Where is Obama’s OSTP?

February 20th, 2009

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Under the Bush Administration, critics complained (quite rightly) that the decision to move the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) out of the Old Executuve Office Building next to the White House and down the street indicated that the president saw little value in OSTP. I asked John Marburger (Bush’s science advisor) about this in a public interview in 2005, and here is his response:

You know, we were in the old Executive Office Building in the wing that faced 17th Street. It’s the only wing of the White House complex that faced an open street. The whole wing was evacuated because they were concerned about truck bombs on 17th Street, and it is currently being renovated. The whole thing is empty right now.

We were moved out into very excellent quarters about a block and a half away, and I must say they were much better quarters than the old Executive Office Building. I hate the old Executive Office Building because it’s all cut up into pieces, and in an organization like ours, we work in teams on inter- disciplinary problems and issues that come up, and it’s important for our people to be able to interact easily. It is very difficult for team work among different offices within the Executive Office Building the way the space is cut up. So, we were moved temporarily into an office building, a non-federal office building, for a couple of years while space was made available for us in the new Executive Office Building, which is right up 17th Street across the street from the White House. That’s the building where some of my predecessors were. I think Jay Keyworth had his offices there through the Reagan era. So, it has been a traditional home for OSTP, and I always thought that would have no bearing. I don’t think that where we are makes much difference. We are not, after all, in a day-to-day support mode for the President. The President needs people close to him who will support his activities during the day every day as he is challenged. That’s not — science is not a necessary part of that on a day-to-day basis. The time scale of science advice is much longer than that, and we tend to work out science issues with the other staff of people and the Agencies long before they every get to the President.

In this week’s Nature Jeff Tollefson has a profile of John Holdren, Obama’s science advisor. In it Tollefson notes that Holdren has:

. . . negotiated workspace in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door to the White House.

This phrasing does not appear to suggest that Obama has moved OSTP back to the old Executive Office Building. Does it mean that there is an office or cubicle available for Holdren? Does it mean that science has be returned to its proper place?

Any thoughts on where OSTP actually is and the implications of its location?

4 Responses to “Where is Obama’s OSTP?”

    1
  1. David Bruggeman Says:
    February 20th, 2009 at 7:17 am

    As best as I can tell, Holdren has not yet been confirmed as OSTP Director. As his position as science adviser does not require Senate confirmation, the workspace in Eisenhower could be a holding spot until he can move into the OSTP offices. The OSTP website still lists the 17th Street address, and Ted Wackler as Acting Director.

    2. 2
  2. Paul Biggs Says:
    February 20th, 2009 at 9:32 am

    “Holdren has not yet been confirmed as OSTP Director” – a faint glimmer of hope that someone with less extreme views might get the job.

    3. 3
  3. Jeff Says:
    February 20th, 2009 at 11:30 am

    Having a Presidential Science Adviser inherently ostracizes science. It is as if there is one set of advice the President can get from experts and then there’s the science advice he can get. Shouldn’t science be integrated already into all the policy advice he gets. Why separate it?

    That being said, there’s certainly an important role for OSTP as the office that prioritizes and coordinates science policy and funding across the federal enterprise. That role can be carried out in the OEOB or 100 yards up 17th street. It really doesn’t matter. I would have to agree with Marburger – the new building is much nicer than the Eisenhower.

    4. 4
  4. docpine Says:
    February 20th, 2009 at 9:52 pm

    I actually worked at OSTP (as an agency rep) in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building (EEOB formerly known as OEOB). About four of us had desks in what was probably one old office with a bricked up fireplace and a view of 17th street.

    SO in my personal view, it is always better to be in a beautiful building, where I would walk across the fossils in the floor, or go over to the renovated Indian Treaty Room, than to be in the relatively soulless NEOB (home of OMB). That being said, proximity to the White House or “design to encourage collaboration” is relatively trivial. For heaven’s sake, in most of the world if you want to collaborate with someone you can walk over and talk to them! But that’s my opinion. Humans are not androids and there is no accounting for the beauty of being in a historic building to me. Nevertheless, I don’t think you can judge the importance of something by whether it’s in EEOB, NEOB or Jackson Place.