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com