 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Kevin Carey
Laurie Fendrich
Teresa Ghilarducci, guest blogger
Sara Goldrick-Rab, guest blogger
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Brainstorm Alumni
Eric BanksDan Greenberg
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Marty Nemko, guest blogger
Graham Spanier
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Bob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Nobel Hype | Comment [3]
McCain and Obama Differ Little on Science Policy | Comment [5]
A Name on a Mailing List Is Forever | Comment
Stodgy NIH Announces New Program for Risky, Far-Out Reseach | Comment [2]
Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy | Comment [4]
Featured Articles By the Author
Obama Outlines Changes for Science Policy
Though the Obama campaign is based on a promise of change, he apparently doesn’t plan to change much in government relations with the scientific enterprise.
There’s the customary assurance of more money for ever-insistent scientists and a pledge of bureaucratic shifts — rather minor ones — here and there. The unpopular federal restraints on stem-cell research would be lifted, but they have been crumbling anyway. Climate change would be recognized and confronted, but that too has been happening. And more honesty and less political spin would be mandated in scientific affairs, thus returning matters to the pre-Bush era.
That, in summary, is the Democrat’s response to 14 science and technology questions posed to both candidates by a group of scientists under the title of Science Debate 2008.
The McCain campaign has not yet answered.
The authors of Obama’s response are not identified, but they obviously are mainstream policy wonks who find little wrong with the Bush way in S&T, apart from budget neglect and the preference for political fantasy over scientific reality.
Obama says he will double basic research budgets over the next decade, including science supported by the Pentagon. And he would build up research in the Department of Homeland Security, by far the most dysfunctional agency on the federal landscape.
Assuming Obama is talking about dollars not adjusted for inflation, which is how Washington normally discusses the federal budget, a 10-year doubling would approximately restore the pace of research growth that prevailed for many prior decades governmentwide. Some agencies fared better than others, but overall annual growth was about 7 percent, in current dollars. For the past two years, federal R&D spending has been flat — for the first time since recordkeeping started in 1972.
Energy research in the Obama plan would increase by a total of $150-billion over 10 years—which isn’t much, given energy’s dollar value in the national economy.
Obama would also put additional money into improving science education, but seems hesitant in the face of the dismal outcome of prior efforts. His prescripition is for more research on schooling in these fields. Apart from a reference to a $4,000 tax credit for higher education, no specific amounts are mentioned for education.
Oceanography, bioterrorism, and water are also cited as areas for expanded scientific inquiry.
Obama calls for several bureaucratic changes, including revival of the National Aeronautics and Space Council, which existed from 1958 to 1973, supposedly as coordinator of the government’s multi-agency space activities. In reality the space council did little, since it was ignored by the Pentagon, which quietly became the big spender in space. The council eventually lapsed away, unmourned. An effective revival depends on how much power it possesses, which, in turn, depends on proximity to the president.
For aficionados of bureaucratic strife, the Obama science plan may contain the seeds of Machiavellian drama. The only mention of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is in connection with a proposal to establish a committee within its premises for science and technology education. No mention is made of the science adviser to the president, supposedly the government’s highest-ranking science official, who usually also heads OSTP.
Sore memories persist of Richard Nixon’s abolition of White House science advice in 1973. Enraged by the scientists’ failure to support some of his major sci/tech goals, such as missile defense and the supersonic transport, Nixon said he didn’t need science advice. Following a restoration by Gerald Ford, our scientific mandarins have doted on the importance of a scientist in the White House — which is nowhere mentioned by Obama.
Given the neglect of the traditional White House post by Obama — though perhaps it is innocent — it’s noteworthy that Obama proposes the creation of a new high-level federal post, Chief Technology Officer. Its function will be “to ensure that our government and all its agencies have the right infrastructure, policies and services for the 21st century. The CTO will lead an interagency effort on best-in-class technologies, sharing of best practices, and safeguarding of our networks.”
While academics have heretofore dominated high-level scientific advice, it is perhaps worth noting that CTO is a rank more common in industry than in universities. Is this a clue to authorship and sci/tech policy directions if Obama wins? I don’t know.
Policy-oriented scientists tend to be antsy during presidential campaigns because their profession heavily depends on federal money and their egos require recognition and patting. And so they badger the candidates to declare their intentions for government care and support of science. Candidates usually brush them off with papers along the lines of Obama’s responses to the 14 questions. The Democrats know that the scientific community is overwhelmingly Democratic and can’t be made any more so by special massaging — so why bother? The Republicans usually make a minimal response, knowing the science vote is not theirs. Both parties realize that scientists regard themselves above politics, which means they don’t raise money or organize votes.
During the primary campaigns, Science Debate 2008 several times tried to round up the candidates for a debate on scientific issues — and got the brushoff each time. The public thinks science is good and we need lots of it, but it’s not a political issue.
Posted at 03:17:25 PM on September 4, 2008 | All postings by dgreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Where $1-Million Is Modest Pay
Next: Stodgy NIH Announces New Program for Risky, Far-Out Reseach
McCain has responded by choosing a believer in creationism as VP, even though he himself says he believes in evolution. I’m not wild about any of the candidates (and probably wouldn’t be about anyone willing to wade into that particular swamp), but while Sarah Palin—like everyone else in this country—of course has the right to her beliefs, I have the right to withhold my vote because I consider those beliefs too nineteenth century for today.
Seems to me it’s a matter of whom we vote against as much as whom we vote for. Such is life: not designed (intelligently or otherwise) to suit my preferences or my convenience.
— Dan · Sep 8, 07:59 AM · #
Reversing budgetary neglect and making scientific reality over “scientific” fantasy? I’d call that real change.
— BertW · Sep 8, 08:02 AM · #
Dear Mr. Greenberg, I’m a post doc in one of the bay area universities. I first came across your book Science money and politics when I was doing my Ph.D. Since then I’ve been a big fan. I’m applying for faculty positions this fall. If I get a job, your books along with a couple of book by John Waller would be mandatory reading for anyone who joins my group. Your contribution to science is as important as the contribution of scientists (At least the ones that do good science).
Almost all of the problems that you have cataloged can be fixed by two fairly straightforward changes. One is the reduction of the size of research groups. Most of Dr. Grant Swinger’s progenies have enormous groups. A classic case is that of Prof. Robert Langer of MIT. If you have a chance, take a look at the group photo. The majority of problems in science, including academic misconduct, appalling quality of publications, the large glut of worthless scientists and the ever shrinking grant money per researcher, can be directly tracked to large groups. Typically the PI puts enormous pressure on students without adequate supervision. A separate pot of money should be set aside for PIs who have small groups (six or less) and spend at least 15-20 hrs per week working in their labs. Over a period of time funding, should be completely cut for any groups that have more than 10 people in it. By promoting this you’ll have a group of focused researchers doing good quality science. This is actually being tried out in HHMI at Janelia Farm. At least that’s what the recruitment ads said.
The second biggest scam is that of interdisciplinary research, where two groups that don’t understand each other try to collaborate. Effort is never made to have one researcher develop skills in both fields. Invariably, it’s always two or more people who don’t clearly understand what the others are doing at the nitty gritty level. This almost always leads to bad science, horrible delays and outright misconduct. Thankfully Mr. Zerhouni is trying to do something about it. I don’t know whether he’s still around in NIH.
If you are in bay area and if you are interested I’d love to chat with you about this and other issues over a cup of coffee. Also, in the interest of having a career in science, I’ll have to remain anonymous SG
— sundar · Sep 9, 05:42 PM · #
Thanks for your incisive comments. I hope we can get together sometime. Dan
— Dan Greenberg · Sep 10, 08:53 AM · #