ABOUT COSMIC LOG

Quantum fluctuations in space, science, exploration and other cosmic fields... served up regularly by MSNBC.com science editor Alan Boyle since 2002.

Alan Boyle covers the physical sciences, anthropology, technological innovation and space science and exploration for MSNBC.com. He is a winner of the AAAS Science Journalism Award, the NASW Science-in-Society Award and other honors; a contributor to "A Field Guide for Science Writers"; and a member of the board of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing.

Check out Boyle's biography or send a message to Cosmic Log via cosmiclog@msnbc.com.



Science in the Obama era

Posted: Thursday, November 06, 2008 7:50 PM by Alan Boyle


Jae C. Hong / AP file
Barack Obama wears safety glasses as he tours the Chrysler Stamping
Plant in Sterling Heights, Mich., during the presidential primary campaign.

The economy and foreign policy may be higher on President-elect Barack Obama's to-do list, but science and technology issues are on the radar screen as well. Among the top tasks: taking the ideology out of scientific issues, and doing more about what Obama has called a "planet in peril."

The Illinois senator included the "planet in peril" reference in his post-election speech on the challenges that will be "the greatest of our lifetime." That implies that global climate change ranks right up there with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Climate change and energy
As I wrote last month, Obama's plan for dealing with the climate challenge includes a cap-and-trade system to provide financial incentives for cutting carbon emissions. The long-range goal would be to get an 80 percent reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. By that time, Obama would be 89 years old and well into senior-statesman mode, if he's still around. The trick will be to make a credible start toward that target during his administration, in the midst of massive economic problems.

Energy policy is joined at the hip with climate concerns: Obama has proposed spending $150 billion over the next 10 years to develop alternative energy sources, including solar, wind and biofuels. Nuclear power and expanded offshore oil drilling are also factors in Obama's energy equation - but not as much as they would have been if John McCain had won instead.

Stem cells
On the biomedical front, change is most likely to come first in embryonic stem-cell research. Obama has made clear that he would open the door wider for federal support of embryonic studies - and his victory came as music to the ears of stem cell researchers like Clayton Smith, who moved from the United States to Canada five years ago.

The Vancouver Sun quoted Smith as telling attendees at a stem cell conference that he was "literally in tears" over Obama's election, "and I may even choke up even talking about it."

"Watching the election last night was a singular event, like watching the Berlin Wall fall," said Smith, who now heads a lab at the B.C. Cancer Agency's Terry Fox Laboratory.

No more war on science
The most immediate policy change will be to put far more emphasis on scientific integrity in the White House, and far less emphasis on political ideology. Chris Mooney, author of "The Republican War on Science," declared that the war has ended, and science has won.

Newsweek's Sharon Begley also hailed the end of the Bush administration's "poisonous science policies" - which reached their low point two years ago when NASA felt the heat not only over climate claims but over big-bang theory as well.

A month ago, Obama sent a letter to the leaders of the National Academies vowing that he would take scientific integrity seriously, even if the verdict runs counter to his own views. He said he'd issue an executive order "establishing clear guidelines for the review and release of publicly sponsored research, guaranteeing that results are released in a timely manner and are not distorted by ideological biases."

"In addition, I will also strengthen protections for 'whistleblowers' who report on any government attempts to distort or ignore scientific research," he wrote. "And I will establish clear guidelines for selecting and vetting members of science and technology advisory committees for the White House and government agencies on the basis of merit."

Getting good advice
Obama has also vowed to raise the status of the White House science adviser by making him or her a cabinet-level assistant to the president as well as head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The last science adviser to have that status was Neal Lane, who served as science adviser in the final years of the Clinton administration. (President Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, is director of the OSTP but not an assistant to the president.)

Lane told me today that the sooner a new science adviser is named, the better.

"The early appointment of an adviser on science and technology is an extremely important thing to do," he said, "because science and technology tie in so much to other issues, and many of the other presidential appointments will benefit from having the advice of the science adviser."

Based on the kinds of responses I'm getting to my phone calls, it sounds as if some of the Obama campaign's science advisers are already in transition mode. No one is talking. However, Nobel-winning cancer researcher Harold Varmus would have to be on the list of prospects for the top science job, by virtue of the fact that he's heading the campaign's scientific advisory group.

Other campaign advisers with previous experience in the White House and in the scientific community include:

  • Henry Kelly, who was an assistant director for technology in the Clinton administration and is now president of the Federation of American Scientists.
  • Gilbert Omenn, a physician and professor at the University of Michigan and former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Omenn served in the OSTP under President Carter.
  • Tom Kalil, special assistant to the chancellor for science and technology at the University of California at Berkeley. Kalil was President Clinton's deputy assistant for technology and economic policy, and served as Hillary Clinton's stand-in at a surrogate science debate during the primary campaign.

