Sunday, January 08, 2006

Book Review: The Worst Hard Time

San Francisco Chronicle

The answer on the wind
Those who didn't escape scrabbled for a living. But how did the Dust Bowl happen?



- Reviewed by Elizabeth Corcoran
Sunday, January 8, 2006

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived
the Great American Dust Bowl

By Timothy Egan

HOUGHTON MIFFLIN; 312 Pages; $28


On April 14, 1935, a freakish storm barreled through the Texas Panhandle, sweeping up 300,000 tons of topsoil. The dirt sailed through the air, choking people and animals, blanketing houses and cars. All told, the duster ripped up twice as much dirt as was dug out of the Panama Canal during seven years of construction. The storm, however, needed only a Sunday afternoon to do so.

Even worse: "Black Sunday" was simply the worst day of the protracted Dust Bowl era, an almost decadelong period of drought and killer dirt storms that beat down the settlers of the Texas Panhandle and western Oklahoma. The reward for those who stuck it out? A chance to keep scratching a meager living out of the ground.

Timothy Egan's "The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl" masterfully depicts the bitter life in the Great Plains in the 1930s. John Steinbeck in "Grapes of Wrath" painted a searing portrait of the Okies who fled the Plains. But far more people clung to their farms, hoping that the next season would be better.

At a time when advertising jingles coax us to "reward" and "indulge" ourselves, the gritty realities of life during the Dust Bowl era are jarring. Children died of "dust pneumonia." Families chewed through canned tumbleweed for dinner. The schools that managed to stay open were heated with cow chips and relied on whatever ragged books they had on hand for education.

Egan's underlying message, however, is even more disconcerting: namely, that the Dust Bowl era was brought on by reckless misuse of the land. Egan's point is fundamental. Weather (like much of life) has cyclical patterns, sometimes kind, sometimes vicious. If we ignore these fluctuations when we harness the land by laying out farms or constructing levees, nature will strike back.

Egan, who is a national correspondent on environmental issues for the New York Times, rolls out his story with linguistic flourishes that echo his belief that the land around us is as alive as any furry creature. For instance, a dugout, Egan writes, "is just that -- a home dug into the hide of the prairie." Egan's dust storms are alive, too, although in a gruesome way. The dust "could penetrate like a spirit, cascading down the walls or slithering along the ceiling until it found an opening."

The story is a classic tragedy, with all the elements of ambition, pride and retribution. Before the farmers (or the "nesters"), there were cowboys who managed herds of cattle; before the cattle, there were buffalo and the thick native grasses. "As long as the weave of grass was stitched to the land, the prairie would flourish in dry years and wet," Egan writes. "The short grass, buffalo and blue grama, had evolved as the perfect fit for the sandy loam of the arid zone."

But fields of wild grasses and roaming buffalo never made a developer rich, nor did it make the U.S. government believe that its hold on the territory was secure. Speculators trumped up the opportunities for wannabe farmers, offering free train rides from Kansas City to the Texas panhandle. "Get a farm in Texas while land is cheap -- where every man is a landlord!" proclaimed one developer.

Rain on the Plains in the late 1920s made farms flourish. Wheat shortages elsewhere in the world drove up prices. Farming in Texas looked like a sure bet. In 1926, a woman in Kansas proudly said she had made a profit of $75,000 on her 2,000 acres of "bony" soil -- more than the salary of President Calvin Coolidge.

The more that people make money, the more money they seem to want to make. Between 1924 and 1929, the acreage plowed in the Texas Panhandle rose by 300 percent (to 2.5 million acres). Then the rains stopped. Few farmers had lived in the area long enough to know the Great Plains' cycles of drought and wet. The droughts coincided with the Depression and plunging wheat prices. Farmers ripped up more land to compensate for falling prices. Then the winds kicked in, hurling the land into their faces.

Even as Egan blames farming for ravaging the land, his portraits of individual farmers and families are tenderly poignant. Hazel Shaw, a young mother, is brave and tragic, betrayed by the land she loves when her baby daughter and grandmother die within hours of each other of dust pneumonia. Bam White, cowboy turned ambivalent farmer, becomes a star-crossed icon for the farmers when the government puts him in a movie aimed at justifying the enormous federal government intervention in the region.

"The Worst Hard Time" is not a cool, academic assessment of the farming policies of the 1930s. It is not a complete history. Egan ends his story in July 1938 as President Franklin Roosevelt parades through the streets of Amarillo, Texas, blessed by an unexpected rainstorm. It's a tidy, cinematic ending, even if it leaves the fate of the Panhandle vague. (How much did the government's plan to plant trees help? How did farming patterns change? What happened the next time drought rolled around?)

But the most vivid stories should plant questions in our minds. Egan has admirably captured a part of our American experience that should not be forgotten.

