The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer; September 19, 2006

. . . . . . . . . . . I'm Jim Lara. Today's news, the coup in Thailand, Senators Luger and Biden, new limbs, and Shalela on discrimination. All tonight on the news hour. . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . from viewers like you. Thank you. There was a military coup in Thailand today. The army ousted the civilian government without a shot being fired. Several top officials were arrested. The takeover in Bangkok followed months of growing political turmoil in the South Asian country. We have a report narrated by Neil Connery

of Independent Television News. On the streets of Bangkok tonight, the army are in charge. Tanks and armoured vehicles move into position around the government's headquarters. With the Thai Prime Minister out of the country in New York at the United Nations, what appears to have been a carefully timed coup is now underway. The first signs of this unfolding drama came on Thailand's main television station. Just a few hours ago their broadcast was stopped and the sound cut off. As that happened, the army owned TV channel began showing images of the royal family and songs associated in the past with military coups, an indication of what was about to unfold. Shortly afterwards, tanks were seen driving into the Thai capital, blocking roads around government house in Bangkok. From New York, the Prime Minister tax in Shenawak declared

a state of emergency, shortly after around 50 soldiers stormed government house, entering the Prime Minister's office, ordering police inside to lay down their weapons. Prime Minister Shenawak has become deeply unpopular in the country's growing political crisis. He's been under pressure to resign after April's general election was declared invalid. A former police officer turned billionaire telecoms tycoon. He also faces allegations of corruption. His family avoided paying tax when they and others netted more than 1 billion pounds from the sale of the country's biggest telecoms group back in April. A statement from the coup's organizers was read out on television. It said the Thai armed forces and national police chiefs have taken control and set up a commission to decide on political reforms. It appealed to the calm and that people to cooperate with them. Well, I have more on this story right after the news summary. Over night in Hungary, several thousand rioters

stormed the state television headquarters, injuring more than 150 people. They were protesting their Prime Minister's admission that he lied about Hungary's economy to gain reelection. Later, police re-took the television complex. Today, the Prime Minister refused to resign. He also vowed to crack down on any repeat of the violence. The UN General Assembly convened its 61st annual meeting today facing a litany of world problems. The agenda ranged from Iran and Darfur to Iraq and Afghanistan, outgoing Secretary General Annan painted a grim picture as he addressed the assembly for the final time. He said too many people are still exposed to violence. Even the necessary and legitimate struggle around the world against terrorism is used as the pretext to abridge or abrogate fundamental human rights, thereby seeding more moral ground to the terrorists and helping them find new recruits.

Later, President Bush addressed the assembly. He tried to assure Muslims the United States it's not making war on Islam, and he said Secretary of State Rice will lead a new effort to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Mr. Bush also announced Andrew Nazios will serve as special envoy on Darfur. In his speech today, the President also insisted again Iran abandon any ambitions for nuclear weapons. He warned there would be consequences for stalling, and Washington, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Richard Luger, said someone to go it alone with U.S. sanctions, he said that would be a mistake. I see the little chance that such unilateral sanctions have any effect on Iranian calculations. Such sanctions would, however, be a challenge to the very nations that we are trying to coalesce behind a more potent multilateral approach to Iran. We should not take steps that undermine our prospects for garnering international support

for multilateral sanctions, which offer better prospects. French President Shirak said today he opposes setting any deadline for U.N. sanctions, at least for now. We'll talk to Senator Luger along with Senator Biden about events at the U.N. and elsewhere later in the program tonight. The U.S. military will likely maintain troop levels in Iraq at 147,000 through next spring. That word came today from the top U.S. commander in the Middle East. Army General John Abbasade signed a rising violence and he did not rule out sending more troops. He said we'll do whatever we have to do to stabilize Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. military also announced that at least three more U.S. soldiers killed since Sunday. In Baghdad today, a car bomb exploded near a gasoline station and rockets and mortars hit three neighborhoods. 15 Iraqis were killed. The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial was removed today. The government announcement did not give a reason

and did not name a replacement. Shiite and Kurdish officials had complained the judge was too soft. Last week during a court session, he told Saddam you were not a dictator. There was talk of compromise in the U.S. Senate today on terrorist suspects. Key Senate Republicans have opposed the president's plan to give interrogators more leeway and legal safeguards. But today, Senator John Warner said they've had constructive talks on a revised proposal from the White House. Senate Majority Leader Frist talked of nailing down an agreement soon. The progress of being made, papers being passed back and forth, lots of meetings. The fact that we do have common goals, I believe, we can get this done this week. Again, we're not this week, but over the next week and a half before we leave. And that's my goal. Neither Frist nor Warner would say what's in the president's revised proposal. The Bush administration had no comment today on a Canadian man allegedly tortured in Syria. A Canadian commission found authorities in Canada

