Nature has in its 2 April issue an essay by historian Richard Dallek.  (If it disappears between a subscription wall, check out this Nature podcast at 8:10 for an interview).  The basic thrust of the piece is that academics performing as advisers to government have a mixed record of success.  While he doesn’t mention him in the article, President (and Ph.D. holder) Woodrow Wilson is mentioned in the podcast.

His examples cover a variety of backgrounds, but are oddly light on scientific advisers, given the magazine that’s published the piece.  Mentioning Henry Kissinger, McGeorge Bundy and Walt Rostow, all national security advisers, seems an odd emphasis, given the target audience.  Robert Oppenheimer is his only scientific example, and the only positive example he lists.  Comparing Kissinger, Rostow and Bundy to Chu and Holdren seems too broad to be effective.

(more…)

It what appears to have nothing to do with the Harold Varmus appearance I mentioned earlier this week, and seems coincidental with this essay by Gerald Epstein, there appears to be another push to re-establish the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA).  The OTA was an office within Congress that provided advise on science and technology issues to its members.  It was defunded (but not officially disbanded) in the mid-1990s.  There are plenty of Prometheus posts connected to the OTA, but a good refresher would include this post with comments from OTA staffers, and the last big push to reinstitute some kind of technology assessment capacity for Congress.  More on the last push (late 2007) can be found at Denialism.

The recent push appears to start from the remaining legislative champion of the OTA, Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey.  According to Science Cheerleader (H/T The Intersection), Rep. Holt will make a request for OTA funds this week, and argue his case before appropriators in May.  Since the OTA was just defunded, and not dissolved, technically the request for funds is sufficient to restart the agency.  Assuming Rep. Holt is successful, we shall see.  I wish this movement weren’t so focused on reconstituting the past, as I’m not sure that’s the easiest (or best) means of re-establishing science and technology advisory capacity in the Congress.  At a minimum, it’s not the only way, yet the advocates seem to act as though it is.  If there’s a compelling reason for this, I’d love to hear it.

In what might be a mix of a slow news day and the “War on Science” mentality, several science sites are reporting on a statement made criticizing President Obama’s recent stem cell research decision.  The statement was released by the Hastings Center and authored by several members of the President’s Council on Bioethics.  There is no mention of the statement on the Council’s website, and language in the statement suggests (though it could be stronger) that it is not an official Council statement.  Part of why some think this is newsworthy is that the Council is still operative until later in the year.  It is advisory, so it can do nothing binding on the Administration (or its predecessor).

Even so, it looks odd to the casual observer to have members of a Presidential Council opposing a President.  Therefore, much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth by those seeking to fill column inches or RSS feeds.  The problem is that the writing of the documents and especially the headlines perpetuates falsehoods about what happened.  It is not an official council statement, yet two of the headlines reporting the statement suggest that it is.  Now who’s pulling a bait and switch?

Nature’s The Great Beyond blog has an interesting, if annoying, entry on a recent Congressional investigation into for-profit Institutional Research Boards (IRBs).  For those readers who haven’t done research involving humans, IRBs sign off on research protocols in human subject research.  Universities and other non-profit research organizations have them, but there are also for-profit IRBs.  As the profit motive in such operations can skew toward generating approvals rather than fulfilling the expected research oversight, a Congressional investigation into these companies makes sense to me.

You can read the specifics – statement from witnesses and Representatives, supporting documents – about the hearing via the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s website.  The really short version – the committee had Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigators set up fake companies with fake products seeking IRB approval.  So far, so good.  The tactics, however, suggest an interest in the eventual Congressional grandstanding had way too much influence over the investigation.   From the blog entry:

(more…)

There’s plenty to find fault with about the “War on Science” meme.  One problem is that it presumes – or at least lends itself to the assumption – that one party or political philosophy is naturally pro-science and others are naturally anti-science.  It’s just not that simple.  This isn’t exactly news, especially if you’ve been reading this blog for a while.  But it’s worth repeating because the reverse has currency in other circles.  Aside from the battle cries against the former President, there are those in conservative circles that suggest science is an anti-democratic force, and Democrats its unwitting allies.  A prime example of this argument is found in Yuval Levin’s recent book Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy.  I’ll defer to Erik Perens’ review of the book and deconstruction of the argument as to why Levin suffers from the same general problem of soldiers in the recent “War on Science.”

While some may note the closeness in time of the Scientific Revolution and the Enlightenment as supporting a particular political orientation to science, the attempt at a parallel ignores the nature of the political shift during that time.  Several political philosophies either originated or undertook significant shifts during this time.  Traditional liberalism and conservatism (in the theory sense, not the political label sense) both emerged during this frame, so it’s not necessarily so that science must support one over the other.

