Issues in Science and Technology

Imagine It Project

2009-05-19T22:04:00.003-05:00

If you want young people to think of science and engineering as creative, exciting, meaningful, even hip activities, show them this film. Actually "Imagine It" is more like an animated Lego set than it is a film. It's composed of a rich variety of segments than can be assembled in a variety of ways for different audiences.

Filmmakers/ringmasters Richard Tavener and Rudy Poe stopped by the National Academy of Sciences today to preview one version of the film that was cut to appeal to leaders in business education, and government. It includes commentary from NAE president Chuck Vest, astronaut Sally Ride, Segway inventor Dean Kamen, the founders of the Blue Men performance group, and a host of other inspiring leaders as well as a charming and impressive group of young people. It also includes some rousing material on Kamen's FIRST competition for high school robot builders.

You can find excerpts from the film and whole lot more at:

http://www.imagineitproject.com/video/index.htm

Advice from Leonard Cohen

2009-05-13T10:36:00.002-05:00

Singer, songwriter, poet, novelist, 1960s survivor Leonard Cohen gave a concert in the DC area this week, and although he didn't actually address S&T in any way, he did recite and then sing a few lines that do have meaning for S&T policy grunts. A tragic flaw of technocrats is the misguided belief that it is possible to craft perfect policies that will somehow impose a rational shape on a messy reality. It's the assumption that the clearheaded, rational, evidence-based approach of the sciences and engineering is the best, perhaps the only valid, world view. Much of the commitment to "communication" with the general public is in practice an attempt to teach everyone else to see the world in a certain way. Although there is no doubt that this a valuable and useful way to see reality, it is not the only valid perspective. Visual artists, poets, novelists, dramatists, musicians, not to mention philosophers, historians, and social scientists, provide insights that add to our understanding of what is human, what is desirable, what is possible.

As Leonard Cohen put it simply and eloquently:

Forget your perfect offering
There is a crack, a crack in everything
That's how the light gets in.

The Two Cultures at New York Academy of Sciences

2009-05-11T16:14:00.002-05:00

It's been 50 years since British novelist, government official, and scientist C.P. Snow gave his famous Rede lecture on "The Two Cultures." To mark the occasion the New York Academy of Sciences held a conference to consider the place of science in today's society. E.O. Wilson revisited his book "Consilience," a panel of historians explored the long history of discussions about science's place and demonstrated that it's a much richer and more complex subject than one would gather from Snow's essay, a panel of journalists discussed science in the media, and several of the organizers of Science Debate 2008 looked at science in the political process. I was on a panel about education. NYAS will be posting a video of the conference in a few weeks, and it's well worth a visit.

There is no doubt that the science community is far more engaged in reaching the public and policymakers than it was 50 years ago, and many members of the general public are eager to know more about science. The danger for scientists is to believe that communication means teaching the public more about science. It must also include listening to the insights of other intellectual disciplines in the humanities and social sciences, respecting journalists' efforts to translate science for a broad audience, appreciating the insights of artists, and engaging in real conversations. Science has much to contribute, but it is not the only way to view the world, and it does not have all the answers to the world's questions and needs.

Entreneurship in education

2009-05-07T19:26:00.002-05:00

On May 5, two unlikely partners--the progressive Center for American Progress and the somewhat short of progressive American Enterprise Institute--jointly sponsored a conference on a topic on which they could find common ground: entreneurship in education. Both organizations see the creative energy of educators who want to start charter schools as an essential spur to improving U.S. public education.

The featured speaker was Teach for America veteran and DC school superintendent Michelle Rhee, who demonstrated that becoming part of the education establishment has not softened her criticism of the status quo or reined in her desire for fundamental reform. In her mind the key virtue of the entrepreneurial charter schools is accountability; without it, no one has sufficient motivation to make education work. She makes no distinction between nonprofit and for-profit operators. Both can create excellent schools.

A video of the event and more information on the first-rate lineup of speakers can be found at

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/entrepreneurs_event.html

Larry Berger, CEO of Wireless Generation, which helps schools make effective use of new technology, deserves special attention. Like the other speakers, he sees innovative charter schools as an essential component of school improvement, but he also reminded the audience that a handful of excellent schools or inspired teachers will not be enough. He correctly pointed out that our problems begin with a dysfunction educational management system. The ability of a few schools to succeed by freeing themselves from the mainstream public schools should lead us to study how to restructure the delivery of education in a way that increases accountability, encourages creativity, and rewards success. It was not computers alone that boosted US economic productivity in the 1990s, it was the use of computers to help create new management and production systems. The same type of systemic change will be necessary to achieve a broad-based improvement in school performance.