Tech talk
Obama also intends to appoint a chief technology officer for the White House, and the rumor mill has produced some high-profile names to chew on, including Google CEO Eric Schmidt, Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, Google executive Vinton ("Father of the Internet") Cerf, Princeton Professor Ed Felten and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. (MSNBC is a Microsoft - NBC Universal joint venture).

It's worth noting that Schmidt is among the economic advisers due to attend a news conference with Obama on Friday, according to The Wall Street Journal's Washington Wire. Wired.com highlights another tech-industry veteran on Obama's transition team: Julius Genachowski, co-founder of Rock Creek Ventures. Meanwhile, venture-capital whiz John Doerr has nominated Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy to be chief technology officer.

The Obama administration's leading tech issue will be to expand broadband Internet access to underserved communities, in part by providing tax incentives and reforming the Universal Service Fund that promotes telephone access. In a Q&A with CNET News, Obama argued that full broadband penetration "can enrich democratic discourse, enhance competition, provide economic growth and bring significant consumer benefits."

"Moreover, improving our infrastructure will foster competitive markets for Internet access and services that ride on that infrastructure," Obama said. "Market forces will drive the deployment of broadband in many parts of the country, but not all."

Obama also has voiced strong support for network neutrality - the idea that broadband carriers shouldn't engage in discriminatory practices with respect to content providers. Net neutrality legislation is currently stuck in congressional limbo, despite some unorthodox efforts to attract attention to the issue.

More science spending
Obama has vowed to put research spending in the physical and life sciences, math and engineering on track for a doubling in 10 years' time.

"We will increase research grants for early-career researchres to keep young scientists entering these fields," Obama said in his response to ScienceDebate 2008's questionnaire. "We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs."

Is this an area where Obama will have to pull back due to the financial crisis? Lane hopes not. He expects Obama and his aides to argue that investment in research will help create the wave of innovation necessary to put America back on top.

"If we're going to get any money for research, that argument is going to have to be made," Lane told me.

Rebuilding America's infrastructure may well be a key element in the Obama administration's economic recovery plan, and that could bring welcome news for scientists and engineers.

"Investments in infrastructure seem like a very good idea, and that could mean physical infrastructure. But it could also mean human infrastructure, scientific and technological infrastructure," Lane said. "You'd like someone in the White House who's thinking through all this, and a science adviser could be very helpful if he or she were on tap - even between now and Inauguration Day."

... And finally, the final frontier
I talked about NASA and space policy earlier this week, but there are a couple of new developments to ponder. First of all, the Government Accountability Office has just issued a list of 13 urgent issues for the new president and Congress to tackle, and retiring the space shuttle fleet is on the list.

Then there's today's report from National Review Online that Rep. James Oberstar, D-Minn., could be a prospect for transportation secretary in the Obama administration. It's unlikely that the conservative National Review is all that plugged into what the Democrats are up to. Nevertheless, the idea that Oberstar might play a role in commercial space transportation has sparked concern on the part of New Space proponents such as Transterrestrial Musings' Rand Simberg and Clark Lindsey over at RLV and Space Transport News.

After all, it was Oberstar who raised objections to legislation opening the way for suborbital spaceflight experiments, claiming that giving private ventures too much freedom would lead to a "tombstone mentality." Commercial spaceflight will be entering a crucial period during the Obama administration, with the first passenger flights expected in the 2010-2012 time frame. What's more, regulations for the infant industry could conceivably be rewritten in four years' time, as we discussed last month

Charles Lurio, writer/publisher of The Lurio Report, told me that putting Oberstar in charge of the Transportation Department "could raise a big question mark for the future existence of the entire private/commercial spaceflight industry."

It's not clear how much truth there is to the rumor, but for many in the New Space field, appointing Oberstar to that particular post would be a change they don't need. Lurio is hoping New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson will keep Obama up to date on the New Space point of view, as he promised to do.

Update for 8:44 p.m. ET: I e-mailed an inquiry to Obama's team, asking for "any information you can provide about how the transition team intends to move forward on science and technology issues (or advisers)." Spokesman Dan Pfeiffer sent a quick note back: "We will have more to say on this at some point soon."

For more about the road ahead for science and technology policy, check out this speculation about appointing a "climate czar" and this discussion of the science adviser's role. Policy analyst David Goldston presents his perspective on the road ahead in the journal Nature. You can learn more about Obama's agenda at Change.gov, the Web site for the "Office of the President-Elect." And for the definitive word on sci-tech issues, click on over to the Scientists & Engineers for America Action Fund as well as ScienceDebate 2008.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

No Child Left Behind means the Boy Scout squad moves forward as fast as the slowest Boy Scout. No Child Left Behind has to be scrapped. Let the brightest student encourage everybody forward, instead of the dullest student weighing everybody down.
To John Adams Weaver:

First, rocket fuel is cheap. That's not even close to where the money goes. Aviation technologies are mature and efficient enough that fuel costs are the driving factor in their operations. Would that everything else about space flight was at the point that it was only 'fuel costs' that could make or break you...