(more…)

Tonight’s press conference is not the last stop in President Obama’s speaking tour on the economy.  On Thursday, according to a press release, the President will answer questions Thursday morning in an online town hall.  The project, called “Open for Questions,” is similar to the question solicitations handled online during the recent transition.  It looks like the Administration would like to continue these question periods beyond Thursday’s first effort.

To submit a question, you will need to go online, set up an account (agreeing to the terms of participation), and submit your question.  You may present a question without particpating in the system through an alternative process.

In the spirit of other collaborative web tools, participants may also vote up/vote down other questions submitted, or flag questions as inappropriate.  The only grounds for flagging are violating the terms of participation.  As outlined in that document, questions need to be civil and on topic.  If not, then they can be flagged.  How effective this will be in reducing the slag often found in online comments or the campaigns to win online votes is unclear.  Then again, even traditional press conferences have a few odd questions from professional question-askers.

The New York Times (H/T The Questionable Authority) is reporting that the Senate Science, Commerce, and Transportation Committee met in markup and formally approved the nominations of Dr. Holdren (Director, Office of Science and Technology Policy) and Dr. Lubchenco (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).  The nominations have been held up by what appears to be a series of holds by various Senators.  As the holds are traditionally anonymous, only one of them has been connected to a particular Senator – Robert Menendez (D-New Jersey).  But his hold lapsed a few days ago, meaning that other Senators have been holding up these nominations.  As Senator Menendez held the nomination in connection with Cuba policy, there is no way of knowing if the current holds have anything to do with policy areas under the jursidiction of these nominees.  There is well-reasoned speculation about who is involved, but I’m not inclined to repeat it absent a confirmation.  In any event, there’s a good chance this has nothing to do with science or science policy.  Once again, it’s not at all about science and technology, but that’s a hard lesson to learn in some circles.

While President Obama’s stem cell action has managed to suck all the oxygen out of the room (even in Roger’s and Ryan’s good posts), it’s worth taking a look at the other science policy memo of the week.  It gives the not-yet-confirmed Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 120 days (until June 7) to do the following (key sections after the jump):

(more…)

A link from Wired.com inspired me to make a second post in what might be an occasional series.

Today happens to mark two noteworthy scientific or technical achievements by American Presidents.  This time, especially if you read my last post on this topic, it probably is who you think.

Two hundred twelve years ago today, then Vice-President Thomas Jefferson gave a paper as part of his Presidential Address to the American Philosophical Society.  The society was the first learned society of the United States (founded in 1745, when science was still called natural philosophy).  Jefferson’s paper focused on the bones of a Megalonyx he discovered in Virginia.  The particular species was later named after him.  Jefferson continued as President of the APS until 1815.  The modern day equivalent would be serving as Vice-president and then President while serving as President of AAAS.

(more…)

Today, Obama signed an executive order lifting Bush’s ban on the use of federal funds for stem cell research, along with a memo addressing the general issue of scientific integrity in executive branch agencies. Here’s an excerpt from the memo:

The public must be able to trust the science and scientific process informing public policy decisions.  Political officials should not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions.  If scientific and technological information is developed and used by the Federal Government, it should ordinarily be made available to the public.  To the extent permitted by law, there should be transparency in the preparation, identification, and use of scientific and technological information in policymaking.  The selection of scientists and technology professionals for positions in the executive branch should be based on their scientific and technological knowledge, credentials, experience, and integrity.

For many, this is not just about opening the door to a particular kind of medical research; they view it as a fundamental change in the role played by science in policy.

This seems to emerge in the media coverage of the event. There is considerable discrepancy between the actual contents of the memo, and what the media (and those they interview) have been saying about it. For example, on NPR:

DeGette says that during the Bush administration, scientific policy was often dictated by things other than scientific evidence.

Well, yes, of course it was. As is often said on this blog, policy is never dictated by science, and Obama’s memo says nothing that would suggest otherwise. It is very much focused on process and openness, but makes no statements about how science should influence decision making.

The Washington Post quotes Harold Varmus (former NIH director, Nobel laureate, and Obama advisor):

Today’s executive order “is consistent with the president’s determination to use sound scientific practice . . . instead of dogma in developing federal policy”

This suggests that you can somehow use science instead of values to develop policy. But Obama’s stem cell decision is no less value driven than was George Bush’s. Regardless of your position, to come to a conclusion on the ethics of stem cell research you must wrestle with difficult issues such as the acceptability of destroying human embryos. Obama’s words and actions suggest nothing like the “determination” Varmus describes.

It’s important to remember that this event represents a political success — a shift away from one set of values, and toward another (though of course, it is not so black and white). It is not, by any means, a shift from politics toward science. Even if that were possible, it’s hard to see why it would be desirable.