Brookings report on community colleges

2009-05-07T17:15:00.002-05:00

On May 8 Brookings released the paper "Transforming America's Community Colleges: A Federal Policy Proposal to Expand Opportunity and Promote Economic Prosperity," a plea for increased attention and support for community colleges. The Rodney Dangerfield of higher education, community colleges clearly deserve more respect. They educate about 45% of all college students and are growing faster than 4-year colleges. They are of particular importance to the poor, minorities, adults trying to change careers or upgrade their skills. Although there is still reason to debate whether it is wise to assign so many different missions to community colleges, there is no doubt that some of these missions are of vital importance but desperately underfunded.

See the report at:

http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2009/0507_community_college_goldrick_rab.aspx

AAAS S&T Policy Forum

2009-05-07T17:00:00.002-05:00

AAAS held its annual S&T policy powwow in DC May 7-8. Presidential science advisor John Holdren and energy secretary Steven Chu cheered the audience with their discussion of the administration's plans. Turnout was a record high of more than 600 people, and it was a happy crowd.

The most interesting session at the meeting was a panel discussion of how to regulate emerging technologies such as nanotechnology and synthetic biology. To grossly oversimplify a rich, wide-ranging, and thought-provoking discussion, the consensus was that we need to develop an iterative, evolutionary, adaptive, learning (choose your favorite) regulatory system that is designed to change as we learn more about the possible dangers of new technologies. We need to way to explore the potentially abundant benefits of these technologies as we closely watch for downsides. The panelists were looking the the middle course between a precautionary path that says don't commercialize until we are sure something is safe and the reactionary path that says don't regulate until there is clear evidence that damage has been done.

The critical need is careful monitoring of new technologies as they are gradually introduced and to somehow establish political legitimacy for a regulatory system that will be constantly updating the rules. Panelists with good ideas include Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State, Dave Rejeski of the Woodrow Wilson Center, and John Kamensky of IBM's Center for the Business of Government.

Regulating Nanotechnology: A Long-Term View

2009-05-01T09:53:00.002-05:00

J. Clarence (Terry) Davies, one of the nation's most thoughtful, well-informed, and experienced experts on environmental regulation, has completed a provocative report: Oversight of Next Generation Nanotechnology

http://www.nanotechproject.org/publications/archive/pen18/

Davies, who has published three earlier reports on nanotechnology regulation through the Woodrow Wilson Center's excellent Project on Emerging Technologies, outlines a plan for a new Department of Environmental and Consumer Protection. Although half-baked plans for new federal agencies are far too common, this proposal is something quite different. Davies played a role in the creation of EPA, served as its assistant administrator for Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, and has held several other key government and think tank positions. This proposal deserves serious attention. Davies acknowledges that he does not expect to see anything like this happening for many years, but the time to start thinking about it is now.

Obama loves science at NAS

2009-04-29T20:11:00.002-05:00

On Monday, 4/27, Barack Obama became the first sitting president since John Kennedy to speak at the NAS building. Obama used the occasion of the NAS annual meeting to tell NAS members how much he loves science and technology. It's hard to imagine a speech that would be more pleasing to the science community. See for yourself:

http://edg1.vcall.com/video/nas/launch.asp

He pledged that the nation would spend 3% of its GDP on R&D--"the largest commitment to scientific research and innovation in American history." He promised big pushes on clean energy and the fight against cancer and made a special commitment to science and math education and to support for young scientists.

During this half hour, science could do no wrong. It was all wisdom, with no narrowness of vision. It was all about service to the nation, with no self interest. It was the magic of innovation in the lab, with no worry about the social, cultural, legal, and economic systems that must all do their part if lab discoveries are to become practical realities. For this half hour everything seemed possible. If only it were so easy.

Education and social mobility

2006-09-25T08:37:00.000-05:00

Education and social mobility

A cherished assumption of S&T policy wonks is that R&D will enhance worker productivity and that a high-quality education will enable young people to do productive work and raise their economic standing. Indeed, the potential of a young person from an impoverished family to scale the economic ladder through study and hard work is a fundamental credo of the U.S. political system.

Numerous examples of this type of economic progress are celebrated in the country’s folklore, but the picture that emerges from the data on social mobility is not so heartening. The Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and The Brookings Institution are making an effort to shed light on the realities of social mobility by publishing the journal The Future of Children. The Fall 2006 issue is devoted to an outstanding collection of articles on “Opportunity in America.” All the articles are available at:

http://www.futureofchildren.org/pubs-info2825/pubs-info_show.htm?doc_id=388485

Several of the authors and a group of journalists discussed the issues raised in the journal at the Brookings Institution last week. Although the findings of the articles cannot be summarized in simple terms, a few points of consensus emerged:

- Although social mobility is possible, it is not easy.

