A New York Times article suggests scientists and some politicians are nervous about science funding at NASA. Chairman of the House Science Committee Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) asks of President Bush’s space exploration initiative, “Will funding this initiative rather than other programs move science forward or hold it back?” The article quotes a number of physicists and astronomers worried about exploration trumping ‘good’ science at the agency.

The decision to cancel Servicing Mission 4 to Hubble has stirred up a hornets nest of criticism of NASA in the science community. Yet NASA budgets for space science continue to show healthly growth. (See our category on R&D fudning.) The science camp worries that exploration will short change their research goals, while the human flight camp strives to regain the lost luster of the early manned flight program.

President Bush’s focus on exploration has exacerbated the tension between these tribes, and the cancellation of SM4 has sent the science community into a panic. However, US space policy, and NASA in particular, would benefit if these two tribes could focus more on cooperation than turf battles. Science and exploration can go hand in hand, but by crying foul the scientific community may forgo an opportunity to garner real scientific gains from a growing, robust program of exploration.

A discussion paper from the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research at the University of Oslo, Norway examines the consequences for climate science and policy of different definitions of “vulnerability.” The paper observes the term “vulnerability serves as a flexible and somewhat malleable concept that can engage both research and policy communities. Yet the extensive use of vulnerability in the climate change literature hides two very different interpretations of the word, and two very different purposes for using it.”

The paper presents two different definitions of the term vulnerability, “On the one hand, vulnerability is sometimes viewed as an end point – that is, as a residual of climate change impacts minus adaptation… On the other hand, it is sometimes viewed as a starting point, where vulnerability is a characteristic or state generated by multiple environmental and social processes, but exacerbated by climate change.”

The authors argue, “We make the case in this paper that the two interpretations of vulnerability – as an end point or as a starting point – confound the issue of climate change… the two definitions not only result in two different diagnoses of the climate change problem, but also two different kinds of cures.”

(more…)

It’s that time of the semester. Students take tests and turn in term projects, and professors hunker down to provide evaluations in the form of grades. I have strongly mixed feelings about the grading process. Some days I’d like to do away with grades altogether, particularly for graduate students. On other days, I can’t imagine doing my job without grades.

My apparent grading schizophrenia results from an awareness that, on the one hand, it is entirely reasonable for students, universities, and prospective employers to receive some metric of performance associated with an undergraduate or graduate degree. But on the other hand, as we in academia go through the annual ritual of evaluating faculty and admitting students based on their grades and standardized test scores, it is abundantly clear to me that performance measures can introduce some serious pathologies into the educational system. And of course there are the profoundly absurd moments following almost every semester when the student receiving an A- or B+ comes in to complain about their grade.

The incentives for grade inflation are not hard to figure out. They are in fact an elephant-in-the-living-room. In many universities, including my own, there is an apparent quid pro quo because student evaluations of their professors are (surprise!) highly correlated with the course grades that the professor gives the student. If student evaluations of a professor’s performance factor into decisions about raises and career advancement it is not too difficult to understand what results: grade inflation.

(more…)

The Gates Foundation is giving $20 million “over the next ten years to promote better decision-making on science-related issues in Africa, particularly those concerning human health.” The Gates Foundation has partnered with the U.S. National Academy of Sciences to develop similar academies in Africa.

David Dickson writes, “The grant is a welcome one.” But he also observes, “If there is a concern about the role of academies, however, it relates not so much to what they do, as to how they do it. An academy is, by its nature, an elite; individuals are elected solely on the judgement that their competence places them at the top of their profession. And this gives them, almost by definition, a power and influence in the political sphere that is denied to many of their colleagues… But elites can also become self-serving, and in the process lose contact with the wider societies in which they are embedded. Some may end up defending the privileges of their members; this has, for example, frequently been one of the criticisms aimed at Soviet-style academies that dominated Eastern Europe for the second half of the 20th century. Others can fall prey to overstating the case for s!
cience as the basis of social policy, rather than as merely one component, however essential.”

