Science Policy Development

NIGMS Director Search - It looks rigged

2011-03-21T11:51:00.000-07:00

I got an email message today with a listing of those who will be on a committee to search for a new Director of NIGMS. As many are painfully aware, Jeremy Berg is leaving NIH...

Here is the list of folks on the committee:

Harold Varmus, Director, National Cancer Institute (co-chair)
Story Landis, Director, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (co-chair)
Anthony Fauci, Director, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Eric Green, Director, National Human Genome Research Institute
Roderic Pettigrew, Director, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
Carol Greider, Professor, Johns Hopkins University
Stan Fields, Professor, University of Washington
Steven McKnight, Professor, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center
Joan Steitz, Professor, Yale University

Here is the problem with that list, it includes a bunch of people who are deeply political and have a vested interest in ensuring that the NIGMS director is ineffective. I'm talking mosly about other center directors. One may make the argument that these centers interact the most with NIGMS and need to play well in the sandbox together.

However, more realistically, this is where Varmus and Fauci fight with one another to try and figure out who can get someone they personally want and to ensure the NIGMS director can't outfight them for a better budget for basic science.

I look at this committee and think to myself one thing: it's likely that the community will get a director that is not necessarily to their liking, but someone who is to the liking of Varmus, Fauci and a few others with an axe to grind.

Japanese Nuclear Plants: Good Engineering Wasn't Enough

2011-03-15T06:52:00.000-07:00

Reactor failures, meltdowns, exposed fuel rods... It's happening in Japan.

First things first, this was not an accident. Any media outlet calling it one is proving they do not have anything resembling a mastering of english. The modern marvel of Japanese construction, urban planning, and building codes was designed to withstand a roughly 7.0 magnitude earthquake. The Tsunami walls protecting their nuclear facilities were 25 feet high.

Simply stated, the engineered the living daylights out of their facilities. The deeply sad part of what is happening over there is that mother nature always bats last in this game. A magnitude 8.9 earthquake - the biggest ever actually recorded on the Richter scale and not by historical analysis - was just too close to where people live.

What does this mean for our understanding of nuclear safety?

Well, we now know that something that was built for a 7.0 earthquake doesn't really hold up for 8.9. That's not news. It's sad, it's frightening; but it's not news.

As unlikely as it was in the minds of the brave workers who are still on site trying to cool reactor cores, keep fuel rods from being exposed to the atmosphere, and generally attempt to hold together a crumbling infrastructure ravaged by a home run by mother nature; these folks understand that they are extinguishing their lives for the larger good. Let us all hope that this can be contained in a swift manner and that exposure and risk to human life is as limited as possible.

What went right?

The Japanese people did everything correct they could have done. They were prepared. They do drills to prepare for Tsunamis, and are in an earthquake zone. It is in their culture to expect disasters. It's still terrible that so many have died and such destruction has befallen them. But, all told, they were more ready for it than almost any other society on earth.

Further, the building codes were such that many fewer structures were close to the water than any other comparable place on the coast of the United States or other countries. Their towers were built with much stricter building codes than almost anything we have in the United States or the European Union. The containment facilities and engineering of their nuclear plants far exceed US and EU standards.

What can the rest of us learn?

The people of Japan have incorporated into their culture how to be prepared and how to respond. We all could take a good dose of that to heart. The infrastructure was braced and ready for a large event. Unfortunately, that infrastructure was tested by something with record force.

We should look at our building codes and compare them to those of the Japanese. We can learn a lot from them about how to do good urban planning. HUD, take note.

Did the United States get swindled by Dennis Montgomery?

2011-02-20T07:18:00.000-08:00

On a rather lazy Sunday morning, I pick up The New York Times and stick a sliced bagel in the toaster oven. My morning ritual has begun.

There, staring back at me on the front page is an article entitled "Hiding Details of a Dubious Deal, US Invokes National Security." I scan the rest of the headlines and read something else first. Namely, that article about how we won't be able to fund the government in another month. Granted, I knew in November that we will probably not pass a Federal budget for another two years, but somehow I'm still reading about this process as if something useful wil come of it.

After being disappointed by the budget article, as I often am, I returned to that first one. This is when I discovered there is something more interesting in the details here than the usual Military-Industrial-Complex story we hear time and again involving companies getting big contracts from the government in backdoor deals and shady people making oodles of money living off of fear of Americans. No, this one has an interesting technical bent to it.

Dennis Montgomery, formerly a biomedical technician, managed to get roughly $20 million in contracts to develop and deliver computer technology supposedly useful to the government for national security purposes. Now, Mr. Montgomery is also on trial in Las Vegas for over $1 million in bad checks to casinos. Let's not pretend that anything the government will do to him is anywhere near as bad at what the angry people in Vegas do to a guy bouncing that many bad checks. He'll get his just reward.

What I think is worth focusing on is how on earth the fanciful claims this guy made were ever acceptable to the government. Patenting algorithms and making claims that he could predict terrorist plots by analyzing the Arab media is absurd. The absurdity of this is at least two-fold.

First, it was using Al-Jazeera. Someone watching Al-Jazeera is not going to find hidden terrorist plots. If they find them there, they'll also likely find them on Fox News as well. I've been reading and watching Al-Jazeera for a while. It happens to have a lot of useful and interesting reporting in the Middle East that I can't find anywhere else. It also has been all over the Egyptian, Tunisian, Bahrain, etc. uprisings and has done an amazingly good job.

The second reason this is absurd is the underlying assumption; that there is a conspiracy of such a global scale as to be audacious enough and crafty enough to co-opt the media and broadcast coded signals via the media. The ideas and 'algorithms' are predicated on an utterly extreme conspiracy theory.

In a mix up of intergovernmental proportions, the CIA had rightly determined that the software was fake by 2003, but somehow this analysis never made it to the DoD Special Operations Command who had contracted Montgomery. In 2006, the FBI (as the NYT story relates) also had information indicating the software was bogus. All that said, in 2009, the Air Force still inked a $3 million dollar deal with them, despite warnings from a contract officer.

Much of the rest of the story is a sordid and complicated series of anecdotes and bad outcomes related to the technology. A particularly unsettling tale includes the grounding of planes coming from France and Britain. This led to the French initiating a study, where they concluded the technology was bogus.