- Pre-K is already too late to begin helping children; we need to be working with 2- and 3-year old.

- High-quality early childhood education is necessary but not sufficient.

- Community colleges in particular deserve more attention because that is where children from low-income families will be found.

FDA Plans to Regulate New Genetic Tests

2006-09-06T13:18:00.000-05:00

FDA Plans to Regulate New Genetic Tests

The New York Times reports today (9/6/06) that the Food and Drug Administration is planning to regulate certain types of genetic tests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/business/06drug.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

FDA has published the proposed new policy and is accepting public comment.

FDA already regulates test kits that are sold to labs, hospitals, and physicians, but it does not regulate “home brew” tests that are developed and used within a single laboratory. Only a small number of tests are currently in use, but the number is expected to grow rapidly.

A thorough discussion of this issue can be found in the Spring 2006 Issues in Science and Technology (“Federal Neglect: Regulation of Genetic Testing” by Gail H. Javitt and Kathy Hudson of Johns Hopkins University) at http://www.issues.org/22.3/javitt.html.

The Age of Endarkenment

2006-08-03T11:34:00.000-05:00

The Age of Endarkenment

Is the current politicization of science the death knell for the Age of Enlightenment asks Paul Starobin in a perceptive article in the National Journal of 7/29/06. (I’d provide a link, but a day pass to National Journal costs $25 and an annual subscription is $1,885. Try the library for this one.)
Starobin worries that Americans have abandoned the commitment to open-mindedness introduced by the Founding Fathers and maintained throughout most of U.S. history. He sees too many people on the left and right who view science through their ideological preconceptions. Religious conservatives reject Darwinian evolution, and vested energy interests dismiss evidence of human-caused climate change. Liberals reject E.O. Wilson’s new-Darwinian conception of sociobiology and the findings of neuroscience that indicate differences between male and female brains. Science produces a variety of “inconvenient truths” that stick in various ideological craws.
Starobin cites an April 2006 National Journal poll of 111 members of the House and Senate. When asked “Do you think it’s been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made pollution?”, 98% of Democrats but only 23% of Republicans said yes. That’s politicized science.
The article points out that scientists are not free of self-interest or preconceptions. Many scientists depend of the federal government to support their research, and they understand that Democrats are more likely to increase government spending. He cites a 2005 Pew Research Center survey of a sampling of members of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Engineering, which found that 87% of these leading scientists and engineers disapproved of President Bush’s performance, whereas a fall 1997 survey found that 78% approved of President Clinton’s performance.
Starobin notes that Chris Mooney’s book The Republican War on Science includes good examples of Republicans dissing science, but he adds that Mooney chooses to ignore similar disrespect from Democrats. A good discussion of the book and the larger issue of politicized science in Daniel Sarewitz’s review in Issues in Science and Technology (http://www.issues.org/22.2/br_sarewitz.html).
Scientists and engineers undoubtedly have the right to vote Democratic, but they have to maintain the intellectual independence of science. They have to be ready to admit that sometimes reality is not what they wish it to be. Al Gore found the right phrase in “inconvenient truth,” but it’s a double-edged sword.

Is Landis dirty? Does it matter?

2006-07-28T11:10:00.000-05:00

Is Landis dirty? Does it matter?

Floyd Landis might have used a banned drug during the Tour de France. The drug might have improved his performance. Banning the use of certain substances might make sport more fair. Then again, maybe not. And in the end it might be impossible to reach certainty on any of these questions.

As Gina Kolata points out in the New York Times (7/28/06), the reliability of the tests is not perfect, and the evidence that the use of testosterone enhances endurance is far from compelling. Never mind that the security of the samples themselves raises more questions than a Florida election. Kolata has been following this issue for a long time (See http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06EED8123CF932A25754C0A96F958260)
and the picture is not becoming any clearer.

Transcending the Landis case is the larger question of what is fair in sports. In the split-second, all-or-nothing world of sports athletes are willing to try anything to gain an advantage. There is no end to the dietary regimes, vitamins, and supplements that athletes are willing to try. There is no consistent rationale for deciding what is legal. Should synthetic vitamins be banned? What about naturally occurring stimulants? Like it or not, athletes are in a constant race to find the secret elixir before it can be banned or detected. Besides, all their training is designed to make their bodies different. Most of us cannot even imagine how much training was required or how difficult it was for the rider who finished last in the Tour.