Elizabeth Corcoran is a contributing editor at Forbes magazine.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/08/RVG73GF0801.DTL


--##--

Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, October 30, 2005

News: Gates Takes On Malaria

Forbes.com
30 October 2005

San Francisco--Bill Gates is going after bugs in a big way--but not the computer kind. Today, the billionaire co-founder of Microsoft and his wife, Melinda, announced that their philanthropic foundation is giving $258.3 million to researchers to help fight the parasites that cause malaria. It is the single biggest donation from a charitable organization to fight malaria ever given.

"Deaths from malaria have doubled over the last 20 years," Gates said during a teleconference call. "It's a tragedy that the world has done so little to stop this disease that kills 2,000 African children every day," Gates said.

Forty percent, or $107.6 million, of the new funding will go to support clinical trials of a prototype vaccine aimed at protecting children against severe malaria, which is under development at GlaxoSmithKline's GSK Biologicals unit, in Rixensart, Belgium. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has earmarked another $100 million for efforts to speed development of drug treatments for patients already suffering from malaria. And $50.7 million will go to develop insecticides and other techniques for controlling mosquitoes.

In the teleconference call with Gates, Glaxo's chief executive, Jean-Pierre Garnier, said he has no illusions that the company will make money by developing a malaria vaccine. "I do it because it's the right thing to do and because it's an exciting adventure for our scientists," Garnier says.

Even so, the malaria research could have some positive upside for Glaxo's commercial products, particularly for future versions of "pandemic" vaccines--drugs that could be used to protect people against new and virulent influenzas, such as the avian flu. Here's why: Key to the success of a malaria vaccine is a so-called "adjuvant," a formulation that primes the immune system to respond to a vaccine. Glaxo researchers are hopeful that the work they are doing on malaria adjuvants will pay off as they develop vaccines for future pandemic illnesses.

Taking on a challenge as scientifically and emotionally appealing as creating a malaria vaccine is also a great recruiting tool, Garnier says. "I have top-notch scientists coming to work for Glaxo who won't work for other big pharma companies," Garnier asserts, because they want to work on problems like malaria. Glaxo's competitors include companies such as Pfizer and Schering-Plough.

Having someone else foot the bill doesn't hurt, either. In recent years, large pharma companies have sharply curtailed many research programs that once explored pharmaceuticals for treating diseases that largely afflict impoverished people. For instance, only 13 out of 1,223 new medicines marketed by major drug companies between 1975 and 1997 could be used for tropical diseases, according to Doctors Without Borders.

Malaria research has been particularly squeezed. Although work on a malaria vaccine had gone on for years at SmithKline Beecham (which became GlaxoSmithKline following a merger in 2000), corporate managers considered scuttling the program as recently as 1999 to cut costs. The program survived largely because its leading researcher pledged to find outside grants to supplement his budget--a move then unheard of in the pharmaceutical industry.

In 1999, the Gates Foundation awarded its first grant supporting malaria research. Prior to the grants announced today, the Gates Foundation had, since 1999, already put more than $250 million toward malaria research efforts. That makes them big spenders. According to a study slated to be released on Monday by a nonprofit group, the Malaria Research and Development Alliance, total research and development spending on malaria totaled $323 million in 2004. More than half of that money was given by just two groups-- the U.S. National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Even so, trying to create a vaccine against a parasite is a daunting task. Vaccines aim to provide the body with lasting immunity against a disease and so are seen as the most cost-effective way to safeguard against illness. Yet science has yet to produce a commercial vaccine against any parasite, living organisms that can adapt and change with startling agility.

Last year, a team of researchers in Mozambique and at GlaxoSmithKline published the results of a clinical study of a prototype malaria vaccine, involving 2,000 children. They found the vaccine (administered with its specially designed adjuvant) cut the risk of malaria by 30% for children overall and reduced the risk of the most fatal versions of malaria by 58%.

Ripley Ballou, Glaxo Vice President of Clinical R&D Early Development, says that the new money will support the development of more widespread clinical trials, which will take place over the next two to three years. Glaxo expects to try the vaccine formulation in approximately 17,000 young children in at least six countries throughout Africa.

If the trials go smoothly, a malaria vaccine could be ready for widespread use by 2011, says Melinda Moree, director of the PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative, a nonprofit created in 1999 by the Gates Foundation to accelerate such research and development efforts.

Other multinational companies are also getting involved in fighting malaria. For instance, Exxon Mobil, which has 5,000 employees in 20 countries throughout Africa, kicked off its own antimalaria programs in 2001. Steven C. Phillips, who directs the program, says that although he supports research programs aimed at developing a vaccine, companies must also use existing medical therapies and countermeasures to save lives. "The global community shouldn't underestimate the complexity of developing a vaccine," Phillips says.

Garnier predicted that other pharmaceutical companies will follow Glaxo's lead in doing work on widespread diseases that afflict impoverished people. "Companies will come to this because you have people like Bill Gates around the table," Garner said. "Bill has reinvented philanthropy and made it a can-do enterprise."

http://www.forbes.com/sciencesandmedicine/2005/10/30/malaria-gates-philanthropy-cz_ec_1030malaria.html

--##--

Sphere: Related Content