Bruce Alberts the President of the U.S. notes of the grant, “Understanding the critical importance of basing decisions on sound science and incorporating it into the policy-making process could be an important step forward for many African nations.”

This initiative will be worth following, evaluating, and learning from. Anyone need a dissertation topic?

Yesterday, Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) gave a speech at the AAAS 29th Annual Forum on Science and Technology Policy. It is a wide-ranging speech with elements of both policy and politics. Below is an excerpt focused on Senator Daschle’s endorsement of “Jeffersonian” science,” which refers to research that is inspired both by usefulness and advancing knowledge. This is what the late histroian Donald Stokes called “use-inspired basic research” in his book Pasteur’s Quadrant. Anytime a major national politician sees fit to speak thoughtfully on science and technology policy it is worth our attention. Download speech.

An excerpt …

(more…)

In the New York Times today William J. Broad reports (registration required) on Kei Koizumi’s presentation at AAAS on R&D budgets that we referred to yesterday. The Times summarizes the implications of Koizumi’s analysis as follows,

“Federal support for research and development stands at $126.5 billion this year, and the administration has proposed increasing it over five years to $141.6 billion. But Mr. Koizumi found that large projected increases for research at the Department of Homeland Security and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration masked steep declines at all other nondefense agencies.

For instance, he said, federal budgets would decline 15.9 percent for earth science over the next five years, 16.2 percent for aeronautics, 11.8 percent for biological and physics research, 21 percent for energy-supply research, and 11.3 percent for agriculture research. Research budgets would drop 15 percent at the Environmental Projection Agency, 10.5 percent at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 4.7 percent at the National Science Foundation.”

(more…)

The Paradox of Choice (Ecco, 2004) is the title of a new book by Swarthmore’s Barry Schwartz who argues too much choice can be a bad thing. While Schwartz focuses on the scope of consumer choice, a colleague asked me if his argument can be applied to the scope of policy alternatives. Can there be too many policy alternatives? Some of my more extended thoughts on this appear below, but short answer is — Perhaps. But in many cases, policy making clearly suffers from a dearth, not an excess, of choice.

(more…)

In creating this site I sought a name that would convey its basic purpose: addressing and commenting on the complex nature of science and technology decision-making. The name should, of course, also be catchy and maybe even fun. Hence, Prometheus became a weblog in addition to Greek god.

In Greek mythology Prometheus, which may be translated to “forethought”, is closely linked with the cultural and technological development of mankind. The Library of Apollodoros states that Prometheus created man from water and earth (1.7.1). Furthermore, at the feast at Mekone, Prometheus tricks Zeus into taking the lesser share of sacrifice, leaving the best portion to man. As punishment for this subterfuge Zeus withholds fire from mankind, only to have Prometheus steal it and present it to mankind. I suggest that this widely known act represents a very early example of science and technology policy.

Prometheus, then, conjures the ideas of intellectual growth and progress that this site hopes to reflect. Yet, Hesiod’s Theogony introduces Prometheus, the embodyment of science and technology, as “subtle and devious” (511)… for, like science and technology, Prometheus carries some negative consequences for mankind when, in retaliation for the theft of fire, Zeus unleashes evil on mankind through the creation of Pandora.

The Prometheus weblog, then, will tackle the benefits, risks, successes and failures of science and technology. Our pages will reflect the good and bad, and suggest science and technology policy for a modern day Prometheus.

The weblog will also steadfastly avoid eagles…

Leonard David asks on Space.com What if the Shuttle Never Flew Again?. He observes, in what is decidedly an understatement, “Permanently grounding the shuttle, according to space experts contacted by SPACE.com, is sure to stir up a hornet’s nest of sticky issues.” But these are exactly the issues that NASA needs help thinking through.

The AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program is the best source I know of for up-to-date information on the federal budget for science and technology. The Program’s Director is giving a presentation (in PDF) today on the FY 2005 budget. There is also considerable information on budgetary trends. The growth in life sciences funding recent years (Slide 10) is simply amazing.