The most thoughtful and knowledgeable contrarian on the question of regulating performance enhancing drugs is Norman Fost, a physician and bioethicist (Disclosure: and a friend) at the University of Wisconsin. Everyone who believes without thinking that ii is obvious that we can make sport pure and that even if we can’t we have to try needs to listen to Fost. Here are a couple of samples.

http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/15634.html

http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/02/let_the_doping_begin.php?page=all&p=y

Correction: Roger Pielke confusion

2006-07-25T17:02:00.000-05:00

In an earlier posting (7/14/06), I mistakenly merged two individuals named Roger Pielke. I cited the blog of Roger Pielke of Colorado State University

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/

and then added an additional link to the blog of Roger Pielke at the University of Colorado.

My apologies to the second Roger, who maintains a very worthwhile S&T policy blog. To find out what he thinks, don't listen to me--visit Prometheus.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

How to manipulate student test results

2006-07-25T17:00:00.000-05:00

How to manipulate student test results

Most states have figured out that the fastest way to improve student performance on federally mandated standardized tests is to make the test easier or to lower the passing grade. States regularly trumpet their success in meeting the demands of the No Child Left Behind Act as the percentage of students deemed “proficient” increases every year. Since each state determines what is proficient, this standard is of dubious value. Not surprisingly, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, over which the states have no control, is not finding the rates of improvement that many states are claiming.

In an op-ed in the July 25, 2006 Wall Street Journal, Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute describes a less obvious way in which the state test results are misleading. Many states are also reporting success in closing the test score gap between black and white students, but Murray explains in some detail how a little statistical sleight of hand combined with less demanding standards makes this possible. Murray shows that with current test scores one can make the case that the gap is closing by lowering the standards or that it is growing by raising the standards.

One need not buy Murray’s analysis of test scores that he presented a few years ago in The Bell Curve to see that he has a useful point to make about how some states are playing fast and loose with test results to paint the picture they want. The real picture is that student performance is not what it should be and that the gap between black and white students remains disturbingly large. Pretending that we’re making progress will not fix the problem.

For those who can’t get enough of statistics and favor nature in the nature/nurture debate, Murray recommends the website of La Griffe du Lion (www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com). The site includes extensive analysis of test scores as well as discussions of why a Kenyan from the Nandi district is more than 500 times as likely as a European to be a top 1,500-meter runner. The website will not win a politically correct seal of approval, and the controversial nature of its opinions/findings probably explain the La Griffe’s use of a nom de plume.

Is Bush stem cell veto looming?

2006-07-17T09:18:00.000-05:00

Is Bush stem cell veto looming?

Today and Tuesday the Senate will be debating and voting on three bills related to stem cell research. President Bush has promised to exercise his first veto to stop one of the bills, which would allow federally sponsored researchers to to work on stem cells derived from embryos that were created for in vitro fertilization but that will never be implanted and will eventually be destroyed.

The president supports the other two bills. One promotes research to discover alternative sources of stem cells that does not require the destruction of embryos. The other bans “fetus farming,” the practice of acquiring tissue from a woman who became pregnant for the purpose of creating fetal tissue for research. This bills do not face serious opposition. Most scientists are happy to also pursue alternative means of obtaining stem cells and have no interest in having women become pregnant to produce stem cells for research.

An excellent news story on this week’s activities accompanied by useful background information the legislation and the history of the debate can be found on the National Public Radio website:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5559077

A news story on the political maneuvering and strategy of Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R-TN) can be found in today’s Wall Street Journal, which is available online for subscribers only.

Climate Change Squabbles

2006-07-14T11:16:00.000-05:00

Climate change squabbles

For those who cannot get enough of climate change debates, here are a couple of skirmishes. An editorial in the July 14 Wall St. Journal cites a report soon to be released by the House Energy and Commerce Committee in which three statisticians critique the work of Michael Mann regarding the climate record of the past 2,000 years. Mann is famous for the “hockey stick” graph that indicates that after a long period of relative stability the climate has been warming rapidly in recent years. This report finds statistical errors in Mann’s work and further concludes that climate researchers are a close-knit social network who are not sufficiently rigorous in criticizing one another’s work. The report could be accurate in its specific observations, but the Journal is wrong in concluding that this has any meaning for the larger debate about climate science.

A more thorough discussion of Mann’s work can be found in a new National Research Council report: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676.html).

For more climate change feuding, check out Roger Pielke’s blog about an upcoming Discovery Channel program about global warming:
http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/07/07/nbcdiscovery-channel-show/
He makes a good case for including a little more rigor and range of scientific opinion in the show.

