Prometheus » Author: Bruggeman, D. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus Fri, 02 Jul 2010 16:53:16 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 en hourly 1 Beaming Out http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5624 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5624#comments Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:53:31 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5624 As of today, my new blog is ready for visitors.  Besides the usual topics I’ve written about here, I’ll write on science, technology and society topics that didn’t seem quite right for Prometheus.  Find me at:

http://pascophronesis.wordpress.com

I’ve imported my Prometheus posts to the new site, though you should still be able to find them here.

I want to thank a few people.  Roger, for giving me the space to write.  Ami, for keeping things running online really smoothly, and handling the rare technical issue deftly.  Lisa and Kevin, for keeping me in the loop while Roger was on sabbatical, and Genevieve, who uploaded some of my earliest posts.

Last, and not least, thanks to all who read and all who commented.  Without your feedback (or pushback), my posts wouldn’t have been nearly as good, and probably focused on a narrow set of topics.  Please visit me at the new site and speak up.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5624 0
Research Takes First Step on Tolerance of Nanoparticles http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5615 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5615#comments Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:51:47 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5615 The Scientist has a capsule review of a 2007 research article on the ability of mice to purge themselves of nanoparticles.  The full article is available in Nature Biotechnology (subscription/purchase required).  The article also includes notes on some subsequent work in this area.

As nanotechnology matures, providing more and more products with particles measured in nanometers, the risk of exposure to these particles needs to be assessed and regulated.  Being able to determine what size of particles can be expelled by the body and what sizes accumulate in the body helps shape the questions for the regulatory landscape.  But it doesn’t close off exploration into potential risks.

While other regulatory models can provide useful examples, it’s important to remember that the scale of these particles may provide unique concerns.  I would hope that the hard lessons of chemical regulation – where accumulated exposure flew under the regulatory radar for years (see Krimsky’s Hormonal Chaos for a good overview), could be used to good effect here.  It may not be enough that the small particles can be expelled.  Enough transitory exposures over time could have unfortunate effects, much like enough small doses of certain chemicals have had dramatic effects on endocrine systems.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5615 0
UK Petition Pushes Linear Model to the Extreme http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5601 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5601#comments Sat, 20 Jun 2009 21:54:26 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5601 There is a custom in the U.K. to submit petitions to the Prime Minister’s residence, 10 Downing Street.  It can be done in person, by mail, or electronically.  Some of the petitions deal with science and technology issues.  One that I saw circulate on a listserv claims that the U.K. government is moving its research portfolio to support research where the results are already known.  As of today, about 1550 people have signed on to a petition pressuring the government to:

“request the reversal of a policy now being applied by the UK Research Councils. This policy directs funds to projects whose outcomes are specified in advance.”

This reads – at least to this American – that the U.K. is essentially supporting busy work – research that is pointless to conduct since the results are known in advance.  Looking further at the petition, there is this text:

“Where a specific outcome can be predicted with confidence, then there is no research.”

“The UK taxpayer should not support investigations with foregone conclusions, however beguiling. UK research must not be guided by wishful thinking, nor relegated to producing footnotes for ground-breaking discoveries made elsewhere.”

There is a bit of a shift in perspective as the text proceeds.

Looking at the first sentence, it seems false to suggest that there is no research in confirming the predictive power of a model or other things that enable the prediction.  Going to the next passage, I’m not sure how foregone conclusions can be beguiling.  The second sentence suggests the real focus of this petition – that somehow the U.K. Research Councils are shifting their support away from groundbreaking discoveries.

In other words, the petitioner has done a lousy job of advancing the kind of argument Vannevar Bush did after World War II to help instill the combination of federal research support and limited management of scientific research that U.S. researchers enjoy.  Nowhere in this position is anything that even hints at Bush’s arguments about seed corn and the necessity of preserving and replenishing those stocks in order to support and benefit other research and development in support of society.

This argument can be reduced to two points: Only basic research matters in producing value and prosperity (something Bush did not even hint at in Science, the Endless Frontier), and groundbreaking discoveries can only be found in basic research.  It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the development of scientific and technological knowledge.  As the petitioner holds a faculty position and manages research in biology and chemistry, he’s more likely being disingenuous than stupid.

There is another petition on the site that better expresses what I think is the underlying concern.  This petition expresses concerns at the switch of U.K. universities to industry research centers, and feels it has restricted academic freedom to conduct basic research.  While it does succumb at the end to this same notion that only basic research can produce breakthroughs,

“that Britain can remain at the forefront of ‘revolutionary’ discoveries instead of dull ‘evolutionary’ science”

it avoids being completely dismissive of work where application is more in mind.  (Both petitioners ought to read Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions if they haven’t already).

