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.

“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Independent of the accuracy of these claims (the ScienceInsider article notes only two speakers have withdrawn over the issue, and neither are Israeli), there’s plenty wrong with why this would be a valid reason to re-do the peer review.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.

UPDATE – 6/6/09 – Apparently Nature did neglect the comma, but given how it’s absent from the Department logo, but not the announcement, I can understand the confusion.

Original Post – I’d encourage any of our readers closer to this to provide additional details, but I found it interesting this speculation from Nature News that the troubles in the government of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown could affect the organization of science policy in that country.  The Prime Minister reshuffled his cabinet in light of recent resignations, promoting the current head of the Department on Universities, Innovation and Skills (DIUS) to a Cabinet position.  DIUS was created by PM Brown in 2007 to put universities and innovation issues in the same place.  Previously innovation concerns were handled in a department focused on business interests.  The Nature report reflects concerns that things will return to where they were before.

Couple this with the fallout of the scandal over misused expense money of Members of Parliament – one UK science advocate will not be able to run for re-election – and the squabbling over the recent research evaluation and I can see why science advocates may be concerned.  However, nothing definitive has happened yet with respect to DIUS, and it’s likely far down the list of concerns for the embattled Labour government, which looks to take losses in the current European Parliamentary elections.

“On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create more jobs.  We’ll open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new science envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, grow new crops.  Today I’m announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio.  And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership.  Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.”

With luck this might set aright Dr. Federoff’s concerns about the science budget at the State Department.

“But Fedoroff said that science could be a casualty of a “tight budget” in the state department [sic], which helps to coordinate US scientific collaborations abroad. The US economic recovery package is predominantly focused on investment at home and “this could be a real stumbling block because we need to collaborate internationally”.”

Unfortunately, the authors failed to address what steps the State Department has taken over the last ten years to improve its efforts in using science and scientists to support its policy objectives.  I think the authors’ criticisms are valid.  But to recommend the appoinment of a senior ambassador for science and technology cooperation without mentioning the existing science adviser to the Secretary of State is odd.  Do the authors think the position isn’t working?  Do they know it exists?  I would hope so, as one of the people who held the position, Dr. Norm Neuriter, currently works for the AAAS, as does one of the authors.  Do they have any comment on whether Senator Lugar’s bill creating science envoys would address their concerns?  Not in this article.  Clearly more debate and discussion on this issue would be worthwhile, just to see if everyone interested in the topic understands what’s currently going on.

Senator Richard Lugar, (R-Indiana) introduced a bill yesterday calling for the creation of “Science Envoys” through the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (H/T ScienceInsider).  These envoys would receive grants for short-term stays abroad.  While abroad, the scientists would forge connections between their host institutions in the U.S. and those in the country where they are posted.  This would be distinct from the Consular Officers responsible for science that are posted to some State Department facilities around the world.

Unfortunately, Senator Lugar’s website is not as current as you might like, so the statement he issued on the program is not yet available online (though it appears to have been excerpted in full at a different site).  Likewise, the bill (S838), is not yet available via THOMAS, the legislative tracking site administered by the Library of Congress.  Once it is, you can read it here.

I like the idea, as it would be a welcome supplement to the international exchanges already happening with some universities establishing branch campuses overseas, and with scholars pursuing opportunities like the Fulbright program to pursue research and teaching in other countries.  The U.S. has succeeded with this kind of public diplomacy before, so why not try again?  Hopefully the legislation will allow for stays of sufficient duration, and will be funded with sufficient resources to encourage top scientists to pursue these opportunities.

By no means will Ross hold a position that is the technology equivalent of Federoff’s, as some would like to see happen in the U.K. government, but the work he will do (and the work done by whoever will eventually coordinate the governments slide toward more open government) is valuable for helping fulfill political and policy objectives with the help of technology.

The specific example here relates to recent political protests in Moldova over parliamentary elections that some believe were fixed.  While this is reminiscent of other recent political movements in former Soviet republics and their use of technology to organize, there’s no reason to believe the use of these technologies would be limited to that part of the world.  For me the main question is whether or not the technology would remain viable long enough to become a target of oppression.  Some networking sites have a short shelf life, which might make it harder for groups to be found and caught.  It could also provide a leading indicator of unrest in societies – is the government blocking a particular service.  For instance, you can check on the various countries that have blocked YouTube at one time or another (some of these are due to intellectual property rights issues).  As you will read if you peruse the list, it can be difficult for countries to truly clamp down on internet sites, particularly those with global reach.  It doesn’t mean some nation won’t try.

Perhaps he didn’t want to appear self-serving, but it appears to me that the American model is not nearly as well suited to what Professor Beddington wants as the U.K. model is.  Throughout the BBC News piece you’ll note descriptions of the British system (which includes scientific advisers in 17 different departments) as independent, proactive and sometimes irritating.  While that certainly describes science policy advocates in this country, American science advisers are not set up to be independent or proactive.  At least not those advisers with formal government positions.  So I am a bit perplexed as why the less independent system would be advanced as the example to follow.