Pielke is an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University who maintains a lively science policy blog at http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

To Save Disadvantaged Kids, Kidnap Them

2006-07-07T14:14:00.000-05:00

To Improve Educational Outcomes, Start Very Early

The current effort to improve the quality of K-12 education is worthwhile, but if we want an affordable program to improve learning, we must intervene at a much earlier age, according to Nobel laureate and University of Chicago economist James J. Heckman. In a concise review of research in economics, neuroscience, and developmental psychology in the 30 June 2006 issue of Science magazine, Heckman finds that the most cost-effective interventions occur when young children are building the foundation of neural pathways that will be essential in acquiring cognitive, linguistic, social, and emotional competence.

Efforts to help older children catch up with their peers have achieved little success. Good schools can help children with a strong foundation to thrive, but they cannot make up for severe early childhood deficiencies. Heckman concludes that public investment in disadvantaged children when they are very young is “a rare public policy initiative that promotes fairness and social justice and at the same time promotes productivity in the economy and in society at large.” He maintains that the United States is overinvesting in remedial programs for older children and underinvesting in developmental programs for the very young.

Heckman’s neutral language does not convey what this means on the ground. He is essentially saying that a large number of incompetent parents are effectively crippling their children for life and that the only way to save these children is for government to take over their parenting. It is a version of the common off-handed comment that the solution to educational underperformance is more Korean mothers. One could argue that we could educate the parents, but they are the very people who suffer from the lack of a development foundation that makes learning possible. The most efficient approach is to work directly with the kids. This might be the ultimate maternalistic policy, but Heckman provides compelling evidence that nothing else will achieve the results we want.

Money Doesn't Buy Happiness

2006-07-06T11:08:00.000-05:00

Money Doesn’t Buy Happiness

Although people with above-average incomes express somewhat higher than average general satisfaction with their lives, they do not seem to be significantly happier in their moment-to-moment experience. An article by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and four colleagues in the 30 June 2006 edition of Science magazine reports that a boost in income results in only a short-lived increase in happiness and that an overall increase in the nation’s average income does nothing to increase happiness once the per capita gross domestic product exceeds $12,000 per year.

The authors discuss a number of possible explanations for money’s inadequacy. It could be that we get more pleasure from having more money than our neighbors than we get from the money itself. If everyone gets richer, no one is able to enjoy it. Another possibility is that goods aren’t that good. Although we get a surge of pleasure from buying a Lexus or a 50-inch plasma TV, the joy fades quickly. A third possibility is that wealthier people don’t know how to enjoy themselves. They spend more time working, more time in active leisure at the gym or tennis court, and less time in passive leisure in front of their expensive TVs. This formula results in more general life satisfaction but also more stress and less moment-to-moment happiness.

Why do we try so hard to increase our incomes if the result is not significantly greater happiness? The problem is the “focusing illusion.” If one thinks about the effect of a single factor on happiness, the tendency is to exaggerate its importance. Apparently, our problem is that we think too much about money, which can ultimately undermine our quest for happiness.

Science Looks at Life

2006-07-05T11:01:00.000-05:00

Science Looks at Life

The June 30, 2006 issue of Science magazine includes a fascinating special section entitled “Life Cycles,” which explores what current research can tell us about a number of everyday concerns. Topics include low fertility rates in developed countries, how to improve the educational and social success of disadvantaged children, critical issues for adolescents, and the ability of money to buy happiness. I’ll be writing blogs on several of these articles in coming days.

In the lead article, William P. Butz and Barbara Boyle Torrey provide an overview of exciting new developments in the nature of social science research. They highlight six research approaches that should yield important results:

Longitudinal studies begun up to 40 years ago are now yielding important insights.
Social science researchers, particularly in game theory, risk and decision science, and experimental social psychology, have developed effective ways to use laboratory experiments that can shed light on many areas of social science.
Improved statistical methods are making it possible to make use of existing data without compromising the privacy of individuals.
Researchers are beginning to merge data from Geographic Information Science and Geographic Positing Systems with data from traditional information sources to gain new insights into how geographic factors influence social and economic conditions.
Genomics is providing new insights into human migration, the nature=nurture debate, and the racial and ethnic categories that have been used in social science.
The globalization of research is helping to distinguish between and local and universal phenomena in a wide variety of social science studies.

We often hear vague pronouncements about the value of interdisciplinary research. Butz and Torrey provide enlightening examples of what this means in practice and exciting thoughts of what we can expect in the future.

U.S. Universities Not So Hot

2006-06-30T09:12:00.000-05:00

U.S. Universities Not So Hot

Discussions of the U.S. education system have routinely praised its universities and bemoaned the state of K-12 schooling, but a commission appointed by education secretary Margaret Spellings is finding that all is not well in higher education. Although the best U.S. universities are the best in the world, quality is not universal.

