To complete construction and use the ISS, NASA needs the cooperation of the Russian space agency. According to the hearing charter, “the US is totally dependent on Russian Soyuz capsules for crew rescue, and without access to Soyuz capsules, Americans will not be able to stay on the space station for long duration missions.” Yet after April 2006, Russia’s obligation to participate expires, and we may no longer have their support. That is, unless we pay for it.

But this is not merely a matter of money. Section 6 of the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA) “prohibits the US Government from making payments in connection with ISS to the Russian space agency, organizations or entities under its control, or any other element of the Russian government … unless the President makes a determination that Russia’s policy is to oppose proliferation to Iran, that Russia is demonstrating sustained commitment to seek out and prevent the transfer of WMD and missile systems to Iran, and that neither the Russian space agency nor any entity reporting to it has made such transfers for at least one year prior t such determination.” (From “The INA and ISS: Issues and Options” March 2005 CRS report). The President has almost no chance of making that call.

Thus, we must consider our options:

If we were to continue work on the ISS without the assistance of the Russian space program, we would increase our reliance on the space shuttle. This raises two problems. First, we would be unable to carry out long-term research without Russian assistance because astronauts could only be on the ISS as long as the shuttle is docked. Yet long-term research is the primary purpose of the ISS in Bush’s Vision for Space Exploration. Second, NASA’s problems with return to flight (reported here) may pose problems for work on the ISS. The New York Times quotes Dr. Howard E. McCurdy of American University on the state of the shuttle: “We are at a crossroads with the shuttle. Do we feel reasonably confident that we understand it enough to go on and fly with the known risks?”

Given the problems associated with this option, many recommend a revision of Section 6 of the INA instead. They suggest that the nonproliferation benefits gained by linking the ISS to Russian proliferation behavior are not worth the costs to the US space program (source: CRS report).

But we should pause briefly before we instinctively proceed down this road. This conflict provides us a rare opportunity in our nation’s science policy to stop and reflect. What are our goals with respect to space research? What are our priorities? Do we need the ISS to achieve them? Perhaps our answers to these questions will leave us in support of the ISS and revision of the INA. If they do, we can confidently support an amendment to the INA. But if they do not, the act of asking the questions will allow us to consider other – perhaps unconsidered – alternatives.

Here, as in any policy situation, if we pause to clarify our goals, we may better ensure that our policies will meet them.

-From Thomas Friedman’s Nov. 4 column:
‘”The Democrats have ceded to Republicans a monopoly on the moral and spiritual sources of American politics,” noted the Harvard University political theorist Michael J. Sandel. “They will not recover as a party until they again have candidates who can speak to those moral and spiritual yearnings.”‘

-From Todd Purdum Nov. 4 News Analysis:
Rahm Emanuel, representative from Illinois asserted that the democrats “need a nominee and a party that is comfortable with faith and values. And if we have one, then all the hard work we’ve done on Social Security or America’s place in the world or college education can be heard.”

- From Jeffrey Bell and Frank Cannon, Oct. 11 Weekly Standard:
“If you had to pick a single reason why the Democratic party is weaker at all levels than at any time in the last 50 years, it is the transformation of moral-values issues into an overwhelming Republican asset.”

These are just a few of the many election-related proclamations that values lie on the other side of the aisle from the Democratic Party. Some analysts have taken these proclamations a step further and have declared that the foundation of American democracy, “Enlightenment values – critical intelligence, tolerance, respect for evidence, a regard for the secular sciences” have in fact dissolved with the election of George W. Bush. (From Garry Wills NYTimes op-ed).

With this and the previous assertions, analysts on both sides of the aisle define the Democratic Party as the party of reason and evidence and the Republican Party as the party of values and faith. And each side surrenders to a land divided.

But I argue that this surrender is both misinformed and dangerous. It assumes that values can be one-sided, that value-free decisions are possible, and that Democrats operate in this value-free realm. None of these assumptions are true.

Every decision that we make from the individual to the national level is a commitment to one set of values over another. And each of us, regardless of our political or religious affiliation, makes this commitment from some set of base values with which we view the world. To define moral values as a republican strong-hold is to misconstrue the nature of decision making. Democrats do not make decisions on scientific information alone, and likewise Republicans do not make decisions on values alone.

