One of the biggest science and technology positions still open in the Obama Administration was filled today when the President announced General Charles Bolden, Jr. (USMC, retired) would be the nominee for NASA Adminstrator (H/T Wall Street Journal and Dynamics of Cats).  General Bolden is a former astronaut, and served in NASA as assistant deputy administrator in the early part of the 1990s.  Lori Garver, a former NASA official during the Clinton Administration, has been nominated as Deputy Administrator.

Bolden’s name has been bandied about since the beginning of the year, suggesting some reservations in the White House or other space constituencies.  Gen. Bolden’s employment by NASA contractors following his astronaut service may have given some quarters pause, particularly when the agency wil be forced to navigate new territory when the Space Shuttle is retired, something supposed to happen next year.  As the Obama Administration has instituted an agency review of human spaceflight operations, there will likely be some pressure to change old institutional habits, including relationships with contractors.  Ms. Garver’s experience with contractors also suggests potential resistance to change.  Since the investments in resources required for what NASA does are large, making big changes requires extra effort.  These may not be the right people for making big changes.

From the front page (of the Style Section) of today’s Washington Post, there’s an article about the latest engagement between government and science fiction writers on the future.  This is an ongoing effort, currently with the Department of Homeland Security, to encourage different kinds of thinking that has some basis in science.  The costs are minimal, but light pieces like the one linked to here really don’t address the value of such programs.  As this is a flip side of the efforts to get better scientific advice for entertainment ventures, it’s disappointing to see relatively superficial coverage like this.

Joining Recovery.gov, USAspending.gov and Regulations.gov is Data.gov, a website hosting government data sets from Executive Branch agencies (H/T Science Progress).  It is still somewhat thin, with only 47 data sets, but they are available in different formats. You can find other data sets through open government groups like the Sunlight Foundation, or hosted by Amazon.  Additionally, the website is taking suggestions for what datasets to add.

Aside from the potential of this website as a data tool, this provides another resources for third-party examination of government data.  With the increased availability of programs to crunch, collate, sort and analyze data, going back through “old data” like that available on Data.gov could provide new insights and information we couldn’t get before.  I expect non-governmental organizations like the Sunlight Foundation to stay ahead of government efforts in this area.  What websites like Data.gov provide is additional encouragement to make more government data available and/or easy to work with.  With a multitude of data formats used today, there is no guarantee that a Census data file will be easily matched with Bureau of Labor Statistics information.  Hopefully more disclosure will help address these formatting concerns.

No, the National Institutes of Health are not going up against Merck, GlaxoSmithKline and the other companies of Big Pharma.  They are going to start drug development research on so-called “neglected” diseases (H/T ScienceInsider).  The $24 million program (less than .1 percent of the total NIH budget) to establish a drug development pipeline will trigger a new initiative called Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) coordinated through the NIH Office of Rare Disease Research.  The NIH defines a rare disease as one that affects fewer than 200,000 Americans (less than .067 percent of the population), and estimates there are 6800 rare diseases affecting 25 million Americans (nearly 1 in 10 of us).

I think this is a perfectly reasonable thing for government to take on – fill in the gaps in biomedical development that are not currenlty being addressed by the private sector.  Given the costs of pharmaceutical research, companies often focus on diseases or conditions that affect millions of people.  Government can also make any drugs developed for these diseases available relatively cheaply, as they are not motivated by profit in these endeavors.

On May 9, EPA Administrator Jackson issued a memo to all EPA employees about scientific integrity in the agency (H/T OSTP Blog).  Keeping in line with the Obama Administration’s scientific integrity memo, scientific integrity is not defined in this memo.  While referencing the agencies previous efforts in this area, including whistleblower protections, Administrator Jackson notes that she has asked the EPA Science Council to assess EPA efforts and gaps in this area:

“The SPC at my request is inventorying all our guidelines and policies that relate to scientific integrity to look for gaps and possible areas for improvement. One SPC focus, for example, will be updating and reaffirming EPA’s Peer Review Handbook and recommending how we can improve implementation of our peer review policies across our programs and regions. I also have asked the SPC to work the National Partnership Council to reaffirm the Agency’s Principles of Scientific Integrity and update the Principles of Scientific Integrity online training.”

(more…)

That’s an interpretation of this analysis in Cell Stem Cell (no, that’s not a stutter, but a journal title).  In short, there is a significant concern that the consent standards required by the new NIH guidelines (currently under public comment) would preclude using most existing stem cell lines, including those that were accepted under President Bush’s stem cell research guidelines.  Of course, we are talking about federal funding for these stem cell lines; private entities will be free to continue to fund stem cell research.  The new guidelines were drafted in response to President Obama’s Executive Order removing the guidelines of the previous administration.