The draft states that “American higher education has become what, in the business world, would be called a mature enterprise: increasingly risk-averse, frequently self-satisfied, and unduly expensive…. It has yet to successfully confront the impact of globalization, rapidly evolving technologies, an increasingly diverse and aging population, and an evolving marketplace characterized by new needs and new paradigms.” Among the commission’s findings:

Inadequate preparation and financial barriers prevent too many young people from completing college.
One reason for the rising cost of higher education is that universities pay too little attention to efficiency and productivity.
The overall quality of student learning is inadequate and declining.
Although scholars value transparency, precision, and rigor in their academic work, the higher education system does not apply these standards to the university enterprise.

The commission has posted a draft version of its report for comment. The final version is likely to be more temperate than the draft, so take a look at the draft while it is available. You’ll find it at http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/reports.html.

Commission members include former University of Michigan president James Duderstadt, former MIT president Chuck Vest, IBM executive vice president Nicholas Donofrio, former North Carolina governor James B. Hunt, Jr., and Education Trust director Kati Haycock. You can find more information about the commission at
http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/hiedfuture/index.html.

A Fresh Approach to School Improvement

2006-06-28T22:39:00.000-05:00

A Fresh Approach to School Improvement

The 100% Solution, a bold new approach to education policy that was launched with a June 26 op-ed by former education secretary Rod Paige in the New York Times, brought together an unusual coalition of sponsors from across the political spectrum. When the combative conservative William Bennett and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta occupy common ground, it should attract some attention.

Education policy has become a prominent concern for U.S. voters, and the quality of science and math education has attracted particular attention. Everyone who has tried to improve U.S. public education had discovered the difficulty of introducing change and ensuring quality. The 100% Solution does not provide a recipe for the perfect school; it proposes a radically different way of funding schools designed to make them more responsive to student needs and more capable of adopting new practices that have been proven successful. The underlying principle is simple: Fund students, not schools.

The total amount of funding allocated to educating a student would follow that student to whatever public school, charter or traditional, the student chooses to attend. Under a weighted student funding formula, low-income students and those with special needs would be allocated more money because it requires more to give them an adequate education. Conservatives like the plan because it gives students and families more freedom in choosing a school, and liberals like the recognition that disadvantaged students deserve more resources.

As Fordham Institute president Chester E. Finn, Jr. (one of the forces behind the proposal) remarked, “Weighted student funding isn’t a complete answer to every challenge that public schools face but it will eliminate the biggest funding disparities, foster equity, empower school leaders, and catalyze school choice.” It will also irritate teachers unions, many school board members, current public school administrators, powerful legislators, and a host of others whose personal interests are often in conflict with the best interests of students.

In spite of its bipartisan imprimatur, the proposal might be a political flop. The inertial of the education industry is a formidable obstacle. But the impetus behind the proposal deserves to be understood. See for yourself at:

www.100percentsolution.org

Climate Extremes

2006-06-27T10:16:00.000-05:00

Climate Extremes

Monday’s Wall Street Journal (6/26/06)included an op-ed by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen repeating his argument that alarmists are overstating the scientific case that human activity is causing climate change. In Tuesday’s New York Times (6/27/06), William J. Broad reports on the growing respectability of geoengineering strategies for combating climate change.

Lindzen’s latest essay is a response to a comment by Al Gore in his new film that “the debate in the scientific community is over.” Lindzen is right—and Gore would probably agree—that this is an absurd statement. There is no scientific debate, there is a continuing scientific study of the climate. Although Lindzen has often raised reasonable objections to the way some people have characterized the state of climate science, in this case he is off base. He rightly criticizes statements about scientific certainty and consensus that go beyond what science can ever provide, but he implicitly sets a standard for the level of consensus necessary to justify action to slow climate change that is unreasonably high. There is no absolute certainty, but the weight of the evidence is growing enough to justify some action.

Broad highlights one of the seeming inconsistencies of those who are calling for action to combat climate change. Many environmentalists, who describe global warming as an environmental threat of unprecedented scale, are still unwilling to consider nuclear power as one of the tools that could be used to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The majority of scientists and engineers do see nuclear energy as an effective tool in the fight against climate change. But both scientists and environmentalists have been reluctant to consider geoengineering—ambitious proposals to tinker with the oceans, clouds, or atmospheric chemistry—as a practical response.

As the weight of the evidence for human-induced climate change grows and efforts to slow the production of greenhouse gases founder, scientists are beginning to talk more openly about geoengineering options. As Broad reports, this is far from a groundswell for actually implementing any of these strategies, but it is a significant change to be willing merely to discuss them. One of the most influential voices calling for more open discussion is atmospheric chemist Ralph J. Cicerone, the president of the National Academy of Sciences. Considering the growing evidence that the climate is warming and the possibility of dramatic, nonlinear changes in climate, it seems foolhardy not to be researching and discussing emergency geoengineering options.