falsely accused the man of ties to al-Qaeda in 2002. The Syrian-born suspect was in U.S. custody and was secretly transferred to Syria for interrogation. The Canadian report found no evidence he had any terror ties. NASA today put off tomorrow's scheduled landing of space shuttle Atlantis. It was partly due today breed, seen from the shuttle as a dot inside this highlighted circle. The object may have come from the cargo bay. In Houston, program manager Wayne Hale said it could be harmless or it could be critical. He said the crew may have to inspect the shuttle again with its robot arm. We have not brushed this off. We're taking it very seriously. We're going to go out and make sure we know what's going on to the best of our ability and make sure that we are safe to land before we commit to that rather incredible journey through the Earth's atmosphere. If the problem is resolved, the shuttle could return as soon as Thursday.

The price of oil fell more than 3% today, and New York trading crude prices dropped more than $2 to finish well under $62 a barrel the lowest in six months. But on Wall Street, it wasn't enough to overcome fears about a slowdown in housing. And the Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 14 points to close below 11,541. The NASDAQ fell 13 points to close at 22-22. And that's it for the news summary tonight. Now, the power grab in Thailand, Senators Luger and Biden, artificial limbs, and women in science. That military coup in Thailand, Jeffrey Brown has our story. And to help us understand what's going on with this still-moving story, we're joined by Catherine Del Pinot, director of the Thai Studies Program at Georgetown University. She served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State during the First Clinton Administration.

And Richard Donor is Associate Professor of Political Science at Emory University. He's written extensively about Thailand and was last there this summer. Catherine Del Pinot, we're in the early stages. A lot of the information is very sketchy, but in a nutshell, what does it look like to you? What's happened? I think what we've seen so far is a military intervention to force a conclusion to a long-standing political situation, but not a return to military rule as Thailand saw in the 50s and 60s, for example. Long-standing instability. Tell us a little bit about that. What's been happening over the last year, really? Well, there has been instability, but also a certain amount of stability. It's not quite that easy. There has been a protracted political crisis based on an election and an attempt to unseat the prime minister, primarily by a popular uprising in the Bangkok classes. Elections have returned to Ms. Prime Minister, but it's clear that a significant part of Bangkok has not been with him. What happened today, I think, was an attempt to basically force the prime minister to come to a conclusion

that perhaps might have been a couple of months down the road with elections that were scheduled in November. What we won't see is a lot of negotiation that will go on behind the scenes in the next couple of days, so this is a very incomplete process. But, Madhir, how do you describe what's happened in Thailand today? I would agree with what Professor Delpino just said. I would add, however, that something about the roots of the frustration with regard to the Bangkok elite about Prime Minister Taksin. There's been tremendous concern in frustration over his concentration of power, with regard to enriching a small number, at least this is the allegation, a small number of businessmen and indeed cronies close to him. And this was kind of brought to a head by his sale of telecommunications assets, recently to a Singapore company, a sale that is alleged to have been done without him having to pay taxes, and that was a sale of many people's national assets. There are also some more immediate catalysts, I think.

One is the view that he has been meddling with military promotions. Another is perception that there's been a lot of tension between the Prime Minister and the King, and finally, I think there has been some concern on the part of the military that violence between pro and anti-Taksin forces was poised to break out, and that they had to intervene. Now, Catherine Del Pinot, the Prime Minister, has won several elections. He's quite popular in the rural areas I understand. Tell us a little bit about his background. He is a former policeman-turned-business man. His strength was in telecommunications, and in contrast to a lot of more traditional type politicians, he understood mass communications and used them in the campaigns. He did win the imagination of the rural area, which had been a purview of the time military politically for several decades, and he's seen something of a popular figure in the rural areas as something of a populist in the Bangkok classes,

but also add that the situation in southern Thailand contributes to this as well. General Santee, who has led this action today, is a Muslim, which is a minority group in Thailand, and there was a perception that the President administration was contributing to that problem as well, and that's part of the mix, too. Professor Donut, tell us a little bit more about the role that the military plays in Thailand. The military historically has been quite important from about the post-war period up to the late 80s. Thailand was essentially run by military-dominated governments. After that, civilian governments took over with a short exception of the early 90s, and after the early 90s, the military basically committed itself to pulling back and not being involved in politics at all, and I think it's taken a tremendous amount of frustration with Prime Minister Taksin, as well as perceptions of threats on the part of the military,

to its own integrity, plus one other issue, one other factor that may have encouraged the military to act, and that is the perception that the monarch is not satisfied, has not been satisfied with the role of Prime Minister Taksin. So the military's intervention here is an exception to the last 15 or 16 years of Thai democracy. Indeed, Thailand has been seen as a showcase of democratic development. Well, staying with you, so when we say that this is a military coup, what exactly does that mean? Is the military itself united, or is this a division within the military? It's unclear. There is certainly some division within the military. The Prime Minister has a lot of support from one of the classes, Class 10, within the military. On the other hand, this coup has been led by the head of the Armed Forces, General Santi. It's not clear how unified the military is at this point, and it's also not clear exactly what they're going to do.