The issue is the retroactive application of informed consent standards.  For reasons listed in the piece that are primarily legal/judicial in nature, the authors of the analysis consider retroactive regulations to be an unfair infringement, equivalent to an ex post facto law which is specifically proscribed in the Bill of Rights.  From a research perspective, such retroactive regulations are problematic where consent procedures are concerned because it is usually difficult, if not impossible, to conform old consent actions to new consent procedures without violating subject confidentiality (or anonymity), or the validity of the experiments in the research.  As a result, most current NIH grants in this area would have to be stopped.

Given that President Obama’s actions on stem cell research and scientific integrity were issued on the same day, I find it ironic that an effort to preserve one could serve to undercut change in another.  The comment period on the stem cell guidelines should close soon, and we will see whether or not the final regulations will manage to have a chilling effect on stem cell research that could rival the effect following President Bush’s 2001 limitations.  If this is the case, some comfort could be taken in the Obama Executive Order, which allows for the NIH to review and update the guidelines as appropriate.  This ought to be a lesson to those who thought the issue was resolved with the March Executive Order.

Duke Energy in North Carolina is experimenting with distributed power generation.  According to Scientific American’s 60 Second Science Blog, the company will spend around $50 million to install photovoltaic panels atop commercial buildings, residences and other property around North Carolina.  The intent of the project is to explore the feasibility of distributed generation of power along with gaining experience in using solar power in an electric grid.  Hopefully the results of the project will not be held proprietary, in order for other energy companies to consider similar efforts.  A bottom-up project like this (compared to the top-down regulation that can rub companies the wrong way) may be more successful in part due to less resistance.  Companies may be more likely to try and compete rather that submit to new regulations.

Picking up on a post from last month, ScienceInsider and others have reported on a lawsuit that may test the validity of gene patents.  The Public Patent Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union have filed suit against Myriad Genetics, which is the company owning the patents, and controlling the genetic tests, for the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that show a predisposition to breast cancer.  Among the allegations is that the monopoly on these genes and the associated diagnostic tests prevents patients from obtaining a second opinion.  Apparently any examination of these genes requires permission from Myriad Genetics, which seems like an overreach of the traditional conception of the protection afforded patent holders.  The consequences to individuals include the inability to have other scientists assess the results of the tests and the influence of these genes on the potential for cancer.  General effects include a chill on research into these genes, and other consequences addressed by Nobel laureate in Physiology or Medicine Sir John Sulston.

It’s unfortunate that the validity of gene patents is going to be tested in this fashion, as I don’t expect this validity to be shaken.  Perhaps it’s a consequence of the deep pockets necessary to participate in a patent infringement case (on either side), but I think some kind of fair use or research exemption arrived at through an infringment action is a stronger legal claim than infringement of free speech.  Since the state of genetic understanding over the last several years has typically exposed more about what we don’t know that what we do know, to restrict access to genes like BRCA1 and BRCA2 appears to cause more harm than good.

While the current administration has managed to fill a number of science and technology positions much faster than its predecessors, there are still some notable empty chairs.  NASA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) remain under the care of acting chiefs.  The NIST and NIH positions have been open since before the election, and unfortunately there’s been a history of long-serving acting heads of both agencies.

There has been some recent movement.  Shere Abbott has been confirmed as Associate Director for Environment at the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  This week Thomas Frieden was appointed to head the Centers for Disease Control, and Zachary Lemnios was tapped to be Director of Defense Research and Engineering at the Department of Defense.  Similar subcabinet appointments have been made in the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Health and Human Services.  While most of these nominees are recent, the nominee for FDA Commissioner has been waiting for six weeks, and the Federal Communications Commission nominee has waited since the beginning of March for their confirmation hearings.  A chart of many relevant federal positions in science and technology is available online.

Prior to the announcement of a permanent NASA Administrator, the Obama Administration has announced an independent review of human spaceflight activities.  The review will be lead by Norman Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin, and apparently the go-to person for leading big-time reviews (he was the head of the study group that saddled us with Rising Above the Gathering Storm).  According to the initial announcement, the review must be completed quickly.

“The “Review of United States Human Space Flight Plans” is to examine ongoing and planned National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) development activities, as well as potential alternatives, and present options for advancing a safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable human space flight program in the years following Space Shuttle retirement.  The panel will work closely with NASA and will seek input from Congress, the White House, the public, industry, and international partners as it develops its options. It is to present its results in time to support an Administration decision on the way forward by August 2009.”

The lack of a NASA Administrator is one of the two biggest empty chairs in science and technology policy right now.  While I understand the interest of any new administration to review where things are, doing this without a permanent Administrator runs the risk of having someone at the helm who isn’t bought in to whatever the report concludes.  I’m also reminded of the last administration’s efforts to push NASA forward, and how badly they’ve unfolded.  That bold plan relied on cost savings for future expense of the program, yet failed to commit the attention to the program required to make those savings happen.

(more…)