As the geoengineering advocates point out, we are already inadvertently engineering the climate system. Although most people are predisposed to favor a “natural” approach that aims to limit human interference, it’s a little late for that. The planet’s climate is already in part a human creation. Of course, geoengineering involves serious risks, and we may never develop any strategy that deserves to be implemented. But research and discussion seems wise in light of the potential effects of climate change.

Net Neutrality

2006-05-12T14:57:00.000-05:00

Net neutrality

When Larry Lessig of Stanford University, and Scott Wallsten and Robert Hahn of the American Enterprise Institute and David Farber of Carnegie Mellon Universit gathered at an AEI-Brookings Joint Center forum to discuss net neutrality, they were able to agree on at least one point: we don’t know exactly what is meant by net neutrality. Wallsten and Hahn, who oppose some of the policies that are promoted under the banner of net neutrality, agreed that rhetorically the term is a success. On its surface, who can object? The Internet is a boon to society, and neutrality is an appealing principle. Lessig, who presents himself as an advocate of net neutrality, claimed that much of the opposition to the concept comes from people who misunderstand the term. Farber contributed a healthy skepticism toward all claims and wisely pointed out that we have to be careful about making policy geared to the current Net infrastructure because we can be sure that it will be very different in a few years.

All the participants did such a good job that I left with no simple recommendation for what to do. All I can say is that this is an important subject that needs to be broadly studied and discussed. A good way to begin is to read the following two papers.

Hahn/Wallsten paper: http://aei-brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=1067

Lessig paper: http://www.aei-brookings.org/admin/authorpdfs/page.php?id=1254

Japanese S&T policy minister visits U.S.

2006-05-04T08:13:00.000-05:00

The most apparent innovation in Japan’s science and technology policy is the appointment of a fireball minister with a sense of humor. Iwao Matsuda, Japan’s Minister of State for Science and Technology Policy, explained Japan’s third basic plan for science and technology at a briefing at the American Association for the Advancement of Science headquarters in Washington this morning.

Acknowledging the lessons from the United States, Matsuda said that Japan intends to do more to develop young researchers, give them opportunities to do their own research, and create a competitive research environment. The forces driving changes in Japanese policy are its dependence on imported energy, the aging of its population, and the need to address global problems such as food production and climate change. According to Matsuda, this will require “a quantum jump in discovery and creation,” increased emphasis on sustainable development, and life sciences research focused on lifetime good health.

Japan expects to spend 25 trillion yen (about $208 billion) during the five-year plan from 2006 to 2010. The government will be increasing S&T funding even as the overall budget declines. Top research priorities will be life sciences, information technology, environment, and nanotechnology and materials. Second-tier efforts will focus on energy, manufacturing technology, and social infrastructure to ensure security. When asked about Japanese spending on defense and security, Matsuda said they cannot afford to spend much in that area, so that they plan to maintain their strong friendship with the United States.

Matsuda ended by saying that the government’s goal was to establish the world’s center for S&T creativity in Japan—as well as the United States. In the 1980s many U.S. technology policy analysts looked to Japan for ideas about how government could be an effective catalyst for innovation. Matsuda made it clear that Japan views the United States as its model for S&T policy.

Gas price pandering

2006-04-27T22:00:00.000-05:00

Is there anyone who has been awake at some point during the past 30 years who is surprised that the price of gasoline is going up? Apparently, news about the discovery of the law of supply and demand has not yet reached downtown DC. Democrats and Republicans alike seem to be in a state of shock and are spouting barrels of nonsense.

George Bush praised the contribution of ethanol, which he sais is of obvious value to all Americans. Is it possible to say that with a straight face about a fuel that is heavily subsidized by the federal government in a progrtam that is clearly designed to meet the needs of corn growers at the expense of everyone else?

Not to be outdone, there were Democrats on the Hill calling for the suspension of gas taxes. Is this the same party that promoted higher gas taxes as a way to encourage conservation? Is there anylthing more effective than high fossil fuel proces for encouraging energy conservation and the development of alternative sources of energy?

NASA: A Modest Proposal

2006-04-27T21:53:00.000-05:00

Remember the people who claimed that the moon landing was faked, that it was a cleverly designed hoax like Orson Welles's "War of the Worlds." Maybe they actually had the right idea. George Bush wants to starve space science so that there will be more money for human exploration of space. Since he's never actually going to provide enough money for a serious effort, why not simply fund George Lucas to produce some first-rate human space adventures. It can be compelling TV, rich in the danger, drama, majesty, and heroism that Bush thinks will inspire the public. An actual flight will produce no more than that. The money that is saved can then be spent on boring science that will produce useful and important results, but little drama. The result will be an ideal space program that delivers thrills and knowledge without busiting the budget.