As a scientist, this story and the farce technological claims troubles me. Where did things break down?

1. For starters, the communications between government agencies here was atrocious. The CIA, FBI, Dod (Special Ops), Air Force, and White House spent 7-9 years not being on the same page. Also, with something this technical, where was the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy? Right, under Bush and the absentee Science Advisor Marburger, anything went. What we can learn here is that some coordination for technologies that multiple agencies might want to use ought to be done centrally to collect both short-term and long-term information on the relative merits and concerns related to the technology. That was not done here.

2. Where were the science advisors and analysts? Why is a contracting officer, who has no technical background, presenting analysis on something well outside of his professional training? When the article in the NYT described an Air Force contracting officer saying he 'believed' in this and didn't care of he lost his job supporting it, one has to wonder. When it comes to something technical or scientific, beliefs have nothing to do with it, thinking is what matters.

3. The frame of all actors involved, including The New York Times. Nobody has questioned the underlying assumption I previously mentioned. To assume without questioning that a media organization could be so corrupted and brazen as to be entirely co-opted and part of a large conspiracy so as to justify the basic assumption for the fraudulent technology Mr. Montgomery sold for millions to the government is a disturbing sign of the frame of mind our government and military has.

One last point. I think this can and will happen again. There is next to nothing standing in the way of something this horrifically stupid from occurring. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy doesn't track this (and neither does their back-end analytical support at the Institute for Defense Analyses). The CIA, DoD, Air Force, and other stakeholders including DHS still don't speak to one another and have no means for coordination. And lastly, if you look at the requests for proposals from these agencies, they still predicate themselves on the flawed assumptions and are requesting technologies that are not only useless, but people are likely to make things up and lie to the government claiming they can make them, especially since the non-scientists are the ones hearing the presentations and handing out the money without asking technical experts to advise them.

Anonymous- How the Media doesn't get it

2011-02-16T10:52:00.001-08:00

What is Anonymous?

First, they are not your personal army.

What is Anonymous?

It's a loose association of individuals who collectively protest via cyberspace, broadly defined.

What is Anonymous?

Is often seen at the /b/ board. Go find it yourself, I won't link it here. Caution, it contains material not safe to look at while at work, and in many cases the material could be borderline illegal. In short, unsafe for human consumption.

What is Anonymous?

If it can be said to have a cause, it would be internet freedom for all. Even that is a stretch.

What Anonymous is NOT?

Again, not your personal army.

What Anonymous is NOT?

A terrorist organization, no less an organization at all.

What Anonymous is NOT?

A group of either all good, or all bad individuals. There are extremes of both.

What Anonymous is NOT?

It is not motivated by political or monetary gain.

What will Anonymous do?

Usually back up other fellow Anons. But, then again, don't count on it.

What will Anonymous do?

It can be a force for good. If you plan to do something bad, like blow up a school or shoot up a mall, they have been known to work with authorities to prevent that. Example 1: http://www.thelocal.se/17354/20090204/ Example 2: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/students-massacre-threat/story-e6frf7jo-1111115067368 Example 3: http://www.switched.com/2011/02/08/4chan-turns-ali-saad-in-school-massacre/?c

What will Anonymous do?

Point out that people attacking Anons may suddenly discover unsettling, possibly illegal, material on their personal computer.

Most Processed Foods - A Lunch Topic

2011-02-15T12:38:00.001-08:00

Today, I went out to lunch with some friends from the laboratory where I got my PhD. Being biochemists, naturally our lunch topic meandered to that of the amount of synthetic stuff in various foods. This turned into trying to name some of the most processed or chemical-laden foods that are incredibly popular here in the United States.

This is the preliminary list of things we came up with:

Twinkies: Perhaps most well known for the discussions of their shelf life, jokingly estimated to be sometime after the apocalypse and capable of withstanding nuclear holocaust. Recently, a photographer did a nice set of images of the 37 ingredients in twinkies

http://www.fooducate.com/blog/2010/06/11/a-visual-of-twinkies-37-ingredients/

Ingredients: Enriched Bleached Wheat Flour [Flour, Reduced Iron, B Vitamins (Niacin, Thiamine Mononitrate (B1), Riboflavin (B2), Folic Acid)], Corn Syrup, Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Water, Partially Hydrogenated Vegetable and/or Animal Shortening (Soybean, Cottonseed and/or Canola Oil, Beef Fat), Whole Eggs, Dextrose. Contains 2% or Less of: Modified Corn Starch, Glucose, Leavenings (Sodium Acid Pyrophosphate, Baking Soda, Monocalcium Phosphate), Sweet Dairy Whey, Soy Protein Isolate, Calcium and Sodium Caseinate, Salt, Mono and Diglycerides, Polysorbate 60, Soy Lecithin, Soy Flour, Cornstarch, Cellulose Gum, Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Natural and Artificial Flavors, Sorbic Acid (to Retain Freshness), Yellow 5, Red 40.

Spam: This tasty meat product was originally invented in 1937 by Hormel Foods. It was reportedly going to be called 'spiced ham,' hence the name. It was a popular commodity purchased by the US military during WWII, some 20 thousands tons of it were given to our troops.

Ingredients: from this website... http://www.madehow.com/Volume-6/Spam.html

"The primary ingredient in Spam is chopped pork shoulder meat mixed with ham. About 90% of Spam is pork from a pig's shoulders. The remaining 10% (or so) comes from the pig's buttock and thigh, better known as ham. This ratio varies according to ham and pork prices. The U.S. Department of Agriculture does not permit any nonmeat fillers in lunchmeat, nor does it allow pig snouts, lips, or ears. The second ingredient is salt, added for flavor and for use as a preservative. Also, a small amount of water is used to bind all ingredients together. Sugar is also included for flavor. Finally, sodium nitrate is added to prevent botulism and acts as a preservative as well. It is the sodium nitrite that gives Spam its bright pink color—without it, Spam would discolor and become brown."

Starburst: Who doesn't like all the flavors in Starburst? I remember getting tons of them on halloween, and boy are the newer Starburst jelly beans really excellent. However, we tend to think that there's not much natural or unprocessed ingredients in a Starburst. In fact, we weren't really sure what, besides sugar, is in one.