Unfortunately, the saner petition has only 49 signatures.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5601 0
UK Backs Away from a Bibliometric Research Assessment Exercise http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5595 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5595#comments Fri, 19 Jun 2009 18:40:33 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5595 According to ScienceInsider (and Times Higher Education), the planned shift of the U.K. Research Assessment Exercise from peer review to bibliometric analysis may not happen.  Bibliometric analysis may still be used, but only to guide the extensive peer review process that has determined how the U.K. government distributes research money to its universities.  Part of the reason for the proposed shift had to deal with the significant costs involved.

Moving foward the Higher Education Funding Council will need to figure out how bibliometrics could be used in a meaningful way.  Otherwise there will be additional pressure to try and bump up citation counts and numbers of publications with little regard to the quality of either.  There are already ways to game the assessment in terms of who and what is selected by institutions to be assessed.  If bibliometric analysis isn’t crafted carefully, the ways to skew results will increase.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5595 0
Bioethics Panel Dismissed; Obama Panel Will Be More Policy Oriented http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5588 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5588#comments Thu, 18 Jun 2009 20:49:53 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5588 Per the New York Times, the President’s Council on Bioethics has been given its walking papers.  Although the Council’s authority was set to expire September 30, it has been asked to cancel its June meeting, and the members have been told their services are no longer needed.  I have found no indication that the naming of a new council is imminent, but it stands to reason that it should happen soon, at least prior to September 30.

The New York Times article notes that

“The council was disbanded because it was designed by the Bush administration to be “a philosophically leaning advisory group” that favored discussion over developing a shared consensus, said Reid Cherlin, a White House press officer.

“President Obama will appoint a new bioethics commission, one with a new mandate and that “offers practical policy options,” Mr. Cherlin said.”

Aside from the stem cell decision made by President Bush early in his administration, there have been few, if any, policy judgments made that received recommendations from the council.  It has issued several reports on various biomedical issues, but they were often readers on the subject, essay collections, or other documents more suited for background information than policy advice.  This is, of course, the perogative of the President.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5588 0
NASA Human Spaceflight Review Meets Today http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5583 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5583#comments Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:36:05 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5583 Technology Review reports in advance of today’s meeting of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee, here in Washington.  The panel was announced last month by President Obama, in advance of his nominating Gen. Charles Bolden, Jr. to head NASA.  Points worth noting from the article:

  • “three key questions that the panel will examine: whether it’s possible to reduce the gap in launch capability, what the options are for extending the use of the ISS beyond 2016, and what a timetable for missions beyond low-earth orbit (LEO) might look like, given budget constraints.”

  • The panel will be advice-only.  Recommendations will be provided, but not binding.  That may have been necessary to get a NASA Administrator candidate on board
  • While the panel will address the balance of human and robotic missions, it will not address other priorities for NASA.  This is a mixed bag.  While it allows the panel to focus on a specific aspect of NASA, it does not allow for an examination of overall NASA priorities – something that arguably is as needed as a general assessment of the human spaceflight agenda.

The panel is supposed to provide recommendations in August.  I would expect more meetings in a relatively quick timeframe.  You might be able to watch these meetings on NASA TV, or via the NASA website.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5583 0
Business Methods Patents to Receive Scrutiny http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5573 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5573#comments Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:12:09 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5573 The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case regarding the validity of business method patents (H/T Wall Street Journal).  Business method patents cover ways of doing business, and became a larger share of patents as electronic commerce and other computerized activities became widespread.  An example of such a patent is Amazon’s 1-Click method for expediting online orders.

As the petition for a writ of certiorari reads, the issue in this case is:

Whether the Federal Circuit erred by holding that a “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing (“machine-or-transformation” test), to be eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, despite this Court’s precedent declining to limit the broad statutory grant of patent eligibility for “any” new and useful process beyond excluding patents for “laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas.”

In other words, should process patents be drawn more narrowly to apply only to those processes that are tied to a machine or make a transformation of some physical item.  The underlying case at the Federal Circuit answered yes to this question, contrary to recent practice and precedent.  If that perspective is upheld, some claim the removal of patent protection for these processes would chill innovation.  Others would counter that the costs of litigation that arise from inadvertent infringement are an impediment as well.