Presumably, there has emerged something called a military reform council, which has – and the head of which has actually met with the king. And it's assumed that the military is going to ask the king to name a new temporary Prime Minister. We'll also call for revision of the 2000 Constitution, and eventually for new elections. So I presume that what they're going for is a return to civilian rule, but under a different constitution. What would you add to that about the military's role here? A lot of – I agree with all of that. A lot of that was in the works anyway. An election was scheduled for November. Constitutional reform was an important issue to close some of the loopholes in the 1997 Constitution, certainly. Something that is typical, though, it's interesting about the talks and administration. It's Thailand's first elected government that was one party, and historically they had been coalition governments. That made a lot of the political classes rather nervous as well. But I think the Professor Bonner is right that what will go forward probably

will be something that looks like a caretaker government until there can be an election. Ironically, talks and is himself a caretaker Prime Minister was since last April. Now, we've both mentioned the king and the monarchy here. The coup leaders are pledging allegiance to the king. Why is that important? What role does the king play? King plays an extremely important role, and really the shoe needs to drop in terms of discerning what his attitudes towards this are. It may be expressed explicitly, it may be expressed more subtly than that. But really, this process, whatever it is, can't be complete until there's an understanding on where the king is on this. What would you add to that, Professor Donor? What is it possible that the king would have known about this? Does he play any particular role in a relationship with the military? This is all very, very murky. All we can say at this point is that there have been some strong indications that the king, as I said before, has been dissatisfied with the talks and administration. And most explicitly that one of his closest advisers, a member of the

Pretty Council General Brehm and a former Prime Minister who was held in great esteem, has made a number of comments and indeed went publicly in military uniform and stated that the military should be faithful to the king, not to the government. And Professor Delpino, just in the last minute that we have, what are the U.S. interests here, either economically or strategically? Thailand is our oldest treaty ally in Asia. We have a strong security relationship. We have a strong economic relationship, but some things need to get back on track, such as negotiations for a free trade agreement that were suspended over this political crisis. Professor Donor, what would you add to the U.S. interests here? There are significant economic interests. All of the big U.S. auto firms have major activities. Thailand is a source of major computer production for many American firms. Thailand, as I said before, is also kind of a showcase democracy. This is a country that has evolved out of military rule.

And so there are concerns that if this could happen in Thailand, it could happen other places. And finally, as Professor Delpino mentioned, there are concerns about what is going on in the South. And as she mentioned, there are questions. What has happened in the South is that what began as a regional rebellion for more ethnic and national autonomy has turned much more into an Islamic type of resistance under the policies of Prime Minister Brem. And that certainly poses some problems for the global war in terror. All right, Richard Donor, Catherine Delpino, thank you both very much. Still ahead tonight, replacing limbs and women in science. They follow our coverage of President Bush at the United Nations and other U.S. foreign affairs events of the day.

We begin that with a report narrated by NewsHour correspondent Kwame Holman. Hey! How are you, sir? President Bush pressed his agenda for spreading democracy in the Middle East today with world leaders gathered in New York for the U.N. General Assembly. Beginning this morning, Mr. Bush met with French President Jacques Chirac, who said the two countries agreed on a timetable for negotiations with Iran on its nuclear programs. But later in the day, Chirac said he opposed setting a deadline for sanctions in his midday speech to the General Assembly. President Bush largely avoided confrontation and focused on building bridges in the Middle East. My country desires peace. Extremists in your midst spread propaganda claiming that the West is engaged in the war against Islam. This propaganda is false. And his purpose is to confuse you and justify acts of terror. We respect Islam.

But we will protect our people from those who pervert Islam to so death and destruction. Our goal is to help you build a more tolerant and hopeful society that honors people of all faiths and promotes the peace. America has made its choice. We will stand with the moderates and reformers. The President also spoke directly to the Iranian people. Their President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was not in the hall during Mr. Bush's speech and also skipped a luncheon for world leaders because wine was being served. The Iranian leader was scheduled to speak this evening. The United Nations has passed a clear resolution, requiring that the regime and Tehran meet its international obligations. Iran must abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions. Despite what the regime tells you, we have no objection to Iran's pursuit of a truly peaceful nuclear power program. We're working toward a diplomatic solution to this crisis.

