Back in May, Roger noted some similarities between the situations of Hubble and the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) in determining how risk, cost, and scientific value balance out. Today, Guy Gugliotta, in the Washington Post reports a NASA decision to perform a controlled de-orbit of TRMM, thus dashing hopes of significantly extending the satellite’s mission. And the similarities are growing as, like Hubble’s case, the scientific community has vociferously attacked the decision.

Among the charges lies a suggestion that the cancellation of Hubble and TRMM serve as cost saving measures to support President Bush’s space initiative to the moon and Mars. That arguement has never rung true to me. To begin, in the TRMM case, Mr. Gugliotta reports:

“[Ghassem] Asrar [NASA's associate administrator for earth science] said it was “absolutely incorrect” that NASA decided to begin the de-orbit now to save money for the Bush initiative, noting that “we started looking at this issue two years ago,” long before the moon-Mars plan arose.”

In the case of Hubble, Administrator O’Keefe has stated several times that he personally made the decision to cancel SM4 on the grounds of risk alone.

And more to the point, a savings of up to $37 million for TRMM doesn’t make much of a dent in the $12 billion over the next five years President Bush has proposed. Hubble does, however, have a larger footprint, with operating costs running at $250 million per year, and the cost of the servicing mission itself running at about $140 million (SM3A). But even this larger amount occurs early in the Initiative before any serious moon or Mars missions begin and at the end of construction of ISS.

This arguement just doesn’t do enough work to wholly explain these cancellations. However, the cost savings critique is just one of manyand both decisions remain open to a number of different and probably more convincing arguements.

Of the many news accounts of Cassini’s arrival at Saturn, few have mentioned the controversy that surrounded its launch. The mission, launched in 1997, engendered protests and concern from some. The crux of the problem was Cassini’s plutonium containing radio thermal generator, and fears that an accident at launch or flyby could release the plutonium. NASA went to great lengths to communicate their commitment to safely launching and flying the mission, overcoming a lawsuit in the process.

The same battle of space nuclear power looms on the horizon with Project Prometheus and the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter. The project hopes to design and use a new generation of RTGs and nuclear reactors. Moving this project forward will depend on communicating and debating risk and uncertainty.

A similar debate is also ongoing for the future of the space shuttle, a manned flight to Mars, the Hubble servicing mission, and commercial space flight. Indeed, much of NASA’s work contains small but significant factors of risk and uncertainty, factors that greatly complicate the agency’s ability to gather support for and maintain initiatives.

Successfully describing and supporting thier risk assessments will be a critical challenge to the agency, and will require sensitivity to the subjective nature of risk tolerance and the value judgements that underlie arguments for and against particular missions. Technical and scientific data will play an important role, but cannot alone overcome value based objections.

For the past several weeks a Buffalo grand jury has been investigating the bio-artist Steven Kurtz, and in the end, as reported in the NY Times, indicted him on 4 counts of mail and wire fraud for illegally obtaining samples and equipment.

Is this a case of bio-terrorism concerns pushing a case further than needed? Kurtz is a well-known artist and professor, who’s legitimate use of biological samples and equipment seems clear. However, how should authorities react upon finding a working lab within a suburban home?

After following the case for a couple weeks now, I’m surprised at the indictments and somewhat surprised that the case made it to a grand jury at all. An investigation was clearly in order, though the amount of effort put into this one seems a waste of time and money. Regardless, the story is sure to continue and spark debate on the appropriate use of science in art and society and what biosafety is all about (see today’s post).

While in DC, I visited NAS’s Koshland Science Museum, a new(ish) science museum for the older crowd, and gentle plug for the work of the Academies. Their current exhibits focus on climate change and DNA, and I think do an ok job of presenting a basic, skin-deep understanding of some of the science in those fields. Unfortunately, I can’t really tell what the take home message is, except maybe an unsurprising “science is great” spirit. The exhibits seem to skip any hint of values conflicts or political problems, suggesting that DNA testing catches bad guys and not mentioning the possibility of cancelled insurance policies… Not that I’d really expect the NAS to market potential problems, but I do wonder how much the museum can really contribute.

Forbes.com has a fascinating story by Matthew Herper on the spiraling costs of cancer drugs.

“After helping to develop some of the hottest new biotech drugs, Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer doctor Leonard Saltz has come down with a bad case of sticker shock. The price tag for treating patients has increased 500-fold in the last decade.”

