I’m certain that a healthy percentage of you are just sitting around wondering, “When will the next must-have, time-sucking social networking site emerge and save me from accomplishing my actual work?” Fret no longer! All the President’s Geeks have gotten together and launched White House, Part Deux in an effort to upstage Ashton Kutcher make it that much easier for the American public to weigh in on the issues of the day.

Through this crackin’ splendid interface, you have the ability to either endorse or oppose a given position or “priority” and, in doing so, create your own personal score card. Once you have weighed in on more than one issue, you have the ability to edit your list of pet projects or peeves to reflect how you feel these items rank from most to least important.

It will be a good long while before we know whether expressed opinions via this American Idol style voting method bear any resemblance to actual outcomes. Or how long it will take for over-zealous foreigners to skew the results. But who cares about those so-called “relevant” things? What about Superpoking? I can’t be the only one itching like an addict eager for my chance to throw a sheep at Rahm ‘Rahmbo’ Emmanuel… you know, just to see what happens next.

“At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been. And if there was ever a day that reminded us of our shared stake in science and research, it’s today.”

This excerpt from Obama’s introductory remarks to the National Academy of Sciences today in Washington D.C. continues the steady drum beat of renewed support for science in the U.S. It is striking how quickly science and scientists have transitioned from banging in vain at the castle gates to sitting at the head of the table. Among his main points are the following:

• Increasing science funding and support to 3 percent of GDP, an increase over the 60s era “Space Race” funding levels.

• Establishing the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) headed by Holdren, Varmus and Lander.

• Increased funding for NSF and NIH.

• Renewed education initiatives that will bolster science and math education from grade school to university and beyond.

• The establishment of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) to confront domestic as well as international challenges that stem from our current energy needs.

The bulk of his remarks are not news, but only because he is making good on promoting the various goals that he championed during the campaign. In reading this, however, I can feel the gigantic weight of responsibility descending on our collective shoulders. Are we ready? We better be. We need to get this right not only in terms of the soundness of our basic science but also in the efficient, ethical and forward thinking application of its fruits.

Read the speech in its entirety here.

In the last few weeks or so, several individuals and groups have been rallying ‘round Rush Holt, who is a physicist-legislator interested in reinvigorating the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). From Chris Mooney over at Discover Magazine’s Intersection:

[The OTA]had been in existence since 1972 and had become world renowned not only for accurate studies, but for far-ranging analyses that forecast future science and technology problems that we might someday have to grapple with. For our unfailingly presentist elected representatives, this was a vital source of perspective on where things are heading.

Mooney goes on to point out that the OTA suffered from defunding and not dismemberment. This suggests that one must only turn the spigot back on in order to have this non-partisan Congressional advisory office back on track. The key concept here is non-partisan of course. There are subcommittees, advisers and lobbyists aplenty in the STEM sphere, but most if not all could easily be accused of having an axe to grind. The role and import of the OTA would be to provide information to legislators and their staffs on current bills (and plans for policy going into the future) that is not leavened with party prerogatives.

For more information on the legacy of the OTA you can go here.

To sign the petition to reinstate the OTA, head on over here.

I recently had a discussion with Corie Lok from the Boston hub about the future of media. Ah, small talk. One of the things that came up in the discussion was how to increase traffic to a given site (such as Nature Network, for instance… nudge, wink, etc) so as to increase advertising revenue. It’s all about the Benjamins, n’est pas?

One thing that I suggested was a partnership between NN and, say, the BBC. Now, I have no idea if the lions in charge of either parent company have any interest whatsoever in sharing their toys. But what if they were? What if, either during a broadcast or using their web portal, the BBC science group were to direct their viewership to a shared feature that is being discussed at NN or another of the Nature blogs? Nature could then return the favor by featuring links back to BBC for the featured item or other items on its homepage. This would hugely increase the publicity of a given site and have the happy consequence of getting a larger portion of the public engaged in the scientific discourse.

This kind of media partnership is certainly gaining legs over at ScienceBlogs, where they have partnered with Bloggingheads.tv to produce so-called diavlogs that pit one character against another in a video face-off.

Seems to me this is a format that was custom built for many on here (Dr. Richard Grant comes to mind) and could be a useful tool to hash out ideas in a fun and (hopefully) productive manner.

I’m curious to know what other people think of this kind of strategic partnership. Is it folly, destined to dilute the content and character of the site? Or is this a fine way to increase perspective and make a little money for the cause at the same time?

According to Peter Wilderotter of the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation , “[Lifting the stem cell ban] will free researchers to explore this promising area of science and remove politics from science”.

Now there’s some rosy thinking. It would seem a bit of a stretch that lifting this ban will magically remove the teeth from the moral opposition; those that are very nervous, indeed outraged, about the prospect of increased use of human embryos for any manner of scientific and medical research. Thankfully, President Obama has a far more realistic perspective on this matter:

“But in recent years, when it comes to stem cell research, rather than furthering discovery, our government has forced what I believe is a false choice between sound science and moral values. In this case, I believe the two are not inconsistent. As a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering. I believe we have been given the capacity and will to pursue this research – and the humanity and conscience to do so responsibly.