AAAS Policy Forum

2006-04-21T08:34:00.000-05:00

Presidential science advisor Jack Marburger gave the opening keynote at AAAS's annual policy forum in Washington. After talking about the pressure on the budget and the good job the Bush administration is doing in preserving research funding, he made an appeal to the science community to take responsibility for setting in priorities across disciplines. Although this might seem sensible at first, there is really no science budget in which to set priorities. Responsibility for science funding is spread across numerous congressional committees, and there is no way to make rational trade-offs among disciplines. The only practical course for scientists in each discipline is to make the case for more funding for their own specialties.

Marburger noted that earmarking has become so extensive that achieving a deliberate distribution of funds is sometimes impossible. Most scientists would agree, but Marburger is talking to the wrong audience. With the Republicans contolling the White House and both houses in Congress, it would make more sense to talk to Republican leaders about the problem.

Last week I wrote about respecting the doubters of climate change science. Harvard's John Holdren chaired an excellent session that reflected the mainstream of scientific opinion on climate chanage. The need for action could not be more compelling. Holdren pointed out that our understanding of the climate has been improving steadily and that the most worrisome finding is the awareness that rapid change is a real possibility. This is becoming most evident in the rapid melting of large ice masses.

Holdren emphasized the key role of technology in developing long-term solutions. Joseph Romm pointed out that we need to begin by implementing the tech that we already have. The sooner we start, the easier it will be to reduce carbon emissions. Romm said that if we wait 10 years before acting it will be virtually impossible to avoid a disastrous level of sea level rise.

In the evening, former Princeton president Harold Shapiro gave a very thoughtful talk about the need to understand science in a larger cultural and policy context. He argued that science must be understood as part of the larger cultural achievements of humanity and that we too often fail to see its connection to other cultural activities and trends. Similarly, he complained that we too often view science policy through the narrow lens of federal research funding. Many more aspects of policy are important to the effective development and use of science and technology.

Gracias to the Gadfly

2006-04-12T15:53:00.000-05:00

Gracias to the Gadfly

When climate experts describe the climate change debate, they usually say that the argument that human activities that release greenhouse gases into the atmosphere are causing the climate to warm is supported by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community. They describe the opposition as a noisy band of fossil fuel industry hired guns, free market fanatics, scientifically challenged amateurs, and Richard Lindzen. The outlier is Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

In an op-ed (“Climate of Fear,” Wall St. Journal, 4/12/06) Lindzen complains that climate change orthodoxy has made it impossible to question the scientific foundation of climate change claims, and he takes personally the charge that any scientist who raises questions must be a stooge of the fossil-fuel industry. Although there are plenty of stooges to be found, it seems more likely that Lindzen’s flaw is idealism. He believes that it is possible to have a thoughtful, open-minded, civil debate scientific debate about a controversy that has enormous political and economic implications.

I’m not qualified to judge the validity of Lindzen’s own climate research, but I’m inclined to believe the majority consensus that he questions. However, on the character of the political debate, Lindzen has a valid point. The urgency that many scientists feel about the necessity of taking action on climate change leads them to an us and them stance in the political debate. As a result, they are unlikely to criticize the errors and exaggerations of nonscientists who are fighting for action to slow climate change and impatient with scientists who want to quibble with any of the science.

There is nothing wrong with criticizing Lindzen’s scientific work, but there is a problem when scientists tolerate the errors made by allies who know far less about climate than does Lindzen. The evidence that climate trends are cause for concern is very convincing. The failure to blow the whistle on unreliable or misguided arguments ultimately weakens the case for action.

Most scientists who want action on climate change view Lindzen as an annoying distraction, a gadfly who provides legitimacy to uninformed and meretricious critics. They would be wiser to let Lindzen have his say and to refute it, but to make clear the difference between him and the willfully uninformed. At the same time, they need to work harder to distinguish what they know with scientific confidence from the uninformed speculation of some of their political allies. A critique that addresses Lindzen’s excessive skepticism as well as the credulousness of the climate change faithful will move the political debate in the right direction.

Coming soon: Issues blogs

2005-08-10T09:35:00.000-05:00

Later this month Issues in Science and Technology will be launching a series of blogs. We will have about a half dozen expert bloggers, each of whom will post about once a week. Each will focus on a specific subject, such as health policy, or a part of the world, such as the EU or the developing world. Our goal is to provide a window on innovative thinking and important news across disciplines and across the globe.