And as we do, we look to the day when you can live in freedom. And American Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace. The President addressed the Syrian people as he chastised their government. Today, your rulers have allowed your country to become a cross-road for terrorism. In your midst, Hamas and Hezbollah are working to destabilize the region and your government is turning your country into a tool of Iran. This is increasing your country's isolation from the world. As he'd promised, Mr. Bush again pressed the government of Sudan to end the violence and killing in Darfur. The Security Council has approved a resolution that would transform the American Union force into a blue helmeted force that is larger and more robust to increase its strength and effectiveness. NATO nations should provide logistics and other support. The regime in cartoon is stopping the deployment of this force. If the Sudanese government does not approve this peacekeeping force quickly,

the United Nations must act. Your lives and the credibility of the United Nations is at stake. The President repeated his support for the efforts of Afghanistan and Iraq to create democratic governments. As Mr. Bush urged world leaders to stand with him in Iraq, members of a recently created advisory group in Washington spoke publicly for the first time about news reports they were preparing to offer Mr. Bush an exit strategy from Iraq that he was not getting from his own advisors. Our obligation is to present our report first to the President and the Congress and then to the public. Former Secretary of State James Baker and former 9-11 Commission Chairman Lee Hamilton had the Iraq study group and independent bipartisan commission of experts formed last March at the request of Congress. The group presented no recommendations today but said they will after the midterm elections. However, Hamilton said the Iraqi government must act with great urgency.

The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation, and delivering basic services. In New York this afternoon, President Bush met with the Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and reassured the U.S.'s support for Iraq. And now to the top two leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Chairman Richard Luger, Republican of Indiana, and the Ranking Democrat Joe Biden of Delaware, Senator Luger first just overall. What did you think of the message that President Bush delivered to his fellow world leaders today at the UN? We thought the message was very positive, constructive. He stressed diplomacy. He did not, however, hide our feelings about, for example, what is occurring in Syria or deficiencies for that matter in the handling of Sudan.

I thought there was a strong message and very clear to the point on American Foreign Policy. Strong, clear to the point, Senator Biden? I agree with the essence of that. I particularly liked his statement on Darfur. I'm told now he's going to import a point of special envoy, which we introduced into the law, and it's now law. It has been long and coming. And I think that his commitment to stay the diplomatic course with our allies within the Supreme, not our allies within the permanent five within the Security Council and the European, China, and Russia with regard to Iran. I think that was positive. Well, let's go through some of the specifics. Senator Luger on Darfur, he did announce Andrew Natsuos is going to be the special U.S. envoy, and he also said in his speech that if the U.N. doesn't act in such a way to, in other words, if Sudan doesn't agree to let U.N.

peacekeepers in there, the U.N. should do it anyhow. Do you support that kind of action unilaterally? Well, it's not unilateral with the United States. Well, it's right. It's involved. You're right. And I think that's an important point. He's suggesting Luham once the force is now, as opposed to the African Union force, has been perhaps too small and not as well equipped as possible. He's asking for NATO to offer logistics support. So this is a way in which the United States and European powers can be helpful to the United Nations forces. It was not clear, however, and never can be exactly what happens if the government of Sudan continues to object to anybody coming to the rescue of people in that country who are suffering. And we've heard, again and again, genocide. So he's suggesting, I suppose, stronger activity on the part of the Security Council of the General Assembly of the U.N. and the event that the government does not a siege to the peacekeepers.

Senator Biden, what's your view of that? If Sudan doesn't agree, what can the U.N. do? I think the U.N. can, in fact, insist that Luham and the forces move in. I think there is a circumstance which the world is beginning to recognize when a country engages a government within the boundaries of its country engages in genocide, permits it or participates in an essentially forfeits its sovereignty. And if the Security Council were to, I would urge the Security Council and I would urge the president to follow through on his urging to get the Security Council to insist that those forces go whether or not the Sudanese government approves of that. Senator Biden, another subject. To Iran, what did you think what the president said to Iran and about Iran and his speech? Well, the thing that I liked what the president did and I wish, quite frankly, we would do it more, he spoke directly to the Iranian people. The irony is we, Senator Lugar conducted a hearing today on Iran, where we had leading experts representing various points of view, where everyone acknowledged that.

