FACTS

Ellie and I had dinner last night with couple we know well and who are serious, thoughtful Democratic voters. They are as anxious as we are to get rid of Dana Rohrabacher, the current incumbent in California's 48th District, and replace him with the best Democrat we can find. To that end, we are all looking for the most electable of the candidates now running.

I was troubled to hear that our dinner companions had reservations about Dr. Hans, having heard from a source they believed to be reliable that his campaign is funded by Big Pharma. I do not believe this to be true.

First, at the Meet & Greet on Monday night, Dr. Hans railed with genuine anger at the big drug companies and their unconscionable manipulation of drug prices. As a researcher and drug business owner himself, he is in a position to know. (His current research, as I understand it, is on a cure for certain forms of cancer.) I heard him reiterate that he vehemently--and I noted that he likes the word "vehemently"--rejects the power of the Big Pharma lobby in Congress.

Next, and with equal vehemence, he assured his audience that his campaign does not solicit and will not accept corporate donations. I have no reason to believe he was not telling the truth, in a situation where it could be easily verified.

On health care and drugs, Dr. Hans is in a far better position than his opponents to serve the interests of constituents, and of Americans at large. Having testified before senators and congressional representatives and collaborated with their staffs, and having worked with health care professionals on the national stage, he has an existing platform in the nation's capital from which to work; indeed, to have a running start. He is known and, I believe, respected for his integrity in the health-scientific community.

I am troubled--as are many of us, I think--about the ease with which we can be influenced by the rumor mill. I myself am as susceptible as anyone on this score. I have "heard things" about Dr. Hans's leading opponent which have prejudiced me against him. I will refrain from repeating them to others when I talk politics, and will do my best to disregard them if they are not fully verified. We all need to be careful to base our judgments on facts, not prejudice or rumor.

In a cultural and political environment in which lies have become indistinguishable from the truth, it is more important than ever that we choose a representative whose positions are based in fact, not supposition or hearsay. Who better than a scientist whose life and work are devoted to empirical truth?