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided."

I wrote not long ago that I believed this new administration “got it”, that is, they seemed to understand, or at least be willing to listen to, the science community. Science, for all its potential benefits, is a complex thing that very often times cannot be reduced to the simple binary of good and evil. The above excerpt of his remarks on the order to lift the ban on federal funding for stem cell research in the U.S. reveals an appreciation for this complexity.

This is the point at which we have to ask ourselves about the benefits and risks of what we do. We kill for food, and this is not seen as an evil in the greater part of society because it nourishes our bodies. We send troops into battle to kill and be killed for purposes both ideological and strategic. We use the lives of animals and plants and cells in medical research to understand illnesses that cause great suffering for the afflicted and their loved ones. All of these activities involve the destruction of life. None among them should ever be trivialized.

And yet it seems that many religious conservatives tend to view scientists as godless villains that are waiting, with test-tube in hand, to unleash the next great threat to our culture, our economy, our world.

This perception is a tragedy.

Does evil exist in science? It most certainly does. However I am willing to wager that the overwhelming majority of us have, in the course of our careers, struggled with decisions regarding the sanctity of life. We do everything that we can to hold ourselves and our colleagues to the highest of ethical standards. I know not one individual who enjoys the process of killing laboratory animals. In my own thesis work, I steadfastly avoided working with animals because I simply could not stomach it.

And so I am one of those that is conflicted about the use of human embryos for the derivation of stem cells. But let me be clear: I understand the irreplaceable value of such work. What is more, I support the efforts of those who will be moving forward with hugely increased access as a result of this executive order. I support them, only because if they are like any of the colleagues I have known, they are at some level conflicted too. Indeed, I imagine that some of President Obama’s science advisers gave voice to this very thing.

It is this conflict, this awareness, that can and should speak far louder about the great worth of life than any priest or pundit.

(Update, 9:15pm Eastern – Much of the sentiment of this post is reflected in a recent piece by William Saletan from Slate.)

“There’s a reason why scientists and inventors are known as crazy people: Because most of them are, and then every thousandth guy invents something really good. But most of the time they’re lunatics. The guys who say, ‘That won’t work’…they’re almost always right.”

-Grover Norquist

Alright, so maybe Al Gore did not personally tell me to go out and light fires under this politician’s or that administrator’s rear end. However, since I am a solid part of what Mr. Norquist refers to as, essentially, a pack of nutters, perhaps it’s expected that I have delusions of grandeur.

And so it has come to be that I heard Mr. Gore’s clarion call as clearly as any of those seated before him. But something isn’t sitting quite right. Are we all truly duty bound, as Dr. Varmus suggests in more measured language, to become involved in the politics and policy of science? Are all of us to be activists on the ramparts?

I do not believe that is the answer. My discomfort, I think, is that we as a science community will end up pushing the pendulum too far in response to the intellectual vacuum of the previous administration and become too zealous for our own good. In short, we would be become the very picture of insanity and instability that Grover Norquist indelicately holds forth.

I would prefer to turn Mr. Norquist’s opinion on its head to suggest that the true scientist is more the skeptic and less the manic, crazy-haired lunatic. (Although no doubt there are plenty that would not mind being compared with this guy.) We use our experience to train a jaundiced eye on the problem at hand. Our professional duty is to first be the observer and, once considering all the available evidence, to come up with a reasonable solution or interpretation. Second, we are certainly duty bound to do our best in communicating our conclusions in a way that is accessible and relevant. This is especially important in realms of practice that have far reaching effects, where public education is so crucial.

I view activism (in the True Believer sense of the term) as separate from a scientist’s duty to be involved in society through their work and through education. That is, I believe activism is not an enterprise for all scientists to participate, for the passions that are thusly engendered blind reason like so many bright flashes.

To handicap reason is something we can ill afford in this time of challenge and upheaval.

Trusting the money to business can’t always benefit science.

In the original not-so-immaculate conception of the stimulus package now before the U.S. Congress, science seemed to be movin’ on up. In fact, a decent 2.4 percent of federal spending proposed in the bill would go directly to research programs and capital improvements (equipment and facilities) at places like NIH and NSF. That boils down to 13.3 billion dollars of stimulus funding for government sponsored R&D. Hot damn.

Not so fast, says House Minority Leader Boehner. He and every single one of his GOP colleagues in the House (and 11 Democrats) gave the bill the thumbs down. The bill passed the House but not without much hand-wringing courtesy of the Loyal Opposition about all the pork barrel spending. And the fight has now moved on to the Senate, where the Democrats do not yet possess a filibuster-proof majority. The conservative Republican perspective is that the government should not spend money domestically on anything except business and defense. Business “spending” usually takes the form of tax breaks and tax cuts that, when properly implemented, are supposed to free up capital so that businesses great and small can expand, hire, produce and grow the economy. A bill laden with government programs, from increased science spending to civil engineering projects like fixing roads and bridges, is a certain loser on the Right side of the aisle.