While discussing a number of specifc drugs and costs, the article does not mention the growing number of Americans without health insurance, a factor which greatly compounds the problem of drug costs. Nor does it discuss lagging health indicators in the US despite massive expenditures.

Can the US continue today’s de facto rationing of health services to wealthy customers, or will the health sciences, pharmaceuticals, and government act to foster a more equitable system?

This weekend’s New York Times Magazine includes a story by Jon Gertner visiting with Bill Joy. From grey goo to bird flu, it’s all in here.

Like him or not, Joy is on the forefront of several important science policy questions.
- Should, or even can, limits be placed on where we take science?
- What roles should scientists, busnesses, trade associations, and government have in preventing “bad outcomes”?

Here are some quotes of interest…

“Making us think about potential ”bad outcomes” is his goal; scaring the hell out of us is not.”

” ‘The Greeks knew better,’ Joy says. ‘Oedipus was destroyed by truth. He looked like he had a happy life until he learned one too many things. That’s the cautionary tale.’ ”

“He’s not exactly optimistic, predicting that public awareness will most likely come only after an actual accident at a company or a university. Until then, he says, speed — the mad rush for patents and market share and money — will trump caution. Regulatory agencies are structured to catch shady C.F.O.’s, not reckless private-sector technologists. And markets are ill equipped to play traffic cop. ‘Markets are extremely good at go,’ Joy says. ‘They’re not very good at stop. And I think we need a little bit of stop right now. Or else we’re not going to like the outcome.’”

“He is likewise sure that the financial markets do not acknowledge the true hazards of certain kinds of science. To Joy this is a hugely important point. He isn’t keen on regulation, since he considers it far less effective than market forces. (A millionaire many times over from his shares in Sun and other tech start-ups, Joy knows the fruits of the market firsthand.) Yet he does think we now need to ”manage” the system somewhat. He says he believes that businesses doing research in areas deemed risky by their peers should be forced to take out insurance against catastrophes. He also says that science guilds should have the authority to limit access to potentially dangerous ideas.”

In a speech yesterday, NASA Administrator O’Keefe stood by his much criticized decision to cancel Hubble Servicing Mission 4, saying, “it would not be responsible to prepare for a servicing mission, only to find that the required actions identified by the [Columbia Accident Investigation] Board could not be implemented.”

While news accounts (and his audience) have struck on his partial support for a robotic servicing mission, as O’Keefe announced a forthcoming Request for Proposals following up on a February request, O’Keefe also gave one of his most rigorous defenses yet of his decision to cancel SM4, saying in part,

“A mission to the Hubble would require the development of a unique set of procedures, technologies and tools different from any other mission we’ll fly before the Shuttle fleet retires. Many of these capabilities which provide safety redundancy for ISS missions are primary or singular for a Hubble mission. Moreover, these Hubble unique methods must be developed and tested promptly before Hubble’s batteries and other critical systems give out.

We are making steady progress in our efforts to meet the safety requirements for the Shuttle return to flight next year. But based on where we are today, prospects are even more challenging than six months ago for our being able to develop in time all required safety and return-to-flight elements for a servicing mission before Hubble ceases to be operational.”

The whole of O’Keefe’s speech is here.

In addition to this speech, O’Keefe has made a case for his decision here, here, and here, all based on the CAIB recommendations and his concern for human life. Meanwhile, critics of his decision have continually suggested that Hubble is too important to science to lose, thus setting up an age-old conflict of the relative importance of manned flight and science at NASA. Is this another example of the Excess of Objectivity that Prometheus has commented on elsewhere? Both sides continue to argue over the “facts” of mission risk and ignore the fundamental value conflict between the “Hubble Huggers” and Administrator O’Keefe.

Monday’s New York Times runs this article on reductions in patents, publications, and Nobels from within the US. Is science in trouble in the US? Or do these measures suggest that science is in better shape world-wide?

The clear and growing competition from overseas suggests that dominance in all fields of science is a public policy goal that needs to be questioned. As well as the belief that basic science funding will get us there, and bring in the patents to boot.

Another straw on the “linear model” camel’s back.

Some quotes:
“Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed America’s, apparently with little public awareness of the trend or its implications for jobs, industry, national security or the vigor of the nation’s intellectual and cultural life.”

“Analysts say comparative American declines are an inevitable result of rising standards of living around the globe.”

“A major question, they add, is whether big spending automatically translates into big rewards, as it did in the past.”

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.

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…