Ingredients: According to Answers.com, this is the list. Corn syrup, sugar, hydrogenated palm kernel oil, fruit juice from concentrate (apple, strawberry, lemon, orange, cherry), citric acid, dextrin, gelatin, food starch-modified, natural and artificial flavors, ascorbic acid (vitamin c), coloring (red 40, yellow 5, yellow 6, blue 1).

Mountain Dew (and many other sodas): Our favorite for a soda to list was Mountain Dew. We were fairly certain that many sodas could substitute, but none are more popular for being full of chemicals than the Dew. Also, there was that whole myth about the properties of Yellow 5 that made this a winner for our list of processed foods.

Ingredients: Again, answers.com was useful here listing the ingredients as...

Carbonated water, High fructose corn syrup (HFCS), Concentrated orange juice and other natural flavors, Citric acid, Sodium benzoate (preserves freshness), Caffeine (55.2 mg per 12 oz.), Sodium citrate, Gum arabic, Erythorbic acid (preserves freshness), Calcium disodium, EDTA (to protect flavor), Brominated vegetable oil, Yellow 5

Cheese Whiz: Anytime something is called a "processed cheese food," rather than cheese, it must be processed heavily. Especially telling is that it comes in a can that sprays it. Lovely.

This gem of processed food is pretty old, originally released in 1953 by Kraft foods. What you'll notice in the ingredients list below is that cheese culture is surprising late in the list.

Ingredients: Whey, canola oil, milk protein concentrate, maltodextrin, sodium phosphate, contains less than 2% of whey protein concentrate, salt, lactic acid, sodium alginate, mustard flour, worchestershire sauce, (vinegar, molasses, corn syrup, water, salt, caramel color, garlic powder, sugar, spices, tamarind, natural flavor), sorbic acid as a preservative, milkfat, cheese

culture, oleoresin paprika (color), annatto (color), natural flavor, enzymes.

Movie Theater Popcorn butter: One of the most common ones is made by Paragon and is actually called 'Movie Theater Popcorn Butter Topping.' We've all seen this goo in what looks like a saline bag at the theatre. It's warmed and then oozed out of a very noisy squirting device all over your $5 bag of popcorn. We all were convinced that there had to be very little real butter in there.

Ingredients: Partially hydrogenated soybean oil, Beta carotene, Buttery flavoring, TBHQ, Polydimethylsiloxane.

Jello: Almost everyone has had Jello. It's gelatin, sure we know that. But, what else is in there that makes this oddly textured and vibrantly colored food stuff?

Ingredients: Yet again, answers.com was useful here...

Gelatin, Maltodextrin, Adipic Acid / Fumaric Acid, Disodium Phosphate, Butylated Hydroxyanisole (BHA), Sugar, Artificial flavors,, Food Colors.

Sunny Delight: Yes, that wonderful fruit inspired drink. I like to think of it as a citrusy version of terpentine.

Ingredients: Water, High Fructose, Corn Syrup and 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Concentrated Juices (Orange, Tangerine, Apple, Lime, Grapefruit). Citric Acid, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Beta-Carotene, Thiamin Hydrochloride (Vitamin B1), Natural Flavors, Food Starch-Modified, Canola Oil, Cellulose Gum, Xanthan Gum, Sodium Hexametaphosphate, Sodium Benzoate To Protect Flavor, Yellow #5, Yellow #6

Quiet Super Bowl Victory - Chevy Volt!

2011-02-06T18:49:00.000-08:00

I sat in front of the big screen TV at my parents house in Raleigh, NC watching the game. I reveled at the commercials, ranging from Doritos dust performing a resurrection to a Best Buy commercial asking the important question "What's a Bieber?" to which the response was "I don't know... kind of looks like a girl."

However, it was the automobiles that stole the commercials. The most moving of them was the Chrysler commercial with Eminem rolling through the streets narrating an American dream and touching the grit of our national souls, revealing the new American car slogan - Imported from Detroit. While this may have been the most moving commercial I saw, it was not backed up by the best product.

The product that won the super bowl is the Chevy Volt. If you aren't familiar with this modern marvel, then the Washington Post article reviewing it recently is worth a read. Especially, since the former director of the CIA makes an appearance in the review. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/21/AR2011012105347.html )

The most impressive thing I've read about the Chevy Volt is how the petroleum engine in it works. It runs at a constant rate and produces electricity to run the motor. It's so elegant and smart. An engine running at a constant rate, producing the electricity for an electric engine will have less wear and tear from revving up and down. It can be tuned to maximally produce electrical output. Obviously, this is what they did, as the engine can get around 37mpg when it's running off of the gas-producing-electric-configuration.

Functionally, the consumer gets an electric car for the short daily commutes (40 mile range). Then, if it is the weekend and you're running a ton of errands or go for a road trip, you are riding around in a car that gets 37mpg. This is a win-win.

If I had the money to invest, I'd go Chevrolet for stock right now. Then again, it's only a matter of time before Toyota takes the Camry, or Honda takes the Accord and tunes it to get 60mpg with it's own gas-producing-electric-configuration.

Collins should go, not NCRR

2011-01-24T06:31:00.000-08:00

Out of all the misguided things an NIH director could propose doing, getting rid of NCRR nears the top of the list, of, well, misguided things.

This may not be an affront that is political in nature, though maybe that is how it was devised. It is a direct affront on basic science. The simple truth is that NCRR and NIGMS are the last places in the NIH who do not have either a disease focus, or an area of the body focus. Put in a much stronger way, they are the only two centers that do not primarily fund what I would call 'contract science.'

What is contract science? It's when NIH gives grants for research that looks like a foregone conclusion. This model, widespread among all NIH centers, works against basic science. The extreme logic flaw of contract science is that it destroys the creativity and capability for scientists to make groundbreaking discoveries. Instead, it harnesses the university research enterprise and turns it into large collections of technicians doing boring experiments, and generating grant proposals tailored to the study sections, not tailored towards new discovery.

That Dr. Collins would put NCRR on the chopping block is no surprise. This is a man who helped create a center (NHGRI). The work and model of NHGRI is entirely contract. It was initially a large contract to sequence the human genome. A technological marvel for sure, but more of an engineering question than a basic science question (and don't get me wrong, a worthwhile and difficult engineering question at that). What this does is create a feeding frenzy amongst the other NIH center directors. Everyone will want a piece of what NCRR has.