One of the things that may be not a secret weapon, but something we have not utilized is the inherent distaste of the Iranian people for their present government and the empathy it has toward the average Iranian, I don't want to exaggerate it, toward America. And that's always perplexed me why we are unwilling to speak directly with the Iranians and with the Iranian government. So at least our side of the argument gets into the Iranian people who are more likely to once knowing our position be more empathetic to it and possibly not revolt or anything but put pressure upon their own government. And I think the president essentially talking over the heads of the Iranian leadership to the Iranian people was a very positive thing. Now, Senator Lugar, you made it very clear today. We reported it in the news summary that you did not support. You hear I am right about unilateral sanctions if the United States decides to do that. You're opposed to that. Why? Well, I think we've come to an understanding that the United States is effectiveness with regard to Iran has to be multilateral, that from the very beginning the European powers

and the three in particular that stood up in negotiations there were absolutely essential and may be, in fact, in this next phase. President was clear today that Iran has to give up its nuclear enrichment program. But the Iranians that keep saying, well, we're not prepared to do that. It could where it will be that Europeans will negotiate with Iran while the Iranians come to that conclusion before we come back into that again. In essence, we have got to have a team effort. Even if we get into the sanctions, the Security Council may vote. That really requires all the nations of the world who are involved to participate if those sanctions are to be effective. Our unilateral sanctions, we've had on a ran for a long time if not many effective. And I would just carry further a point that Senator Biden made from our hearing that we discussed today the value of having student exchanges, exchanges of business people, governmental officials, artists, tourists.

Now, we also heard from experts that sometimes the Iranians do not give visas to Americans who want to come, who want to be involved in this colloquy. But I like the idea of the President talking to the people. I like the thought that a lot of us might be talking to people in Iran and vice versa because I think there is a large youth movement there, plus a very large number of people in the countryside who are doing very poorly economically and some other conversations ought to take place. Senator Biden, on to Iraq. Thank you to the President's speech this afternoon, in which you question the President's mentioning Iraq and Afghanistan as examples of democracy rising in the Middle East while huge violence is going on. Explain what you mean. Well, the tendency has been of this administration to take a very good idea, democratization and democracy, and think it can be imposed by force or think it can become about as a consequence of a single event,

not having built democratic institutions. What do the effect has been in the so-called democratization that's taken place in other parts of the Middle East is that we have taken militarized groups and legitimized them. The democratization of Iraq has resulted in essentially a sectarian vote where you had, on that vote that took place, 92 percent of the people have voted voted for a sectarian party. That a democracy does not make an election. It's necessary for democracy, but it doesn't make a democracy. And it takes a lot of hard slogging. One of the things we, again, talked about today is the need for us in the future to build institutions so that we went, in fact, something like Iraq would occur where we were able to bring into that country the whole array of tools and people that can help build democratic institutions, a free press, a political party, NGOs, et cetera. And I think they talk about democracy in the Middle East

as a selling democracy in the Middle East by pointing to the events in Afghanistan and in Iraq, although maybe literally accurate, I think undermines the notion of democracy because the rest of the Middle East works at those two countries and sees them in chaos, and it doesn't make it very attractive. Senator Leger, first of all, do you agree with Senator Biden? Yes, I think the dilemma he's pointed out is all too real. I saw a testimony the other day by President Karzai in Afghanistan, but he wishes that he could act as a democracy advocate more often, but as a matter of fact, out in many parts of Afghanistan, he needs the so-called warlords or others to maintain peace and security. And he recognizes the compromises that are involved, but until there are jobs for people, until there's some development beyond 50% of the GNP coming from poppy growth and heroin and so forth, he's got very real problems in terms of any conventional democracy,

and we really have to help. I mean the NATO nations that are out there, the rest of the world community around in the development monies for both Afghanistan and Iraq, if those public officials don't have any credibility. Senator Leger, on Iraq specifically, we ran a moment ago what Lee Hamilton said, that he felt that Iraq has about three months to get it together, and it's been suggested yesterday by Kofi Ann and that if things continue the way they are in Iraq, there's going to be an all-out civil war. What's your analysis of where things stand? Well, I've coincidentally, Senator Biden, and I've testified this afternoon before this commission headed by Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton, maybe just before he gave the statement. I mean, it's not quoting us, I think, but his own judgment about this. In my own view is that I don't know whether two months or three months is enough, but at the same time, we have to continually advise our friends in Iraq to get on with this question of the division of the oil money

or the dedication to the various groups, as well as how a federation can work. May not be an absolute division of the country into three parts, but at least some ways in which the Kurds who already have radio law autonomy are joined by a lot of sea ice that want the same thing and soonies that are worried that they're going to be left out of the picture, and that takes heavy lifting. Politically, a lot of objections even to bring it up before they're Congress, but we have to keep insisting that they do. It has to be on the agenda. Time running out in Iraq, Senator Biden? Absolutely it is, but it's still salvageable. We have an opportunity to, by the end of next year, have our troops leave and leave behind a stable government, but it requires a political solution. And I know Dick and I are sounded like we're singing out of the same hymnal here, but because we are, and I think a vast majority of the people in the center and right and left are as well, and that is that unless you give the soonies a piece of the revenue, the only revenue available in that country,

