Seven for Science: Now that’s Science Progress!
Recent Appointments Are a New Beginning
SOURCE: AP
The seven science advisers Barack Obama has chosen are surely the most distinguished group of scientists at the highest levels of government in decades. Above: At the press conference announcing nominees for the new administration's energy and environment team.
Print
President-elect Barack Obama has sent a strong signal that should cheer all Americans this holiday season as together we face a tough set of challenges: Though science can’t solve our problems, neither can we solve them without science.
Taken together, the seven science advisers he has so far appointed are surely the most distinguished group of scientists at the highest levels of government in decades. They would make the founders of our republic—the most technology-oriented pantheon of revolutionaries in history—proud.
Steven Chu is the first Nobel laureate in science nominated for a cabinet position, Secretary of Energy. Chu has the ability to recognize good science and, just as important, sees our energy and environmental problems within a larger framework of the innovation economy. To coordinate energy and climate policy in the White House Obama has selected former Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner. Former New Jersey environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson will run EPA. And L.A. deputy mayor Nancy Sutley will direct the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
All these impressive credentials are a beginning, not an end. But at the very least they say to the American people that respect for evidence will once again have a central role in government science policy.
As the Passover ritual says, if this is all the president-elect had done for science and our country that would have been sufficient. But he is also expected to name the highly respected Harvard University physicist and climate expert John Holdren as his White House science adviser. Holdren, a former board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a vigorous supporter of efforts to put innovation back on our national agenda, as it is crucial to all aspects of our national security and prosperity.
Obama will apparently also name Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lubchenco, also much admired in the scientific community, is a member of both the National Academy of Science and the British Royal Academy.
Again, all these impressive credentials are a beginning, not an end. But at the very least they say to the American people that respect for evidence will once again have a central role in government science policy. The role of regulatory agencies—to create a level playing field of safety and opportunity—will be restored to its proper place in government, in the context of a public policy that builds the cleaner, green economy that must be the foundation of the new American prosperity.
Especially striking is the turn away from the tiresome, divisive and dispiriting culture wars that so politicized science—a sorry trademark of the past eight years. Americans can now look forward with pleasure to further smart appointments, including new leadership for the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.
At Science Progress we are committed to the proposition that sound public policy requires taking evidence seriously. If democracy is to thrive, we must find new and better ways to integrate the spirit of open inquiry into our policy process. That’s why we cover the latest research and discussions shaping science policy and develop pragmatic proposals that promote science and innovation that ensures greater freedom, justice, and quality of life for all people. We celebrate the new appreciation for the contributions of science to policy and to shaping a better world.
Yet the outgoing Bush administration has left us with a parting shot: a midnight regulation that could clear the way for new coal-fired plants not restrained by greenhouse-gas rules. Just one week ago today I experienced the “sunniest” day of a stay in Beijing. That was a bright, noxious haze in which I could roughly make out the rim of the sun. The seven for science named so far can’t alone protect us from the future we can read in the Beijing sky, but they can help show us the way.
Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor of Ethics and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.
Comments on this article
Yes, they are good, smart, experts in their fields.
Regretfully, I have discovered a disconnect.
Those in charge of making commitments to build rapid rails in-city freight-delivery systems, etc., seem to march behind a different drummer.
For example, a $10 Billion Bond for a High Speed Rail between LA-San Francisco-Sacramento was approved, barely, by voters. Yet, no technical agency evaluated their plans.
1. A noted newspaper commentator Dan Walters, in the Sacramento Bee, asserts the total cost to link LA and Sacramento will be close to $50 Billion.
2. Others insist this train will have to charge twice airplane rates to break even. The Governor insisted there will be no subsidies for passengers. Advocates often mention the low friction in level road and the high speed but ignore the train weight and the cost of acceleration and deceleration at every stop. Currently, three airports in the North serve four in the South with about 40 flights a day.
3. No noise studies have been made but some believe that 100 trains a day at 220 mph will be intolerable to birds nesting in wetlands near San Jose and intolerable to residents along the 700 mile route.
4. They mention nothing about provisions to make travel safe in this vulnerable rail system. Security experts in Government may have been totally ignored.
Environmental officials must be sad to realize that all their beneficial efforts elsewhere will not compensate for all this.
More is needed than just have smart people at the top, unable to control events at ground level, where the metal or rubber tire meets the road.
December 19th, 2008 at 8:28 pm—————-
Another example, I understand Federal Funds (UNK) will be used to help a new car company build electric cars in San Jose, Calif, that sell for over $100,000! They have been to many cities where they were welcomed but nothing is build.
Possibly to meet some requirements, a recent annoucement was that they are also going to build an small 4-seat electric car for about $60,000. Will anybody in Washington require more details and pass judgment on this?
—–
I hope we can avoid the events that allowed censorship of the writings of a noted scientist, because he wanted to publish taxpayer-paid results that supported Global Warming.
It seems that some political leaders have difficulty accepting the truth.
—–
Should there be a committee on National Science, headed by a Chief appointed by the President and members from every state, appointed by the State Government, to interface and influence but not to decide, fund or implement projects. Just a bully pulpit.
I realize that this is more about technological innovation than anything else, as much as we want that, how realistic is it to accomplish anything concrete in their first go at public office, especially in the first term of Obama’s Presidency. While this is a HUGE step in the right direction, we must be realistic as to what will be done versus what needs to begin to be taken care of, i.e. environmental issues (Carol Browner and Lisa Jackson,) scientific progress (with help from John Holdren at his side) as well as future endeavors (in space) behind the ideas and goals of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.
Beyond “basic” scientific progress, we need to utilize emerging technologies from places like DARPA and the “Omni Directional Dielectric mirror” recently used in minimally invasive deep tissue surgeries in a CO2 fiber optic laser. As well as further medical developments that cut costs and invasive procedures to help swing political influence away from a simple universal healthcare system that people seem to be quickly jumping towards due to continually rising healthcare costs.
December 21st, 2008 at 2:54 amAloha Fellow Geeks:
I do not want to write a science equation here, and I do not see the need to second-guess the “Change Theory”.
Sometimes you just know its the right answer even without the scientific method….These selections to me just “feel right”…so what can I do to help my community, explore ? is the question I put on my chalk-board…and you’ll have to answer, “what will your question be on your chalk-board”? Mahalo from Hawaii…..
December 21st, 2008 at 4:02 amQuoting Dwight D. Eisenhower — Farewell Address 1961 — “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html
It is this Military-Industrial-Multicomplex that we must address when the Obama administration takes power. Too many secrets kept from the public by our government citing national defense as the reason for such secrecy can no longer be tolerated to such a degree as has been allowed up until now. We must open up the closed doors of our government and disclose what has been kept out of the private sector in terms of energy research, transportation technologies and science/medicine.
January 7th, 2009 at 10:12 pm