Second: How do you know that all those things you list aren't already being researched? How do you know if they do or don't get more than the total NASA budget already? Do you even know how much that is? Before you want to take that six-tenths of one percent of the total federal budget away (that's what it is), find out how much is already being spent on your pet programs, and ask yourself if it would *really* go much farther or faster on that?

Stealing from the NASA budget does not mean you'll get the kind of high-profile results NASA gets. 'High-profile' (translation: It *looks* terribly big and expensive.) is in the nature of what the agency does. Not necessarily what it spends.

The day we cure cancer or AIDS, end poverty and hunger (if they could come in a one-day climax like a Moon landing, which they won't) will be reached in a will be reached quietly, with no 'one small step' fanfare, and you'll hardly know it. But nevertheless, far more than the NASA budget will have been spent to make them happen.

Until that mythical day, it's still appropriate and worthy of our time and effort to carry out certain kinds of aeronautical and space basic and applied research and engineering, and turn the results over to the public that paid for them. That's essentially what NASA does.

The other things? Find out what the government agencies that would be responsible for them *are* already doing, and how much they're spending (efficiently?). You might be surprised.
Major energies need to be dedicated to the pursuit of clean renewable energy.  The holy grail of energy is harnessed at the atomic level.  Massive funding should be directed at solving the "fusion" quest.  

Moreover, massive funding should be directed at global health programs  that are dedicated to improving the healthcare workforce through building capacity in low income countries.  We need to capitalize on the intense enthusiasm coming from US resident physicians to serve clinical, research, and educational roles in low income countries.
The statement of christians being anti science is just as valid in some ways as it is hogwash in others.  Yes, Isaac Newton was a Christian and a cientist, however, I believe the gentleman who proffered the original idea of christians being anti science was referring to people like the Kansas board of education and the Bush administration's policy of making the scientists on their payroll change and omit their writings on global warming to reflect the administration's policies.  While there may be many christians who support and love science, there are just as many throughout history that find the concept abhorrent.  One has only to look at the comparitively recent past, from the Scopes monkey trial on forward to see this is the case.  For those of you christians out there who are pro science, you cannot overlook the problems with your own arguments...oh wait, I suppose you can.  Just use that old standby that since the so called christians that hate science were probably not of your denomination so they aren't real christians anyways.
<i>The most immediate policy change will be to put far more emphasis on scientific integrity in the White House, and far less emphasis on political ideology.</i>

Ha. No. We'll just get a different ideology trumping science.  Global warming skeptics will be blackballed regardless of how well-founded their arguments are, and any science that goes against Democrat policies will get the ax.
I mean, let's be realistic.  For all the talk of Bush repression, Hansen is still at NASA -- and doing horribly unscientific things to the GISS data, such that the GISS trendline no longer matches the UAH temperature tracking.

The Dark Night of Bush Science is largely mythical, and is itself the product of politics.

Saying that limiting embryonic stem cell research was a "political" decision is akin to saying the Mengele experiments were done purely on their scientific merits.  There is a real ethical question about whether unborn children should be considered property, to be experimented with and then disposed, or treated as human beings.
"Everyone knows Christians don't believe in science."

I truly pity the ignorant person who believes that statement is factual.  A list of Christians involved in science (past and present) would include not only Sir Isaac Newton but also Dr. Frances Collins, head of the Human Genome Project.

Please, in the future, keep your ignorance to yourself.
First of all, I am a christian and I love science as well as the arts etc. Obama is not a GOD and never will be, he is a man simple as that and so was Bush and the presidents before him.. When you make arrogant, and ignorant statements like for Christians to go away it makes you just as stupid as the people you are condeming. I am not a radical republican or chrisitian, I am a human being with ideas, hopes, dreams and an opinion, just as all of you are. Science will help this world and this planet, but we are the ones who misuse it and we are the ones responsible for keeping the world and our fellow human beings safe form the evils that science can produce. Quit focusing on our differences and start focusing on how we can come together. US the human race is our own worst enemey.
What do Obama's science plans and enemas have in common? They both leave you with a warm feeling inside!

No thanks! And after all he also wants to spend over 500 million dollars a year supporting faithbased initiatives and use "faith and supersttion" as a bases for all his policies. New Presedent, Same Battles.

2012..it's time for a change!