oh revenue, which is in the north and the south, they aren't going to buy into a united Iraq, and the present constitution that the Iraqis have voted for allows anyone of any three or more of these governates. There's 18 sort of states within Iraq to be able to get together in sort of former region, but the solution is at hand, and that is you've got to get soonie by in, and you've got to give some limited autonomy to these groups in their own states. There's the Delaware State Police and the New Jersey State Police. Their constitution calls for the ability of each of these region to have their own police forces. That'll keep them from being in each other's backyard, and I think hold Iraq together if that kind of solution is put together with the central government controlling the borders and the distribution of the revenues. Are you optimistic, Senator Biden, that anything like that's going to happen? It's an occupational requirement. I have been disappointed that the president hasn't seen fit to push very hard for this political solution.

People say the Iraqis aren't ready for it. Well, the Iraqis weren't ready for our ambassador to amend their constitution, either just before they voted and assisted. We did it. Where are you on the optimism scale, Senator Luger? Oh, I agree. You have to be optimistic, and I think the Iraqis really want the succeed here. We just have to be very helpful. Once again in the development area, as well as in the political advice. Gentlemen, thank you both very much. Thank you. Now, new developments in artificial limbs, news our correspondent Jeffrey Kay of KCET Los Angeles tells the story. On a clear, crisp fall morning in La Jolla, California, athletes gathered to compete in a triathlon. As participants prepared for the race, it looked like an ordinary sporting event, except that many of these competitors

weren't made just a flesh and bone. Sponsored by the challenged athletes' foundation, this annual competition is geared towards the physically disabled, many of them amputees. As the race began, the athletes faced a daunting course, starting with a 1.2-mile-long swim in a Pacific Ocean. Once back on dry land, they competed in a 56-mile-long cycling leg, followed by a 13-mile run. This triathlon not only demonstrated the strength and stamina of disabled athletes, it also showcased recent advances in prosthetic technology, developments that are benefiting the disabled around the world, including some of America's nearly 2 million amputees. I've been an amputee for over 20 years, so I had seen such a tremendous change in the technology, and truly, the breakthroughs that I've experienced

have helped me to live a fuller life. Sarah Rynettson is something of a superstar in the amputee community, born with a deformed leg that was amputated when she was seven years old. She's crashed through barrier after barrier as a disabled athlete, from being the youngest member of the U.S. Para Olympic team to becoming the first woman to finish the Iron Man triathlon world championship on an artificial leg. During her athletic career, Rynettson says new prosthetic devices, such as her specially designed racing foot, have been essential to her success. The design is based on the hind leg of a cheetah, which is the fastest land animal. When I come down on that foot, it compresses, and then when I release, come off that toe, it's actually giving me a bit of a bounce, a bit of a push, which helped propel me to the next step, thus making me faster. Advances in prosthetics include the development of new, tough but light weight materials, better shapes and designs,

and most recently, the increased use of computers embedded within artificial limbs. They allow prosthesis to more closely mimic the movements and agility of real limbs. We've made the technology smarter. Not only is it's mimicking natural function, it's actually thinking smarter, thinking faster, outthinking just the typical mechanical knee systems or regular foot systems. Here we go, crane. Petahar, seen here at a mobility clinic for amputees, is a prosthetist with o-ser, an Icelandic-based manufacturer of artificial limbs. Among the companies' wares is a computerized prosthetic knee. It does thousands of calculations a second to keep the wearer quite literally on his or her feet. It knows when the patient is on its toe, and they know when it's on their heel, and it knows when it's in space or in a swing mode. What you have is you have a very smart software package that's constantly downloading data. Some of the advances in prosthetic technology have come as they long have,

as a result of war. According to the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, some 300 American soldiers wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan have lost limbs. One of them is Army Captain David Resell, who participated in the La Hoya Triathlon. He was wounded in Iraq in 2003. I ran over an anti-tank mine that the terrorists had laid in my route, which blew up underneath the Humvee, destroyed the right front end of my Humvee, and unfortunately, my right foot. Two years after his foot, an ankle were blown off. Resell became the first amputee to return to combat in Iraq. He's also competed in numerous athletic competitions. Resell says military amputees, like disabled athletes, are changing expectations about what amputees can do. Because of their youth and fitness,

they're also demanding more from their artificial limbs, and from the people who make them. What is wrong? What is wrong? Our amputees say within the year, I want to run a marathon. It's those soldiers that are driving the research, driving the science, to make things now, to give these American heroes the ability to be able. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, the government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars on prosthetic research and development. Researchers forecast a day where amputees will be outfitted with bio-hybrid prosthesis that they will control just by thinking. Maurice Mulligan is a prosthetist with the Veterans Administration. There's research going on now as they link into the nervous system, so there will be no learning curve. In other words, guy loses an arm. You put the arm on. The same brain pathways that activated it before will activate his artificial hand. Get that foot up, get that foot up.