If the Court rules against a broadly interpreted patent, it is possible that patents in other areas that some consider too broad (genes, plant varieties, etc.), will be revisited as well.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5573 0
FutureGen Clean Coal Plant May Get New Life http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5565 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5565#comments Mon, 15 Jun 2009 18:12:32 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5565 Wired notes that the FutureGen clean coal plant, which had been shuttered in part due to perceived cost overruns (which were a result of bad math), may rise again. The plant is intended to demonstrate carbon capture and storage at levels and costs that would encourage other power plants to follow suit.

On Friday the Department of Energy issued a press release indicating it had reached an agreement with the FutureGen Alliance (the private part of this public-private partnership).  The agreement would allow the project to move forward with needed planning, research, and design activities, with a final decision on building the plant in early 2010.  Most of the DOE contribution will come from Recovery Act funds.

NOTE: FWIW, I will continue blogging after the pending retirement of this siteUnlike Roger, my shingle is not yet ready.  Once it is (and it should be soon), I’ll post the link here.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5565 0
British Science Minister Uses Twitter for Conversation http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5555 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5555#comments Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:44:18 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5555 U.K. Science Minister Lord Drayson recently engaged critics of the U.K. government reshuffle in a civil, if not completely satisfying, conversation about whether the Minister could effectively represent both science and defence interests in the new Cabinet system.  As part of the reshuffle, Lord Drayson is both science minister and defence procurement minister.

The conversation took place over Twitter (H/T SciTechDaily).  While many conversations have no doubt taken place via the all-too-brief service, American politicians have typically opted to use the service for broadcasts rather than discussion.  U.S. government agencies use it as another way of communicating news and press releases.  U.S. polticians appear to prefer using the service to link to statements and other press documents, and/or broadcast their immediate thoughts, often derailing the careful conditioning of their communications staff.  Others are masquerading as streams from the politicians, when the tweets are posted by staffers.

Few U.S. politicians seem to engage in a back and forth like the one Lord Drayson did.  It’s not clear to me whether he is typical of Cabinet Ministers or other British politicians in this.  I’d like to think so, because finding sniping on Twitter is all too easy.  Twitter is proving of value in following breaking events, like the current situation in Iran.  Whether it succeeds in other forms of political engagement will depend as much on those tweeting as those reading them.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5555 1
Canadian Science Minister Muddles in Peer Review http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5548 http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5548#comments Sat, 13 Jun 2009 20:13:10 +0000 admin http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5548 From ScienceInsider comes this report that the Canadian science minister has taken an extraordinary step of asking the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council to conduct a second peer review of an awarded workshop grant.  The topic of the workshop is “Israel/Palestine: Mapping models of statehood and prospects for peace.”  This is a topic that can attract controversy, and the issue has been the source of protest when combined with scientific events.  The minister’s stated objections are that:

“several individuals and organizations have expressed their grave concerns that some of the speakers have, in the past, made comments that have been seen to be anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic.”

Independent of the accuracy of these claims (the ScienceInsider article notes only two speakers have withdrawn over the issue, and neither are Israeli), there’s plenty wrong with why this would be a valid reason to re-do the peer review.   There doesn’t appear to be a claim that the possible bias of these speakers has influenced the work that would be presented (and supported).  In other words, no clear indication or suggestion of bad research that was missed by the review process.  This was a political request to change scientific procedures for non-scientific reasons.

There’s a lot of qualification over the alleged biases.  The claim isn’t that the speakers are anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.  It isn’t even that the minister thinks the speakers have said things that were anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.  It’s that some individuals and/or groups complained to the minister that the speakers said things that could be perceived as anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic.  For this the minister asks a research council for a re-do.  However, replacing speakers, which would likely solve the kerfuffle, ordinarily does not require a new review.  The council is reviewing how this grant was handled to ensure it met their policies and procedures.

The science minister handled this badly.  If there are legitimate concerns about the view of individuals at the conference, and an independent review panel felt the workshop was worth supporting, there are other means by which someone in the Canadian government could have taken action.  The U.S. is fond of barring entry to people for all sorts of reasons, independent of whether or not they were invited to a conference.  If that wasn’t possible, the aggrieved groups are certainly free to protest the event.  Political objections ought to be handled by political means.  By asking for an additional research review without concerns about the underlying science, the minister injected politics into the process.  I am not trying to say that peer review is apolitical, just that the injection of politics here isn’t warranted.

]]>
http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?feed=rss2&p=5548 12