From Nature News is a report of political protests over an Israeli Day of Science hosted at science museums in the U.K.  A lead protest group makes the argument that a protest of a demonstration of Israeli university research is necessary because “These universities are without exception complicit in the mechanisms and policies of the Israeli occupation, and in developing the military technology used in the massacre in Gaza.”

Academics and other scientists are certainly welcome to participate in politics, and such participation is an important aspect of academic freedom.  While I understand the perspective that government supported research might be considered complicit in other policies of that government, I have a harder time seeing how an exclusionary protest like this might be effective.  While we may be more accustomed to the interactions of politics and science, that hasn’t trickled down so much to science museum audiences.  The cognitive dissonance is probably too strong to make a worthwhile impression.  Science has typically been used more effectively in diplomatic efforts, rather than confrontational ones.

U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently gave a speech on science and science education at the University of Oxford.  The full text of the speech is available, but ScienceInsider has a report on the speech and reactions to it (both positive and negative).  The title, “Science and our Economic Future” probably gives some pause, as there has been strong resistance to moves in the U.K. to connect research funding with economic output.  In addition to a commitment to maintain scientific research funding during economic troubles, Brown spoke to expanding science education opportunities for pre-college students (not growing up in the U.K. education system, I’m sure I didn’t precisely capture the Prime Minister’s target), and encouraging a more “public debate about the proper role of science in the service of humanity.”  Britain’s efforts in each of these areas should be instructive for other countries, particularly the U.S.

Nature’s coverage is understandably more detailed, and includes news about a science adviser appointment to the government’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office.  This adviser would work with his or her American counterpart (the science adviser to the Secretary of State, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is part of the Foreign Ministry).

The stimulus legislation has provided fodder for that time honored tradition of targeting specific line items for their apparent ridiculousness.  While they can make for good sound bites and PR copy, frequently such items are actually of some use.

You’ve probably heard Governor Jindal, get roundly criticized on many points for his response to the President’s address earlier this week.  One of those was his criticism of the stimulus funding “volcano monitoring.”  Putting aside the fact that his cited figure for volcano monitoring was actually for all U.S. Geological Survey spending, there is the irony of the Governor of Louisiana arguing against a measure that would help mitigate a natural disaster.  But it also feeds the fire Mr. Mooney occasionally stokes about a Republican War on Science.  As his war downplays the notion that using science for political purposes is a universal trend – not a partisan one – such low-hanging fruit perpetuates an idea that causes more problems than it solves.

Unfortunately, Governor Jindal’s example is not an isolated incident in the last 12 months.  Other recent examples:

(more…)

Earlier this week the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee announced their subcommittee structure for the 111th Congress.  There will be seven subcommittees, each with two members (Senate committees are always smaller than House committtees, reflecting the difference in size of each chamber).

The Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion subcommittee is completely new, replacing the Interstate Commerce, Trade and Tourism subcommittee.  Other subcommittees have new names, and jurisdictions have adjusted accordingly.  The Science, Technology and Innovation subcommittee is now the Communications and Technology subcommittee (this better reflects past interests of the committee in FCC activities).  The Space, Aeronautics and Related Sciences subcommittee is now the Science and Space subcommittee.  And the Consumer Affairs, Insurance and Automotive Safety subcommittee is now the Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance subcommittee.  Full subcommittee listing (with chairs – Democrats – and Ranking Members – Republicans – after the jump.

(more…)

Noting the various online urgings over science funding and the stimulus this weekend, I have a few quick observations:

Some people are confusing the stimulus with the budget.  The explanatory postings at ScienceDebate (scroll down to LATER) suggest this disconnect  – people don’t get that funding in the stimulus is in addition to amounts in the budget.  Some advocacy is at least a little misleading on this point.  We’re dealing with a supplementary bill, much like those that handled appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Hurricane Katrina.  If a program is zeroed out in the stimulus, that doesn’t mean it disappears.

