This weekend’s New York Times Magazine includes a story by Jon Gertner visiting with Bill Joy. From grey goo to bird flu, it’s all in here.

Like him or not, Joy is on the forefront of several important science policy questions.
- Should, or even can, limits be placed on where we take science?
- What roles should scientists, busnesses, trade associations, and government have in preventing “bad outcomes”?

Here are some quotes of interest…

“Making us think about potential ”bad outcomes” is his goal; scaring the hell out of us is not.”

” ‘The Greeks knew better,’ Joy says. ‘Oedipus was destroyed by truth. He looked like he had a happy life until he learned one too many things. That’s the cautionary tale.’ ”

“He’s not exactly optimistic, predicting that public awareness will most likely come only after an actual accident at a company or a university. Until then, he says, speed — the mad rush for patents and market share and money — will trump caution. Regulatory agencies are structured to catch shady C.F.O.’s, not reckless private-sector technologists. And markets are ill equipped to play traffic cop. ‘Markets are extremely good at go,’ Joy says. ‘They’re not very good at stop. And I think we need a little bit of stop right now. Or else we’re not going to like the outcome.’”

“He is likewise sure that the financial markets do not acknowledge the true hazards of certain kinds of science. To Joy this is a hugely important point. He isn’t keen on regulation, since he considers it far less effective than market forces. (A millionaire many times over from his shares in Sun and other tech start-ups, Joy knows the fruits of the market firsthand.) Yet he does think we now need to ”manage” the system somewhat. He says he believes that businesses doing research in areas deemed risky by their peers should be forced to take out insurance against catastrophes. He also says that science guilds should have the authority to limit access to potentially dangerous ideas.”

A very interesting program at NAS:

“The National Academies have established a Science and Technology for Sustainability Program (STS) to encourage the use of science and technology to achieve long term sustainable development – increasing incomes, improving public health, and sustaining critical natural systems. The first two projects under the STS program are the Roundtable on Science and Technology for Sustainability and a workshop series entitled “Strengthening Science-Based Decision Making.””

the program is supported by a $10 million endowment. Learn more here.

A news release from the Chinese Academy of Sciences announces that the Academy plays an important role in informing Chinese government decisions.

“Over the past one year or so, the Academic Divisions of CAS (CASAD), being the top-level advisory body of the State in science and technology, have actively taken part in the strategic studies for, and review of, the national long and medium-term plan for scientific and technological (S&T) development. Prof. Lu Yongxiang, CAS President, made the remarks at the on-going CAS General Assembly.”

You might ask, as Shep Ryen (aka Father of Prometheus) asked me, so what?

This matters a great deal because it also means that science and technology policy – decisions about science and technology in support of decision making – takes on added significance in China. The press release also notes:

“The national long and medium-term plan for S&T development, which is currently under preparation, will be China’s first governmental document in the new century to guide the national S&T development, and also the first such plan after the establishment of China’s socialist market economy and China’s entry into the WTO.”

Science and technology policy matters. It matters more than ever in our increasing global, technology- and science-based society. Consequently science and technology policy research as a boundary activity between scientific and technological research and decision making also takes on greater importance.

In last week’s Science magazine, Jeffrey Mervis evaluates recent claims of a crisis in the supply of scientists from overseas. The subtitle reads, “Fears that U.S. graduate programs in the sciences are no longer attracting their share of the world’s brightest students don’t square with the facts.”

In a speech yesterday, NASA Administrator O’Keefe stood by his much criticized decision to cancel Hubble Servicing Mission 4, saying, “it would not be responsible to prepare for a servicing mission, only to find that the required actions identified by the [Columbia Accident Investigation] Board could not be implemented.”

While news accounts (and his audience) have struck on his partial support for a robotic servicing mission, as O’Keefe announced a forthcoming Request for Proposals following up on a February request, O’Keefe also gave one of his most rigorous defenses yet of his decision to cancel SM4, saying in part,

“A mission to the Hubble would require the development of a unique set of procedures, technologies and tools different from any other mission we’ll fly before the Shuttle fleet retires. Many of these capabilities which provide safety redundancy for ISS missions are primary or singular for a Hubble mission. Moreover, these Hubble unique methods must be developed and tested promptly before Hubble’s batteries and other critical systems give out.

We are making steady progress in our efforts to meet the safety requirements for the Shuttle return to flight next year. But based on where we are today, prospects are even more challenging than six months ago for our being able to develop in time all required safety and return-to-flight elements for a servicing mission before Hubble ceases to be operational.”

The whole of O’Keefe’s speech is here.

In addition to this speech, O’Keefe has made a case for his decision here, here, and here, all based on the CAIB recommendations and his concern for human life. Meanwhile, critics of his decision have continually suggested that Hubble is too important to science to lose, thus setting up an age-old conflict of the relative importance of manned flight and science at NASA. Is this another example of the Excess of Objectivity that Prometheus has commented on elsewhere? Both sides continue to argue over the “facts” of mission risk and ignore the fundamental value conflict between the “Hubble Huggers” and Administrator O’Keefe.

Russia’s commitment to accelerate its ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change provides George W. Bush and John Kerry with a lesson in international politics.

Last week Russia reached an agreement with the European Union (EU) to gain entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO) in exchange for, among other things, a commitment from Russia to move toward ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. Russia’s membership in the WTO requires the support of the EU. The EU wants Russian participation the Kyoto because it cannot come into effect without either United States or Russian participation. So with both George Bush and John Kerry on the record as being opposed to participation to the Protocol, Russia has a powerful bargaining chip.

(more…)

The AAAS now has online presentations made at its 29th Annual Forum on Science and Technology Policy, from April, 2004. They can be found here.