JC, Fairbanks, AK wrote (11/8, 2021), “And TR: if creationism is taught then Flying Spaghetti Monsterism must be taught as well; there is exactly as much evidence supporting both of these.”  I must congratulate you on getting the point.  Except I would replace “Flying Spaghetti Monsterism” with “the Evolutionary Theory currently being taught” as this is more relevant than Spaghetti Monsters.  The fact is the fossil evidence currently at hand indicates that man suddenly appeared.  Whether that is because he was formed from the mud by God’s hand or evolved through a process not recorded and found in the fossil record is wishful thinking either way.
Rod, Henderson, Nevada (11/9, 1315)  I couldn’t agree with you more, except for scrapping it.  The program benefits a segment that deserves special help.  It is unfortunate that the real world effect is to limit the bright, and in some places the average.  If we are to be educationally competitive on a global scale we need to divide our public school classes into bright, average and dull and teach our students accordingly.  Some would be in only dull classes, some would be in only bright classes, most would be mixed, but everybody would be able to achieve as best they could as individuals.  Of course, this would cost a lot.  But skimping on education got us where we are.
Science isn't an exclusively separate issue from the economy and foreign policy. Science is an area where the world holds the US in high regard. Science Diplomacy, through research collaboration, may be able to bridge gaps that no other kind of diplomacy can. Science creates new technologies that generate new industries and jobs.
"Whether that is because he was formed from the mud by God’s hand or evolved through a process not recorded and found in the fossil record is wishful thinking either way. "

What tests would you use to determine supernatural creation, Tim?
As a Christian I'm quite distressed to read comments along the lines of 'Christian's don't do science'.  This is complete non-sense.  Religion provides a framework for 'why' and guidance for living.  Science provides us with a 'how'.  It's unfortunate to tarnish a whole faith with the brush of extremists; People who believe that parables and metaphors, used to explain to people living in simple times, are somehow 100% correct.  Just as we adore the child who discovers how the parent lives, I'm sure a God would look kindly upon those who desire to understand the world they live in.
Wat,
I don’t know of and haven’t been able to devise any test for supernatural creation.  I suppose if I wanted to trick God into it I’d put sterilized dirt into a jar, seal it and dare God to make life.  I doubt it would work.  So we’re left with a test that could come up with a positive that means something and a negative that means nothing.  Another way, if some new complex creature were in the unopened jar the next morning we’d have proof of supernatural creation, if only sterile dirt were in the jar we’d only have proof that God didn’t create life in that jar *that night*.  Myself, I think the great work of creation from Genesis is over and this test would be useless from a scientific standpoint and worse than useless from a religious standpoint, so I won’t be doing it.
Further, the same problem exists for the fossil record.  Let’s assume that man did evolve from some species we are now aware of.  Now it happened but there may be no fossil record of it.  In this case not finding a fossil record does not prove that the theory of man through evolution is false.  The fossil record is much like the path I’ve walked.  You won’t find most of my footprints, that doesn’t mean I didn’t walk there.
So in this “lively debate” we tend to hear the most from anti-religion science fanatics who have absolutely no proof as to how man did come into being but insist they know how man did not come into being or the uber-religious who trust in what some person told them the Bible means but don’t actually know what it does mean who insist on a six calendar day creation despite the wealth of verifiable science to the contrary, and what the Bible actually says.  Gotta love ‘em.  Darn it.
Bottom line, I could mediate a debate on it.  But barring a strange new creature in that jar, I could *never* prove it.  Flip side, even a complete fossil record of the evolution of man wouldn’t prove the evolution of man.  It might be very satisfying, but not proof.  We can now “see” the gradual evolution of many plant and animal species but it still doesn’t really prove anything.  It satisfies me.  I believe in a creation process that spanned billions of years and evolution as the way change occurs.  I can’t *prove* any of it by any test.
If Christians do science, explain the Burning Times in Europe.

If Christians do science, explain the ultimatum Galileo recieved from the Catholic Church.

If Christians do science, explain why they renamed creationism and are trying to cram it down the throats of innocent children who need to know about the FACTS regarding Evolution.

Creationism is a myth, God is a myth and most Christians (as history has shown) oppose science.
Going to the moon is "OLD STUFF AND AN OLD HAT", I fail to see how "wasting all that fuel" for a "babylonian pride project" helps to feed the starving masses of this planet instead of "putting all that money into Nasa", why not directly applying it to "promote better and more environmentally friendly fertilizers", and organic pesticides, that are working in harmony with the environment instead of against them and finally what about the idea of producing large amounts of food, so that the "POOR PEOPLE OF THIS PLANET CAN BE FED", making fuel with the assistance of this mushroom or fungus better said, by using the corn stalks and the empty cobs instead of all the stuff that human beings like to eat or cows like to eat, may well be a "one way" we can "have our green revolution and eat as well"!

sincerely

John Adams Weaver                                                                                                              The "poor people of the world" you refer to are the same ones who board airliners with boxcutters and truck-bomb our embassies....I say screw 'em, let 'em starve, and be quick about it too.   I want to reach out from Earth and utilize the untapped resources on the Moon, Mars, and possibly in the asteroid belt. GO NASA!


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1661275

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google