Science advocates are still better being reactive than proactive.  Noise from the communities was loudest this past weekend, when it had been telegraphed for a long time by President Obama that he was seeking a stimulus bill.  Why not mobilize the masses for a push starting January 21st rather than February 6th?  Hopefully they can ride whatever momentum they have, since they’ll need it.

Get ready for two more rounds.  Next month the continuing resolution that funds the government will expire.  Most funding for the last half of this fiscal year will be debated over the next few weeks.  If science is a tempting target for cuts in the stimulus, I have a hard time seeing a different outcome over the budget for the second half of FY 2009.  And we should see a preliminary FY 2010 budget by the end of February.  Sadly, appropriations is now a perpetual, rather than an annual, process in Washington, and science advocates need to shift tactics and employ better strategies to adjust to this state of affairs.

The Scientist is reporting that the Senate has added to the stimulus bill, by amendment, an additional $6.5 billion in funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  Given the apparent rediscovery of reduced government spending by the Republican Party and the continued incompetence of the Congress, it remains to be seen whether this current stimulus bill goes anywhere.  If it does, there are at least two serious issues worth noting:

(more…)

This past week the House Science and Technology Committee formally organized, setting subcommittee assignments and committee leadership.  Bart Gordon (D-TN) remains chair, and Ralph Hall (R-TX) remains ranking member.  Over 10 members are new to the committee for this Congress.  The five subcommittees remain as they did for the 110th Congress, with the following members leading them for the 111th.  Specific leadership assignments after the jump.

(more…)

ScienceBlogs wants to answer the above question in light of the following phrase from the President’s inaugural address:

“We will restore science to its rightful place”

Never mind that the phrasing suggests this rightful place existed at some time in the past, the folks at Scienceblogs and SEED Magazine are soliciting contributions of what is the rightful place for science.  Watch the wishful thinking take flight.

Today I’ll get into some issues in Mooney’s hatchet job where he and Marburger talk past each other.  All quotations not otherwise attributed are from Mooney.

I’d like to indulge in one final Bush-era diatribe against the longest-ever serving White House science adviser: John Marburger, who has been a poor advocate indeed for the science world.

Since when is the president’s science adviser a science advocate?  Let’s look at the underlying law dictating how the Office of Science and Technology Policy should operate (Public Law 94-282).  Some relevant text:

The Act authorizes OSTP to:

• Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs;
• Lead an interagency effort to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets;
• Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security;
• Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other countries, and the scientific community;
• Evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology.

There’s a lot of wiggle room here. But what isn’t here is some dictum that scientific outcomes advanced by OSTP dictate policy outcomes.  This path is a small reach from the encouragement of open inquiry and publication without censorship.  Many people can’t resist the urge to reach.

(more…)

I’ve never been a fan of the “War on Science” construct.  As developed and articulated, its main function has been to rouse people to political action.  To agitate and organize is not a bad thing, depending on how it is done.  The problem comes in that same development and articulation of the “War on Science,” which paints a picture that is far more aggressive, comprehensive, and subversive than facts on the ground can demonstrably prove.  In short, it’s effective politics, but fails to reflect reality or suggest effective policy solutions.  It makes for bad policy, trying to correct problems that aren’t there at the expense of those that are.  So if one party latches onto this idea (or one party is pilloried by the execution of that idea), the more likely outcome is a change in power rather than a substantive change in how science policy is handled.  The notion that any particular entity in power would not use (or ignore) scientific or technical knowledge to its political benefit (an underlying evil in this rhetoric), is laughable and unrealistic.  This helps explain why the rhetoric never caught on outside of science advocacy circles.  The concept will not lead to any substantive change in how science policy is done because the “War on Science” was never used in a way to support it.  It was negative – do not do what __________ did.  There was nothing suggested as a new thing to do, or a new way of doing business.  It was a corrective only, assuming that the status quo ante was good enough.  The inaugural language to “restore science to its rightful place” suggests as much.

I was glad to see the chief proponent of the “War on Science.” Chris Mooney, unilaterally declare it over in a Slate column.  This made my disappointment all the stronger when I read his hatchet job in Science Progress on former Presidential science adviser John Marburger’s exit interview in SEED magazine.

(more…)