What stinks is that the capabilities and the protection for the most basic infrastructure for basic scientists and the support system for all the other centers will be destroyed if NCRR goes. Instead, the big clouted political figures like Harold Varmus (former NIH director and currently the head of the extremely bloated NCI) will merely snatch up large swaths of NCRR and put them into use in their center, forsaking all others.

Ok, I've gone on enough with this. Here's some points for the discussion. Hopefully someone will raise these to Dr. Collins. However, I doubt he'll listen. He's clearly already made up his mind.

1. NCRR is one of two centers out of the thirty plus centers at NIH whose sole focus is on basic science. Taking that away is an affront on basic science

2. NCRR has an infrastructure component that supports not only all other centers at NIH, but funds necessary infrastructure for basic and applied sciences across the United States.

3. Dismantling NCRR and giving pieces of it to others will result in an increased inter-center bureaucracy.

4. Dismantling NCRR and giving pieces of it to others will result in budget hogging and a political battle over the remains of the center.

5. Nearly 1100 letters and comments, many of which oppose this move, are being flatly ignored by Collins. This includes misrepresenting the level of support for this move in the NY TImes article.

There is one simple question that needs to be asked of Dr. Collins, and I anxiously await an answer....

What factual evidence and arguments does Dr. Collins have that supports getting rid of NCRR?

That query needs to be answered, and to the satisfaction of the scientific community before any other movements or agreements to set this in motion occur.

I will tell you this, I'm calling my Congressman and telling him about this.

Additional Links to more on this story...

An excellent blog post about Collins from a friend of mine

http://networkedblogs.com/dovqZ

Interview with Science (the one where he looks like a jerk)

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/01/nihs-collins-explains-why-ncrr.html

Original article from Science on breaking up a center

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/01/nihs-plan-to-break-up-a-center.html

The New York Times article that serves as a PR campaign for Collins

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/23/health/policy/23drug.html?src=me

Pharma Company Halts Executions in United States

2011-01-21T12:51:00.000-08:00

I read with great interest a Washington Post article today about the company Hospira. Having spent a dozen years in North Carolina, I'm aware of their presence as a manufacturer there. The short version of the story is this.... Hospira makes the drug sodium thiopental. This, in combination with some more common compounds, makes up the suite of drugs used in lethal injections in the United States. Hospira moved the manufacturing plant for the sodium thiopental to Italy. Then, the Italian authorities demanded that the company ensure that the end use of its drug was not for executions. In response, Hospira has decided to discontinue the manufacturing of the drug entirely.

Conclusion: A drug company has just ended lethal injections in the United States. That's right, a drug company.

Now, there are a number of other ways one can devise to deliver a lethal injection to a human being. However, it may take some time before these methods can be approved in the states where inmates are on death row and awaiting the most severe punishment our legal system has.

That's a diversion. Back to the most fascinating component in terms of science policy. A drug company, not a court, not a politician, not a legislative body, not an advocacy group... a drug company who cited potential liability from a foreign government just made a very serious dent into lethal injections in the United States.

Translational Science - Public Science In The Private Interest?

2010-12-19T10:13:00.000-08:00

Translational science is getting a great deal of attention. Take the discoveries done by basic scientists in the life sciences and do the necessary leg work to hand it off to industry, or create your own company with it.

This sounds like a great idea, right?

I've got another idea that needs to go with this. How about the public who funds that science gets some of the rewards of the discoveries. The one thing I've never felt entirely comfortable with when it comes to translational science initiatives is who benefits at the end of the day.

1. Drug companies and private industries. This is a boon for them. They've now just externalized a bunch of the riskiest costs they have. University money and soon even more public money (see the new NIH Translational Center idea of Francis Collins) fund these initiatives. Waiting, drooling even, are drug companies and other in the pharmaceutical industry who can take all of this work that is lined up for them and run with it - for free!

2. Private universities. Most of the top ten medical centers in the US are private and are affiliated with universities. They rake in billions of dollars in funding from the federal government for research and development. The technology transfer offices are giddy over this idea. They can control and license to the university all the discoveries as they are laundered through the translational centers.

There is a problem here. Where does the public get this benefit? Right, they get it when the companies come out with a new product that people will pay through the roof for, or their insurance company will pay through the roof for it and your premiums will suffer.

Here's the big question (and implied solution) to the problem. What licensing/patenting intrest does the US government have in these discoveries that go through translational centers and initiatives when the basic science underlying it was done with the support of federal funds? The answer needs to be fleshed out. If you ask me, I think the taxpayer - as represented by the US government - ought to have a significant share of the profits from these products going to market.

Who knows, maybe it will offset some of that massive debt we have, or it could even help fund more research and development, lessening the burden of doing science on the government dime alone.

Post-Truth Debates in Science

2010-06-30T11:23:00.000-07:00

Have you ever heard the phrase 'well, that's just politics.' In the public discourse, this well-worn statement and many like it get my hackles up. I frequently interpret that statement as an admission of intellectual laziness.

Intellectual laziness, here, refers to when someone would rather not make the effort to dig deeper on a problem in order to identify and evaluate potential solutions. Instead, they chalk it up to politics and usually state their predetermined view or conclusion in a bald or unsupported manner. This unwillingness to examine the facts behind the opinions one holds is counterproductive to all of public policy.

In the more complicated scientific debates occuring right now, an additional element is mixed in: getting around the critique of intellectual laziness by stating facts to support the argument that may not be sound. These facts, on the surface, sound authoritative and based on rigorous analysis. Of course, we expect statistics and studies conducted by experts to be reliable and credible. What do we do when different sides of a debate have polar opposite facts, from groups of experts that are presented as credible? That's where most people pick a side and get entrenched.

What if we came to find out that somehow (through sloppy work usually, and maligned intent only sometimes) pseudo-science and view-centered data created solely to support one side of the argument is being injected into the discourse. What can this pseudo-science or misinformation do to a thorny and complicated scientific debate? It takes the dialogue into a very murky place where it is transformed into a post-truth debate.