The last steps forward in prosthetic technology have been accompanied by growing cost concerns. A state of the art artificial leg, for instance, can come with a more than $30,000 price tag. Military amputees have the expense of their prosthetics covered by the government. But many in the civilian world don't have that advantage. Very good, very good. Laura Brummerd lost her leg 14 years ago in an automobile accident. It's awesome. She's eager to get a new prosthetic leg with a computerized need, but her insurer has twice denied her request for coverage. They're saying that it's an experimental name that it's not a necessity. You know, I'm 33 years old. I have a four-year-old son I need to keep up with. I'm pretty active. I'm in the gym, you know, three to five times a week. I think it would be a perfect fit for me if I could get that knee. Parents with amputee children face another challenge. As the youngsters grow, their artificial limbs

must be frequently replaced. When I was a kid, my health insurance company said, the policy originally stated, we will give you one artificial leg for your lifetime. I was seven years old when I had my amputation. How am I going to use the same leg for my entire life from the age seven on? Away from athletic competitions, Sarah Rynerson has become an advocate for expanding insurance coverage to amputees. They're capping now $1,100 for the lifetime of an amputee. So they're not saying, look, we'll only give you one leg. We'll only give you one path for $1,100 for your lifetime. $1,100 isn't going to even get you the whole full leg. You know, my full prosthetic knee foot socket, the socket is so expensive because it's the custom part. You're looking about $30,000 to $36,000 up to $40,000 for an above knee amputee. So $1,100 isn't even going to get you a toe. Arms up. There you go. To increase access to new, artificial limbs,

the amputee coalition of America is lobbying state governments to draft legislation requiring insurance companies to cover prosthetics. Such bills have passed in Colorado, New Hampshire, Maine, and Rhode Island. But the insurance industry argues much laws amount to health care mandates. It also contends that paying for expensive artificial limbs for relatively few people boost health care costs for the wider population of the insured. Over and over. At the triathlon, the joys of competition replaced concerns about costs and coverage. Participants here said, as technology improves, the divide between the able and the disabled will inevitably narrow. I'd say to the able athletes out there that are worried about us having some mechanical advantage. Well, sure, watch out. We're coming after you. Push down into it. Some experts in artificial limbs foresee the day when amputee athletes

will be able to beat their fully-abled competitors. Go. Awesome. This is her first time running, you guys. That's awesome. Feeling good? And finally tonight, new findings about the problems for women in the world of science. When Eiffel has more. In university settings, it has long but assumed that the best and the brightest hold the most prestigious positions. But when it comes to the sciences, women have been missing from that formula. As a debate raged at Harvard and elsewhere, about innate abilities, and the world of science. In university settings, it has long but assumed that the best and the brightest told the most prestigious positions. But in elsewhere, about innate ability, discrimination, and mommy tracks, the National Academy of Sciences set out to discover the real reason for the roadblock. University of Miami President Donna Shalela, chair of the panel, looking into the issue and joins us now with its conclusions. President Shalela, welcome. Thank you. So you're saying, and you report that there are women in the pipeline,

but they're just not at the top. They're just not being hired by America's best universities. And that's the interesting thing about what we found. We were surprised. The gap between boys and girls in high school, in math, has closed half of the students in our undergraduate institutions who are in science, are women. So women are getting the degrees. And then a smaller number, of course, they're going on to get PhDs. But when they do get a PhD, they're not being hired in commensurate numbers for faculty positions. And so in engineering and in science, there still is a dearth of women in those professions. Has nothing to do with ability, the quality of their degrees, their ability to do science, all those issues we looked at in an exhaustive study of the science. So what does it have to do with? It has to do with the climate of the departments, with the fact that we tend in the academic world to reproduce ourselves. We look at a young woman and say, does that look like a scientist,

particularly in all male department? And, of course, the most productive years and the years in which you're trying to get tenure, that seven-year track, are also the childbearing years. So we've got a rigid system in higher education. It needs to be more flexible. I think for men and for women. But it's a combination of the climate, the inability to recognize when we are, in fact, discriminating. Much of this is inadvertent. And we found patterns of discrimination that reflect both women's attitudes as well as men's attitudes. We need to do better because we cannot be competitive as a nation. You can't leave out half your talent and be competitive in science around the world. You are now president of a university. You're a chancellor of another major university. You were secretary of health and human services. You have a PhD yet. You say in this report that you were told on more than one occasion that you were a bad investment. That's exactly right. But that was 30 years ago. And very few women were coming through PhD programs.