If we assume that they do however, we divert our policy discussions away from real issues and value debates to the sort of polarizing science v. faith debates implied above. Science and values do not lie opposite each other. When we claim that they do, as Garry Wills did above and again in his assertion that America is now defined by “fundamentalist zeal, a rage at secularity ., [and] fear and hatred of modernity,” we falsely simplify the decision making process.

To illustrate: with regard to climate policy on a national scale, the two candidates had opposing views, both influenced by values. President Bush promoted further research and voluntary emissions reductions, as a means not to harm the economy. In making this decision, he determined that the nation can best achieve well-being through sustained and unburdened economic growth. Senator Kerry on the other hand promoted the development of renewable energy sources and an increase in fuel efficiency standards. Value-wise, he determined that the well-being of the nation lied in environmental preservation as a first priority and he did not see limits on growth as a barrier to the well-being and wealth of the nation.

Real decisions like this one are far too complex for a simple values v. reason distinction. This decision comes down to a value dispute between environmental preservation versus economic freedom, both of which ultimately strive for well-being. If we label it as such, we steer clear of the polarizing claims that Senator Kerry understands scientific fact and rightly keeps values out of his decision, or that President Bush’s position is devoid of logical explanation.

When we debate policies and their associated values, we must consciously avoid the current desire to establish a false science versus values dichotomy within the nation. Let’s engage the value debate differently. Let’s be honest about all the values at play.

According to David Harrison, head of design at Brunel University and the lead author of the survey, “these choices demonstrate that people in the UK are more interested in practical, everyday innovation than revolutionary dreams.”

While not entirely surprising, these results have noteworthy science policy implications as they play into research funding debates of basic versus applied science. The study raises the question – if the public primarily values utility, should technological research funding reflect that? And if so, will this require a shift in current funding patterns or will it simply promote business as usual?

And out of curiosity, what would the poll results have been stateside?

Read the rest of the report. Download file

At a time when agencies are all abuzz with dreams of fast and efficient technology transfer, this program has definite potential. It coordinates the activities and goals of each community – the academic, the operational, and the research – from the outset, rather than relying on the often-flawed academy-to-research-to-operations information pathway.

Several other elements must be in place to ensure a successful transfer of research from operations, but this program is starting right so it’ll be worth checking back after the 2004 Atlantic Hurricane Season.

For the past three years, southern Africa has faced debilitating drought and a resultant demand for both food aid and drought-resistant crops. Consequently, the EU-US led debate over genetic modification (GM) has spread to Africa, thereby engaging African leaders and diverting attention from other severe agricultural problems like poor soil, a failing transportation infrastructure, and unwelcoming markets for crops from subsistence farmers.

At its core, this is a technology policy debate about willingness to accept risk. Yet as both sides politicize the issue within Africa, they drag African leaders into what the New York Times called “an undeclared trade dispute between the EU with its powerful environmental activists and the US and its influential biotechnology industry.”

The result is an African GM debate as politically charged as ours. On one side lie leaders calling for agricultural biotechnology as a means to end hunger altogether. And on the other lie leaders who see agricultural biotechnology as “poison” sent to exploit the third world, even in the form of
food aid.

As this politicization continues, African agricultural development lies in limbo, waiting for an unlikely solution to the bickering. And yet, it cannot wait. African soils are severely nutrient depleted such that they can barely provide the crops necessary for a single season, let alone a surplus for seasons of drought.

As population increases rapidly, farmers try to meet increasing food needs by intensifying land use without properly managing the land, which results in soil stripped of nutrients. In 1998 the UN Food and Agricultural Organization released a report stating that “sub-Saharan Africa risks being marginalized from the mainstream world economy because of failure of many countries in the region to adopt environmentally sustainable
agricultural practices to improve productivity and counter the process of natural resource degradation.”

These problems are severe but they have solutions. Evidence lies in the American Great Plains. Poor African agricultural practices are reminiscent of the American Dust Bowl of the 1930’s where the land, having been through decades of excessive plowing, dried and turned to dust. Dust, which was blown into the air and dumped in tons onto farms, homes, and towns. As a result, the US government intervened to teach farmers techniques that would slow rainwater runoff and improve absorption into the soil. Agriculture recovered. And last year, a drought 30% more intense than the 1930’s drought plagued the same area, but without the dust bowl results.

A similar change in African agricultural practices could greatly enhance both food security and economic stability in Africa. But to get there, we must not wait for a solution to the GM debate. We must seek opportunities to decrease vulnerability to the cycle of drought now in the face of debate. Only this form of aid will last beyond this year.