In a post-truth debate, each side has their own evidence, their own experts, and their own views on what we should do to resolve a problem. However, there could be some ways to investigate whether or not a source or side in the debate has flaws.

The first way to dig a little deeper is to look no further than the order in which people approach the problem. If there is a firmly held view on the best solution, then a search for experts who already agree with that conclusion, then developing a study that likely is designed to only return the evidence that supports the conclusion; you might be on your way to a flimsy post-truth argument.

In short, this is what tobacco companies did to defend against lawsuits from people who developed lung cancer after smoking for many years. Thankfully, it was difficult for the public to get confused about whether or not smoking contributed to people developing lung-cancer. However, the collusion and cherry-picked experts with scientific sounding statements that support their claims is still deeply troubling.

Another way to examine the facts brought to the table is to look at the organization that funded the studies. There are many reputable organizations in the sciences. However, a point of confusion arises since not everything that ever comes out of a reputable organization is unable to be contradicted. This has more to do with the level of confidence that a given finding has (and I'll come back to that in a moment). More reputable organizations in the scientific arena include big-named journals and the larger professional societies.

Some think tanks are quite reputable. However, a think tank is usually less reputable when it comes to areas where they stand to benefit from a conclusion. If you are a think tank with a political lean, it undermines the credibility of your findings if the data you produce uniformly lean in one direction. Why? Because the question of whether the research was designed soundly, or whether you have suppressed evidence becomes relevant. These questions are relevant because doing both of those things (biasing research design, and suppressing evidence) have become enticing incentives that would support the overall mission of the organization.

Oh boy, we're deep into talking about research design and evidence. This is the last way to investigate whether there are flaws in a source: examining the critical nuts and bolts of the facts and statements used as fodder for arguments in many of the more technical and scientific debates our society faces.

Doing this kind of analysis is Yeoman's work. Frequently, it is only the researchers (scientists, engineers etc.) that are familiar enough with the nuances of research design and how to determine the level of confidence that can be ascribed to information or conclusions.

One particularly sobering problem with doing this kind of work is how difficult it is to correct the record when a flaw is discovered. In the public discourse, the lightning fast pace of the dialogue can pass this information by because the topic is 'old hat.'

Now, what about the cases where we are lucky enough to expose a flaw, and bring it out in the open for all to see? Here is an example. A politician makes the statement that a risk assessment shows there will be a biological attack on our country. This sounds scary!

Upon deeper investigation of the important nuts and bolts used in this assessment, it turns out that the model they use to do the assessment is severely flawed. In fact, the model will produce the result that an attack will happen on the country, no matter what the inputs are. In other words, it cannot produce a result that would say anything other than 'an attack will happen.'

Whether it was sloppy work or maligned intent, most reasonable people might be distressed by this and have good reason to distrust the assessment. At the very least, we would want a more rigorous and analytically sound method used. We'd also like to make sure we examine any important decisions that were based on this analysis. What if it was used to justify going to war?

Taking it one step further, what if we were to find out that the politician knew the model would always return the same result. At this point, people might get really angry.

In short, I think the exposure of the critical flaws is received by society as a betrayal or loss. Elizabeth Kubler Ross wrote in her work about grieving that people go through stages when confronted with this type of event. Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance.

I think our modern society has not moved past denial or anger when faced with this type of information. Further, I think it is becoming more common and a principle element of post-truth debates.

Wikileaks: Science Policy & Freedom of the Press

2010-03-07T09:40:00.000-08:00

Haven't heard of Wikileaks? Well, you should know about this group. Is it a group? In one sense, it is. Is it a website? In another sense, it is. Is it a movement? In yet another way, it just might be...

The story of Wikileaks is not simple in some ways, but incredibly and elegantly simple in others.

Simple:

1. Protect whistleblowers.

2. Provide legal backing to secure a more free press.

Not Simple:

1. How to protect whistleblowers in an ever-changing envrionment of new media and the web.

1.1 Establishing authenticity

1.2 Establishing protective status

1.3 What protections are extended

1.4 In order to protect, we must understand the threats whistleblowers face in new media and the web.

2. The balance that must be struck for a free press in a new media age.

2.1 Begin to understand the different legal statutes and their interaction with one another across the web (ie across the world)

2.2 Survey the statutes to determine those which have largely worked.

2.3 Build a consensus among major newpapers and media outlets worldwide on those practices and statutes they support.

I cannot unpack all of these issues in detail. Moreover, I am certain I have missed some (likely even some critical ones). However, the task is important and the issues are daunting and in need of attention.

Scientists and engineers who have the most extensive understanding of the technical components of the internet and its technology must be involved in this process and helping to inform the many groups that have a large and deeply vested interest in these issues.

Why you might ask? Well, we have transformed our sharing of information from paper to bytes. Wikileaks is begging the question of revisiting a series of laws, policies, and guidances to extend in useful and practical ways the implementation of the spirit of a free press and the protection of whistleblowers.

Here is what I know so far about the group - Wikileaks - bringing this issue to light. They have begun to work within Iceland to create a series of laws, called IMMI. IMMI - the Icelandic Modern Media Initiative - is seeking to pull together the best practices of these laws and protections from around the world and get them passed to make Iceland a safe haven for the press.

From a science and technology policy standpoint, this may be a watershed. The laws that govern freedom of internet service providers (ISP) and freedom of the web are largely tied to the physical location of the server hosting the information.

Any country that wants to have the last laugh in the search for freedoms should consider very carefully the impact of such a set of laws. In short, you could become the primary digital steward for information that is sensitive. The set of protections that would come from such an initiative are exceptionally attractive given the desire for privacy that most modern western thought champions.

In a business sense, I think that such an initiative would attract a huge influx of business to the area in high-tech industries and internet service providers. Put simply, if I were google, Microsoft, or Apple; I would move my corporate headquarters and servers and data centers to any country that enacted that kind of legislation.

Let me do a comparison. This initiative is, in my mind, the internet privacy equivalent of all the banking secrecy in Switzerland. That has many comforting and concerning aspects. What must be done, however, is to balance the perspectives and be absolutely certain that those with the highest integrity and the most honest and pure of intentions are entrusted with such great stewardship responsibilities.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Icelandic Modern Media Initiative

http://immi.is/?l=en

This contains the proposal in Iceland, a mapping out of the timeline, and other information on this effort. Make no mistake about it, Wikileaks is involved in this process through some of its members.