When I was a graduate student in political science and economics at Syracuse, there were no tenured women on the faculty. That simply isn't true now. And that's the point. The pools are there. The desire by young women to go into science is clearly there. The National Academy appointed women to the panel who were distinguished world-class scientists and engineers. But they're not being hired by the university. We have to look at ourselves. And in fact, we have to make an extraordinary effort to make sure that we don't leave out talent. And I expect over the next five to ten years to this report to have a major impact on the culture of higher education, who we hire, how we support them. Now about this time of year last year, maybe a little longer ago, President Larry, then President Larry Summers at Harvard kind of brought this debate for better or worse into the public discussion area by saying that they were, or suggesting that women lack the innate ability

to excel at science. Does this put that argument to an end? Yeah, that knocks it out of the park. Larry raised a very good friend of mine, our colleague of mine in the Clinton administration. He raised a number of issues. We reviewed the science, the biology, the cognitive science, the brain studies. There's just no evidence that women can't do great science and can't be great computer scientists and engineers. And we reviewed all of that science. This report has a whole chapter. And you'll never need to ask that question again. It's very clear that the ability is there, the desire is there, what we need to do in universities is to make sure we give people opportunity. So when women do succeed in these fields, how does it happen? Well, sometimes it's in despite of the situation. And every woman on our panel had a story. A very great scientist, Maria Zuber at MIT, who's a professor of geophysics, told the story

about the fact that she used her initials as opposed to her first name, Maria, when she submitted articles to journals. Journals that have decided to take people's names off the articles when they send them out for review, have found that more women get through that review process. And so there are a number of things that we need to do with our journals, with our professional organizations, with the funding agencies, to make sure we are not organizing ourselves for this kind of bias. OK, give me a couple of examples of the sorts of things that all of these different, not just the academic institutions, but everyone at large, the government even, should be doing. Well, for example, the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, most recently has called in all the chemistry chairs in the country, of the major research universities, put them through training, let them hear from young women who are in chemistry departments, the kind of problems that they were having. The NIH and the National Science Foundation,

the other government funding agencies, could make their grants so that people could use a little of the money to pay for child care. The fact is, if you're a young woman and you're married and you have children, you might need some child care help to be able during that period of time which you're trying to get tenure to do great science. That could be as true for young men, because often it's couples that we're trying to support. So we need to introduce flexibility, both in the time frames in which people have to do their research and to get their tenure, but also the kind of support systems. We also have to make sure that we support their science. There's clear evidence that women don't get the same levels of support in terms of equipment, in terms of access to grants, in terms of honors and awards. And on campuses themselves, that is where this problem has to be undertaken first. Absolutely. It's the leaders of America's research universities and our department chairs and our faculties in particular.

That have to understand and read this report carefully, understand what's going on. If they want to be excellent, if they want to be competitive, that they don't want to leave out any talent. This report is about excellence. It's about this nation continuing to be competitive for the very best science in the world and the very best scientists. Donna Shalala, President of the University of Miami, thank you very much. You're welcome. And again, the major developments of this day, a military coup in Thailand ousted the civilian government without a shot being fired. At the United Nations, President Bush tried to assure Muslims the U.S. is not making war on Islam. And Army General John Abazay, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, said he expects to keep at least 147,000 troops in Iraq through next spring. We'll see you online and again here tomorrow evening with a newsmaker interview with General Abazay

among other things. I'm Jim Lara. I thank you and good night. What's Susie and I retire? We'll be taking trips like this whenever we want. It's a good thing we've been planning. A Pacific life, giving you the right tools to help you meet your financial goals is what we're all about as you look to the future, look to Pacific life. Pacific life, the power to help you succeed. And by BP, the Archer Daniels Midland Company, CIT, the Atlantic Philanthropies, and with the continuing support of these institutions and foundations and this program was made possible by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and by contributions

to your PBS station from viewers like you. Thank you. To purchase video cassettes of the news hour with Jim Lara, call 1-866-678-News.

We are PBS. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.

I'm Jim Lara. On the news hour tonight, the news of this Tuesday, then analysis of the military coup in Thailand, reaction to President Bush's address to the United Nations and other issues from Senators Richard Luger and Joe Biden. A news hour report on high-tech limbs for amputees and new findings about gender bias in the world of science from Donna Shalala, President of the University of Miami. Major funding for the news hour with Jim Lara is provided by. At CIT, we provide the financing to keep health care strong and healthy. We help energy companies find new resources. We work with communications companies to make the world smaller and life bigger.

We offer financial aid to make college possible for more students. At CIT, we help finance the future because that's the place to be. See it with CIT. The world's demand for energy will never stop, which is why a farmer is growing corn, and a farmer is growing soy, and why ADN is turning these crops into biofuels.