My April 14 post, “Science Rattles the Tin Cup in Washington,” argued that wealthy universities should spend more of their own money on academic research in these hard times; that industry, too, should increase its academic spending. The post also noted that claims of inadequate reimbursement of indirect costs in universities have evoked some skepticism.

A mixed bag of comments ensued. Particularly strong disagreement was expressed by officers of two major academic outposts in Washington: Anthony DeCrappeo, president of the Council on Government Relations, which focuses on federal financial and administrative regulations for research universities, and David Korn, chief scientific officer at the Association of American Medical Colleges, the medical school lobby.

Posted by me on Brainstorm April 24 (“Science Rattles the Tin Cup Draws More Fire”), their response argued that...

You have to understand the place of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in American science and science politics to grasp the sexist effrontery of the venerable institution.

With a Congressional charter signed by Abe Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is both a prestigious hall of fame and a scientific think tank, all rolled into one snooty organization, headquartered in a marble palace near the Washington Mall. In a profession that doles out honors like a nursery-school graduation, membership in the Academy is the greatest honor for an American scientist, second only to the Nobel Prize.

Each year, the current membership votes in a new crop of members. Universities boast of the number of academicians on their faculties. Scientists scheme and plot to get elected and to elect their allies. Conspiracy rumors are plentiful. Many aspirants are hopeful, but few make it. The U.S. pool of Ph.D....

John H. Marburger III, President Bush’s science adviser, invited me to come by his office for a conversation, which we held on April 23. Marburger, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is one of the administration’s longest-serving officials, having arrived in October 2001. A physicist, and nominally a Democrat, he formerly was president of SUNY Stony Brook and came to Washington from the directorship of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Following is Part Two of edited excerpts of the conversation. Part I is here.

Q. Do you feel the media distorted the significance of the various controversies between scientists and the administration?

A. Of course. All that most people know about science is what’s reported in the papers and what’s talked about in the marketplace of ideas. And that environment, that media environment, is dominated by a very small...

John H. Marburger III (Image from APS Physics site)

John H. Marburger III, President Bush’s science adviser, invited me to come by his office for a conversation, which we held on April 23. Marburger, who heads the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is one of the administration’s longest-serving officials, having arrived in October 2001. A physicist, and nominally a Democrat, he formerly was president of SUNY Stony Brook and came to Washington from the directorship of the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Following is Part One of edited excerpts of the conversation.

Q. There’s more hostility between the scientific community and this administration than has ever occurred before. I gather you share that perception.

A. Yes, yes.

Q. What is the origin of this hostility?

A. We have an unpopular administration in general. I came in immediately after probably one of...

“Science Rattles the Tin Cup in Washington,” my post of April 14, evoked critical comments concerning my contention that well-endowed universities should spend more of their own money on research. Particularly grating to some commentators was my skeptical view of current levels of indirect-cost reimbursements. Now adding to the commentary is a well argued and informed critique of “Tin Cup” by Anthony DeCrappeo, president of the Council on Government Relations, and David Korn, chief scientific officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges. I’ll comment on their views in a later post. But first, here is their critique, in full:

Dan Greenberg’s “Science Rattles the Tin Cup” is an informative study of how to use numbers selectively to support a specious argument. To try to set the record straight, we’d point out some numbers Dan neglected to mention.

Universities Already...

It’s not unusual for academic specialists to be disappointed with journalistic reports of their work or fields of speciality. From their perspective, press accounts, in print or on air, often err on big or little factual matters, lack balance, and convey unwarranted assumptions — among other shortcomings. So, doctor, when a reporter calls about your hot paper or a public issue on which you’re an expert, how can you boost the odds for a wholesome outcome?

First, let’s eliminate the silent option, which some researchers have taken in the belief that their words are likely to be mangled, to the detriment of public understanding, and possibly to their own professional reputation. Assuming no scandal is involved, academic institutions covet public visibility. Let’s attribute that to their zest for public service. Maybe it has something to do with fund raising. In any case, countless...

There appears to be some confusion over whether Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain accepted an invitation from many prominent scientists and research organizations to engage in a debate on science policy last week in Philadelphia. Nobelists David Baltimore and Ahmed Zewail, writing in The Wall Street Journal on April 17 (“We Need a Science White House”), contend the candidates declined the invitation to ScienceDebate 2008. But upon returning from an evening out, I found the following on my digital video recorder, transcribed here for Brainstorm readers.

Q: Welcome to ScienceDebate 2008. First question for Senator Clinton: Why did you choose law over a career in science?

Clinton: While going to law school I audited courses in chemistry, physics, and molecular biology, subjects to which I remain deeply attached. Oh, and mathematics, too. There’s no substitute for experience. I...

The situation is described as dire. Careers are threatened and important medical research is neglected because of a long-running slump in federal support. That was the message that Drew Gilpin Faust, president of Harvard, recently delivered in Washington. At about the same time, Bill Gates warned that lagging federal support for academic science deprives industry of advances needed for making competitive products. Similar alarms date far back and continue to come from other leaders of academe, science, and industry.

The complaints are valid. To the detriment of many desirable goals, science is hurting. But since substantial relief from the U.S. Treasury is unlikely anytime soon, attention should be given to several little-discussed realities of science and money:

Well-endowed universities spend remarkably little of their own money on scientific research, preferring to have...

Science Debate 2008, a puerile proposition enthusiastically embraced within and around the science establishment, has been sensibly brushed off by Senators Clinton and Obama.

The two, battling for the Democratic presidential nomination, were invited to “share their views on the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy” on April 18 in Philadelphia, a week before the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. The invitation was backed by the heavy artillery of science: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Council on Competitiveness, over 160 universities, and a requisite contingent of Nobel Laureates, some 25 of them in this instance.

The only common denominator among this melange is a ravenous appetite for federal funding of research, accompanied by minimal regulation. It might be noted, too, that there has be...

A delusion persists that we can research our way out of the energy predicament and simultaneously do away with global warming. What’s needed, it’s claimed, is a great mobilization of scientific and engineering brains and resources, a la the bomb-building Manhattan Project or the Apollo moon landing.

Google “Manhattan Project” in tandem with “energy” and up come 754,000 entries of one sort or another. A couple of years ago, a Manhattan Project for Energy was established by MIT. The New Apollo Energy Act (HR 2828) was introduced in Congress in 2005 (and went no place). New York Times columnist Tom Friedman is a prominent advocate of a Manhattan Project for energy. In calling for action on energy, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have several times referred favorably to the Manhattan and Apollo projects. (Not so John McCain, who says for energy relief, trust in free enterprise, assisted...