Wikileaks on the Culture Show - Friday 29th January 2010

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o2ZGk1djTU

This perspective discusses some of the identified challenges and the growing support from some in the community of journalists in various parts of the world.

Wikileaks Release 1.0 - Lecture broken into 7 parts

Wikileaks Relesase (1/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zNFe1mQ6Tc

Wikileaks Relesase (2/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANLSKRc8N94

Wikileaks Relesase (3/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3brdA5dSqZo

Wikileaks Relesase (4/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWNfIvG4z-g

Wikileaks Relesase (5/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GjkEdBHM4o

Wikileaks Relesase (6/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLNrZDk6op8

Wikileaks Relesase (7/7)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9QgjDlW9Rs

Julian Assange discussing Wikileaks and IMMI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eChi3S_He1w

Chile v Haiti

2010-03-01T11:37:00.000-08:00

Right after the earthquake in Haiti, I wrote the following little brief and sent it around to a few friends. I was trying to frame the response to Haiti in terms of the only other major demolition of a large city I could think of that happened almost instantly - Hiroshima. The second point I made, about the infrastructure of the city came back to the front of my mind in spades when Chile was rocked with one of the strongest earthquakes ever recorded (and an aftershock that was a strong as the earthquake in Haiti).

The bottom line, I think, is that the difference between the destruction in Haiti vs. Chile has to do with:

1. Differences in the infrastructure already in place

2. Proximity of the center of the quake to the metropolitan areas.

ok.. here's what I'd written back when Haiti got shaken...

------

In 1945, when the Untied States bombed Hiroshima the entire city was demolished. The destruction in Haiti affects a similarly sized population to Hiroshima. If one compares the images before and after of Hiroshima, and then does the same for Port au Prince, the destruction is strikingly similar (with the exception of the extreme burns and ash created by the kilotons level nuclear detonation).

There are some critical things to consider in the United States response and the response in general.

Response will be slow:
1. In the case of Hiroshima, we were at war and very quickly went in and occupied the city after detonation. We sent the USACE in and set up barracks and immediately started keeping peace and working on infrastructure (putting servicemen at risk to radiation and fallout cloud effects). In Haiti, because it was a disaster and not a planned destruction like the bombing of a city, no swift plan was in place to send in teams to set up and rebuild infrastructure. There were not the resources in place or en-route to that area starting before it happened. We start out lagging behind.

2. The structural integrity of the buildings in Haiti are inferior to standards elsewhere in the world. This is because they are the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. They were in dire straits to begin with. This amplified the destructive power of the quake and makes response difficult because the infrastructure was fragile to begin with and woefully underdeveloped compared to other countries. Haiti today lags decades behind the Japan of the 1940's.

Where is our expertise to respond:
1. The only people who know how to approach this level of disaster from an infrastructure perspective are the USACE. Americans have not faced a problem like this since the 1940's. Even the Tsunami response was aided by superior infrastructure and a much bigger distribution of population density compared toHaiti.

2. Our most mobile way of providing supplies and coordinating things into the area is through the Navy.

3. The US can provide more value with our logistics abilities, management, technical savvy, convening power, and corporate outreach than with our cash.

George Will: He is wrong

2010-02-21T11:43:00.000-08:00

In my local paper, the column 'They were blinded by Science' appeared on Sunday the 21st of February.

In the first paragraph, Will slips an insult to both the the Nobel Peace Prize, and a blinded insult to President Obama by calling the prize 'increasingly weird.' I get it, you don't believe in climate science, don't believe that IPCC should have gotten the prize, and even more you believe that President Obama should not have gotten it. For those calling this too sensitive, I respect the intelligence Will has. I give him credit for attempting to make a subtle insult. Would you rather I compare him to a less sophisticated buffoon like Limbaugh? I didn't think so. It's an insult, and it is delightfully subtle, but still there.

What George Will goes on to do is a gross politicization of science that I find obnoxious. He states 'Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement.' He was referring to Rejenda Pachauri of the IPCC. First, scientists are rarely unnerved by disagreement. However, they enjoy disagreement that is based in fact and played out publicly. What George Will conflates is the difference between disagreeing over matters that can be resolved by evidence or science, and opinion.

Matters stop becoming opinion, or up to the majority of similar opinion (like that of the entire population) if there is credible evidence that says the majority opinion is simply wrong. We fund science for just this reason; for others to figure out what the facts are to inform the discussion and rule out erroneous opinions. It does not matter how many millions of people believe something, stubborn facts must not be dismissed if we are ever to move forward as a society.

Mr. Will goes on to promote another concerning misconception about science when he makes the statement in reference to climate science that 'Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole...' This demonstrates an extremely reductionist and logically inconsistent view of what science as an entire enterprise is all about. In this statement, Mr. Will implies that somehow science being 'unsettled' in some area is not only a problem that undermines our belief in it, but he is implying that science can only be useful if it settles the score permanently. The fact that science and scientists do not walk around proclaiming infallibility is the nature of science. Put simply, a conservative such as George Will should be applauding this clearly conservative and deliberative approach rather than manipulating it in an attempt to cast doubt over scientific work.

Skip ahead a paragraph or two and Mr. Will has gone off manipulating the Western Climate Initiative. He paints California law as being 'incorrigible' due to the emissions rules that may increase the cost of cars. This shortly after subtly insulting the initiative because it might increase costs on businesses and consumers. This is just another old and tired argument from a narrow-minded conservative. Yes, we must be careful not to strap businesses and consumers. However, they are not the only people in this country and their considerations are not the only ones worth hearing.

Government, Mr. Will, has the tough job of listening to everyone - not just the business folks (and as you'd prefer, just the conservative business folks). Government also has the tough job of confronting trade-offs. I may be a scientist, but even I can tell when a gifted writer like George Will spends a few hundred words twisting things so he can put smack in the middle of his column his old and tired view of the world.

Think this is it? No, there is more! In the final stretch of his column Mr. Will frames it by saying 'Global warming skeptics, too, have erred.' Now, most would imagine this is the concession portion of his writing. Where he balances his views from the previous portion of the article. Simply put, he saves his best (and most erroneous) insults for last and this turn of phrase is merely to calm you down before the climactic conclusion.