But this is not entirely about the merits or demerits of the Republican governing philosophy. There is some doubt the current GOP leadership would listen to criticism anyway since they “…profess to be unconcerned” with the ramifications of their opposition. Plus the GOP has their own problems with pork, but why get mired in questions of hypocrisy? The real issue is getting to the nut of all the sciencey rhetoric. Members of Congress from both parties like to talk about how science is a critical component of a successful America. But where’s the beef?

In at least one sense the GOP has something going for their approach: lots of private dollars (i.e. venture capital) go to science and technology start-ups. So, creating tax breaks for the companies and individuals that support these funds would conceivably lead to more money being invested in emerging technologies. That is good for science.

However, VCs don’t want to back projects until they are essentially primed for lift-off. This leaves many academic research programs with promise but without, say, a lead compound, out in the cold. The business sector is just not willing to risk cash, especially in tight times like these, on research that will not yield a big bottom line within as short a time as possible, sometimes even months. Under this structure, most academic programs are precluded from the private funding pool and progress is necessarily squelched. That is very bad for science.

Like so many things, the answer does not lie in science funding that is entirely public or private but a combination of the two. Although there are undoubtedly any number of pork provisions in the stimulus bill that could wait a bit longer, the science spending is not among them. After four years of flat budgets at places like the National Institutes of Health, the time is now for a cash infusion. What will it take to stimulate the proper response from the Grand Old Party?

The honeymoon is not quite over yet, sports fans. For President Obama, even walking straight into the rancid maw of the Republican caucus has all the feel-good trappings of an Aaron Sorkin script. The President was there today for the hard sell. He has an economic stimulus plan to keep, and miles to go on that score.

And what of scores? Wouldn’t it be phenomenal if there were some measure of Obama’s progress on the multitudinous promises made in the heat of the campaign battle(s)? Some “Obameter” if you will?

Yes, the detached-floating-head icon of the current U.S. President is creepy as hell. Yes, these meters are surely gross simplifications of how various policy initiatives are meandering through the hallowed marble halls of the Capitol. But you must admit that to have a listing of all his proposals easily at hand is to give a heaping helping of ammunition to the forces of accountability.

And how is our man doing so far? In regards to general science policy, one out of twenty-three promises (number 393 in the full listing) have been addressed. Doubling basic science research funding? Well, I’d say there are worse places to get a foothold. Not bad for 7 days in office.

Stay tuned.

There are some that call President Obama (feels great to write that for the first time) “Hopey”. This bit of satire is, of course, meant to poke fun at his invocation of the root of this non-word in many of his public speeches and comments. During Obama’s campaign, hope was a word used by the opposition to appeal to the jaded. They would like to say “it is merely a word and will produce nothing but the warm-fuzzies.” Hope, it would seem, is far more powerful a force than they would have liked. And today, President Obama used it once more in his entreaty to the American people to “choose hope, over fear”.

Most of us watching this historic event do not need to be prodded into the correct choice. The tear-stained faces wore hope. The cheering crowds had it as undertone to their exclamation. The flag waving folks crowded into every corner of the National Mall gave it scope.

But how does this measure against reality? Against practicality and utility?

Even before now former President George W. Bush whirly-birded off into the sunset to the shouted strains of “Na,Na,Na,Na…hey,hey,hey, Goodbye”, the new Whitehouse.gov was brought into this world. It is the most recent example of the tight organization and efficiency that we have come to expect from our new President. This website, with its clean design and easy navigation, will serve as the portal to what the Administration claims will be an unprecedented era of executive and government transparency. The site was launched with the timing of an Apple product unveiling; this President means business.

And as for Hope, the science community can direct their browsers to this section. Engineers and teachers, researchers and professors will find a listing of Administration goals regarding technology and science. If realized, these proposed actions will do nothing short of revolutionize the way in which science is taught and practiced in this country.

This day and night, there will be dancing and revelry into the single digit hours before the dawn. And it is deserved. But tomorrow, and into the foreseeable future, we must all work to translate our hopes into tangible progress.

I came across a science and technology column on Slate today that I had never seen before. Entitled Human Nature, this blog has the following stated aim:

“We live in an age of science and technology. Discoveries about ourselves and the world, coupled with our increasing power to transform both, are changing how we live, what we think, and who we are. Human Nature is a place to learn, think, and talk about these changes.

With this explanation, we have in hand yet another reason why sites such as Nature Network are so important. Many times before on this site and others like it, the notion of the scientist’s responsibility to explain the workings of science and technology to society at large has been stated and supported. In Saletan’s most recent posting, he asks for input on the questions and ideas that he should address in the coming year in this important sphere of human experience. He also makes mention of adding links to the page that will direct the reader to more in-depth treatments, such as those that are found in these pages.

Have a look and perhaps even make some suggestions. This could be one more way to push progress in science communication.