This past week the House Science and Technology Committee formally organized, setting subcommittee assignments and committee leadership.  Bart Gordon (D-TN) remains chair, and Ralph Hall (R-TX) remains ranking member.  Over 10 members are new to the committee for this Congress.  The five subcommittees remain as they did for the 110th Congress, with the following members leading them for the 111th.  Specific leadership assignments after the jump.

(more…)

As of this evening, the only confirmed appointee in science and technology policy positions is Dr. Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy.  Dr. Bement, the National Science Foundation Director, carries over from the preceding administration, as he has a term appointment until 2010.

The following holes need to be filled, many involving a confirmation hearing.

OSTP: Dr. Holdren needs to be confirmed, and no hearing is currently scheduled with the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.  Action on a new Presidential Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the senior staff of OSTP must wait until confirmation is completed.

NOAA: Similar situation with Dr. Lubchenko (edited – I had mistakenly typed Holdren).  No confirmation, nor is a confirmation hearing scheduled.

NIST: No director named.

CDC: No director named.

NIH: No director named.

(more…)

The transition website released today a video of its Technology, Innovation and Government Reform (TIGR) team.  It’s a 4 minute video explaining the purpose of the team – improving the way government uses technology.  This is an important distinction.  The transition’s focus on technology has been much more on what could be called – borrowing the Brooksian phrase from science policy – technology for policy rather than policy for technology.  To be sure, the transition is focused on both, but you will need to look elsewhere to get a sense of how the Obama Administration will consider nanotechnology, clean energy technology, and other technologies, new or existing.  With the TIGR team (pronounced as Eeyore might, oddly enough), technology is a tool for better government as much, if not more, than it is for economic development or advancing other public goals.

Today the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held its confirmation hearing for Dr. Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy.  There is an archived webcast currently online (the hearing actually starts around the 15 minute mark, and runs roughly 2 hours and 14 minutes from that point).  The same committee has a confirmation hearing scheduled Thursday for Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior.

I have not watched the Chu hearing, and Dr. Chu’s nomination is not considered problematic.  What coverage I have seen on the hearing is one article from The Washington Post indicating that Dr. Chu carefully navigated through questions about climate change and alternative energy.

Science Progress, the science and technology oriented web home for the Center for American Progress, is also a journal.  Its second issue is just out, and many of its articles are focused on innovation.  Perusing the table of contents for the first issue, it seems that the editorial mission of the journal is pretty broad, but focused on science, technology and innovation in relation to the public.  It will reflect the progressive perspective of its host organization, but the articles do address important and relevant concerns in various aspects of science and technology policy.  Some selected article titles after the jump:

(more…)

In the middle of today’s economic address by the President-elect you will find mentions of investment in science and technology as well as infrastructure.  In fact, the President-elect made a better effort of noting how science and technology investment is necessary for the infrastructure investments he wants than what I’ve seen from others trying to engage the issue.  From the address:

To build an economy that can lead this future, we will begin to rebuild America.  Yes, we’ll put people to work repairing crumbling roads, bridges, and schools by eliminating the backlog of well-planned, worthy and needed infrastructure projects.  But we’ll also do more to retrofit America for a global economy.  That means updating the way we get our electricity by starting to build a new smart grid that will save us money, protect our power sources from blackout or attack, and deliver clean, alternative forms of energy to every corner of our nation.  It means expanding broadband lines across America, so that a small business in a rural town can connect and compete with their counterparts anywhere in the world.  And it means investing in the science, research, and technology that will lead to new medical breakthroughs, new discoveries, and entire new industries.

While the other priorities listed in the speech (clean energy, computerized medical records, school equipment) will benefit science and technology research (and vice versa), it is in the above paragraph where the connection is most explicit.  Of course, this is not a main point of the speech, nor are the relevant science and technology communities the primary audience for the speech.  But persistent axioms of science policy can start from references peppered in speeches and minor documents.  I hope to see this argument from the President-elect’s speech reiterated in other policy documents and addresses

A concern I have with some of the jockeying over the economic stimulus package is the potential to frame funding as a series of either/or propositions.  The headline of this ScienceInsider piece – “Economic Stimulus: U.S. House Could Call for Test Tubes As Well As Pavement” – hints at what I mean.  While this particular example is not framed strictly as an either/or proposition, it does consider research as something separate, independent, and perhaps better than other worthy investments. The focus is a bit narrow.  Take a look at this other ScienceInsider piece describing the recent round of funding for the Technology Innovation Program.  This funding supports infrastructure research.  While the research may not be ‘fundamental’ in the traditional sense, the projects are often trying to demonstrate proof of concept.

Couldn’t the needs of the research community leverage the investment needs of the country?  Science advocacy communities appear too focused on ‘basic’ research funding to be making the argument, but they are the people that need to make the case.  Since doubling research funding in the sciences is listed as part of the Obama-Biden economic plan, I think the concern that research funding will be overlooked is a bit overstated.  But I think getting additional resources will stand a better chance of success if they can be found in service of other national needs.  This is perhaps the kind of comprehensive thinking that David Goldston encouraged in his Wired piece.

Complementing the Neal Lane piece Roger mentioned, there is a transition report available from the current PCAST (President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology) with advice to its successor (H/T – ScienceInsider).  There are a few points worth noting in the report (its recommendations run pages 4-8), which are echoed and expanded on in the current PCAST Co-Chair Floyd Kvamme’s comments to Science reporter Jeffrey Mervis.

(more…)

The January issue of Wired also has an article on Dutch efforts currently underway to expand their flood control plans.  With most of the country below sea level, the Dutch started expanding their dam and flood control systems in the early part of the 20th century.  The Wired article describes the next big phase in the expansion of this system, where the annual chance of flood in high-risk areas will be reduced from one in 10,000 to one in 100,000.  By comparison, New Orleans protection has risk levels where the chance of flood in a year one in 100 (but for more severe hurricanes compared to the storms that spark flooding in the Netherlands).

This is a particularly daunting public works project, expected to take a century.  As the Dutch have experience with long term projects of this scope, it’s not likely to be as much of a shock as it would if this was their first attempt at long range geographic modification.  However, it’s hard to see a 100-year long project surviving the rough-and-tumble politics of most democracies.  While there are certainly climate change implications for what they are doing, the adaptation practices of the Dutch will set an example for engineers and urban planners around the world.  It’s worth taking a look.

David Goldston ventures from his regular Nature post to visit the January edition of Wired.  In this column Goldston addresses how science policy might fare under an Obama Administration.  In doing so, he outlines some of the problems with treating science policy as just science budget policy.  One of those problems is that focusing on the budget reinforces the linear model of basic research–>applied research–>development.  Federal science budget policy puts most, if not all, of its emphasis on the first part of that model, and Goldston notes that with much of what President-elect Obama wants to do, basic research is at best insufficient to meet his goals, and at worst not aligned with those policy priorities.

Goldston avoids the easy answers and doesn’t focus just on policies for development or diffusion of innovations.  It’s not just about market incentives, but also about focusing on areas of research that haven’t been a target of federal support and don’t have advocates angling for that support.  He said it best in his closing paragraph:

“Thinking and acting comprehensively about science and the policies that can shape its application is not only riskier politically but more challenging intellectually.”

If those involved with science policy can focus on thinking and acting more comprehensively, the rewards could go beyond gaining resources during this next administration and include a strategy towards more sustainable science and technology policies into the future.  Appeals to double the budget are easy strategies for maintaining a status quo that keeps us in the present.