Mere lines later comes this gem 'support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers than an IPCC report asserted without serious scientific support.'

In this one sweep he has: (1) labeled anything related to remedial action in climate science 'radical', (2) suggested that actions supporting this such as sustainability and environmental stewardship are somehow woeful and contrary to basic freedom and the pursuit of happiness to gain wealth in America, (3) cast the IPPC as having no scientific support.

On the first point, Mr. Will is attempting to label anyone who cares about the environnent as a radical. The terms mitigation when referring to environment are close cousins to remedial action in the environment community. They just so happen to be some of the favorite words of some old-time Republicans who (believe it or not) did a lot for environmental stewardship. It was, in fact, Richard Nixon who created the Environmental Protection Agency.

On the second point, Mr. Will is taking this a step further. Maybe Mr. Will is trying to court the Tea Baggers by comparing actions concerning our environment with being contrary to basic freedom and the pursuit a part of the American dream to become wealthy. There is an element of wealth that Mr. Will clearly does not value - the wealth that comes with enjoying your surroundings. That account of wealth needs to be considered too.

Regardless, in no way has he supported this statement. Where is the evidence? What freedom is being taken away? How is wealth being denied? If you're going to write an article criticizing science, then join the debate in a evidence based way and bring your facts to the table. In this way you've failed to make your point and have made my point for me.

I apologize, I'm getting ahead of myself. It was the third point where George Will has thoroughly discredited himself. George Will, someone that I could charitably describe has little authority to discuss the merits of scientific evidence and information, claimed that a panel of scientists had no scientific evidence to support their statement. Put simply, he is wrong.

Those three words 'he is wrong.' are what first comes to mind as any self-respecting scientist reads his column. However, being based in logic and evidence, saying 'he is wrong' isn't as alluring a narrative as a skilled rhetorician like Mr. Will can spin. It is, however, based in reality and supported by facts.

This desire to be grounded in reality and supporting statements with facts and consistent logic is what makes George Will not credible. It is this devotion to following the evidence and reporting facts to others truthfully and with candor that separates the scientific community from the political spitball shooting pundits like George Will.

Science: Print vs. TV Media

2010-01-23T12:10:00.000-08:00

In the last year, I've had the good fortune to spend time speaking at some length with editors in both the print media and television media. One two occasions, I was able to spend time observing how things work in their organization. I suppose, being the curious person I am, I asked a lot of questions.

I sat for a time and started to think about how the structures of media organizations that are in the business of print media and television media handle scientific and technical information.

Print Media:
There is a big difference between national and local media. Local newspapers across the United States are struggling to stay afloat. While looking at a local newspaper, increasingly the articles are reprints from the national press and syndicated columns. The resources barely exist to cover the events that matter to the peope in the areas the papers cover.

It is this problem alone that makes coverage of topics that are technical in nature or require a sophisticated description next to impossible. The resources simply do not exist and the expertise is not present.

At the national level, few in the press have technical training. Equally, few editors have the requisite knowledge to evaluate the merits of arguments in stories with technical or scientific components to them.

However, print media as a means of conveying news stories with a science/technical side could be one of the most important ways of improving the public understanding of science.

The short list of reasons for this is:

More complicated subject matter can be discussed in print
There is no time limit on the story from the readers perspective
Charts and figures can accompany any article

Television Media:
Again, the differences between national and local media are significant. However, the fundamentals of television media discourage and create a disincentive for covering a story with a science/technical component to it. It is no particular fault of any reporter, news director, or station manager. It is the system as a whole.

A few reasons why include:

More complicated subject matter is hard to discuss on television (especially by a non-expert).
Limitations on time preclude the longer explanations of science/technical material necessary for the public to gain an understanding of the story.
Charts and figures are often not conveyed effectively, or adequately explained in a news broadcast (despite the capability of displaying them being technically possible).
Charts and figures frequently are 'dumbed down' on purpose rendering many of them borderline useless.

The Troubling Picture:
Much has been written about the changing face of journalism. Particularly relevant for scientific and technical aspects of stories are problems with balance. Giving equal treatment in a story to a reputable expert and a non-reputable expert has become the norm. Often, this is done to create more sensation in the story in order to attract readers or viewers. This is problematic because it conveys to the audience that somehow the sides are on equal footing when truthfully they are not.

Specifically for television journalists, new digital modes for presenting news are impacting journalists themselves in significant ways. A television reporter will conduct interviews, do background research, write a summary in print to accompany video, and drive around all day. Then, their story and their written product that accompanies it will be served on the internet.

The same story, done for a television format is simultaneously done as a print format. However, the reporter is overburdened and doing work outside of their training - namely doing print journalism in a setup ill-equipped to handle it.

The result is a print media product that has all the markings of a television product (including the limitations). This erodes print journalism in a way that few are taking seriously. It also is particularly dramatic in terms of how it affects scientific or technical aspects of stories in the press.

Add to this the differences between the resources available to the national and local media; the effects on the stories involving science are dramatic. Put simply, stories with science/technical aspects barely exist and the media outlets have an institutional bias to not cover them. In the few instances where these stories are covered, they face a long list of barriers that can preclude them from being a high quality product.

NSF Science and Engineering Indicators 2010

2010-01-18T13:44:00.000-08:00

The National Science Foundation released the Science and Engineering Indicators for 2010.
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/?org=NSF

I could sum up a broad spectrum of the salient points in that report with the following quotation....

"We are witnessing both a decline in the intellectual competence and scientific literacy of our future leaders and the release from our secondary schools of an unprepared, scientifically illeterate future labor force... With so ill-prepared a labor force, can the nation hope to compete in the world markets? ... From this current picture emerges a vision of tomorrow in which the division of "two cultures" becomes ever more vivid - a United States in which there are about 2.5 million scientists and engineers comfortable with the language of science and technology ... and 200 million others who neither understand nor appreciate science, who see all of technology as undecipherable black boxes, and who come to reject science and technology, to resent them, and bring that rejection with them into the politicial sphere. That is an ugly image - yet already it is a half truth that accounts for some of the environmental excesses of the last decade. The only means to prevent or mitigate that prospect is a determined effort to upgrade secondary school education in science - an obligation in which ever one of us must share. Quite possibly it is the most important single thing that can be done to ensure the quality of the national future."
- Philip Handler. Former President of NAS and recipient of the National Medal of Science. From "Science and the American Future." Commencement Address - Northwestern University. June 13, 1981.

Handler wrote those words a little over six months before his death. In the 29 years since, we have amassed the data to prove him right.

Avatar & Science Policy

2010-01-09T08:55:00.000-08:00

A discussion on the facebook page of a dear friend from high school clinched it. Avatar has some interesting portrayals relevant to science policy.

Dual-use research: The Avatar technology - the merging technology shown in the movie itself, not the technology to make the movie - requires suspending disbelief to swallow. That's not the issue since we expect that from movies at this point. What we saw in the plot itself was a classic dual-use problem.

The scientists were proud of the inventions and developments for the pure-science they could pursue with them. They did, however, accept money from bad actors to do the work. In this case, the corporation that just wanted to go out there and retrieve this extremely valuable element. They also receive money and value from the military in terms of transportation and safety assurance. That is typical of our current military-industrial-complex.

When the scientists send Jake into the world of the indigenous people, they discuss their apprehension of having him in there. Mostly, they reduce this to concerns over him not really being a scientist or as smart as his deceased sibling. That's about as much thinking ahead as they do. Then, when the corporation resorts to the decision to destroy the important ecosystem and city of the indigenous population; the scientists turn on them immediately.

Classic dual-use problem! Use things for good, scientists are happy. Use it against others, you've lost their support. Further, they did a good job of showing that the scientists can and sometimes do resort to subversive actions to prevent the misuse of their work.

The construct that many scientists I know use to explain this reversal of support is that the funding comes from the government or other entity. This means it still comes from the people who in the end should reap the rewards of the work. This is claimed as a way of keeping the scientist still independent (in part). The independent streak allows the claim (which I tend to agree with) that you are a citizen first, then a scientist funded with some level of loyalty to the people paying for the work. All the prominent scientists that sign petitions from places like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the ones who worked on The Manhattan Project only to spend the rest of their lives devoted to nuclear non-proliferation and arms controls in large part fall into this category.

Bioethics: One missing narrative in the discussions I've seen about Avatar is bioethics. Jake, a qaud (person in a wheelchair), cannot afford to have the expensive leg replacement work done. I've heard this called a commentary on health care reform. That's simplistic and shows just how oversubscribed to current events people really are.

In Avatar, Jake is coerced by someone with power (the Colonel) into participating in his scheme and in return will get his legs back. This is a narrative about disability and coercion in bioethics. Tell a disabled person that you can make their disability go away, so long as they do what you say.

Classic coercion and manipulation that is abhorred by bioethicists around the world and exemplified in historically significant misconduct in research involving human subjects. The Tuskegee experiments ring in here. Tell poor people that in return for their participation in the vaccine research they can get their burial expenses paid for. Look how that turned out...

The most troubling part of this aspect of Avatar is how it is trivialized. This deplorable action is made to seem almost normal and as though any reasonable human being would make such a decision. You see little initial conflict in the characters mind over this when the proposal is made.

Scientist as Protector: The lead scientist of the Avatar project has a transformation during the movie. However, this transformation only looks that way to a non-scientist. First, you might think she is part of the corporation and totally bought into the project (perhaps missing the snippets and eye-rolls she gives to the smarmy corporate raider pointing things out at his holodeck). Then, she goes on a mission to shield her work and her assets from the corporate boondoggle of an idea wanting to destroy the indigenous people and their world.

She becomes the protector, willing to risk her life and her safety for the protection of the people. The whole time, her interest always remains in the pure and deep scientific questions concerning the ways the species comunicate and how the fundamentals of their biology, chemistry, and systems function and interact. Her last words put the icing on this cake as she attempts to convert into an Avatar body permanently, getting a glimpse at the central soul of the indigenous people and remarking about her observation of it even as she dies.

Backing up a step, the further support of her protective role comes in the discussion she has where she pleads and begs for military to save the home tree and begins to describe - to no avail - the nuance and complexity of the indigenous people and their culture, biology, and fundamental connection to the world they live in. This, unfortunately, is common in science. The scientist pleading with the decision-maker and being dismissed, cast aside, and treated as a 'tech weenie' (to use an ugly Dept. of Defense term meant to be condescending towards scientists and engineers).

At the end of it all, Avatar is a technological achievement in the production of the movie while perpetuating and supporting the same troubling issues in science & technology policy/advising.

Hippocratic Oath Of Scientists

2010-01-07T12:46:00.000-08:00

I came across what the author refers to as his take on a Hippocratic Oath for scientists.

"The purpose of science should be the general enhancement of life and not the causing of harm to man. I affirm that I will uphold this principle, in teaching and in practice of my science, to the best of my ability and judgement."
-- C. Schwartz 1970

It was rumored that Schwartz 'compelled' his students to sign off on this if they were to work for him. Not sure how factual that is, though I find it interesting.

In terms of the ethics of the statement, I'm not quite sure it captures everything it could or should. The first sentence sets up a construction that science is for enhancing life and it implies human life. I worry that it could be misinterpreted and the interpretation would mean science is much more narrow than we all know it is.

Watersheds - The Locals Need Help!

2010-01-03T09:30:00.000-08:00

As an area of science policy, water policy within the environment realm is incredibly complicated. Part of the complication in water policy is due to scarcity, the other big factor has to do with how Mother Nature ignores artificial boundaries imposed by us silly humans. Nowhere is it more important to think carefully about these boundary issues than at the watershed level.

Basins and watersheds are inherently more local than the national level. Sadly, paying attention to the needs of our water systems requires looking at geographically specific places. Politically, that will leave these areas open to attacks claiming they are getting preferential treatment. However, that's not what I'm concerned with at this time.

One of the best ways to be a good steward of our water resources is to make sound decisions at the local level. Two things I've been thinking about related to this are the following.

1. Local ordinances and zoning that disallows new construction near water sources.
The name of the game here is protection of the resource. Protection against pollutants, sediment, depletion, and ecosystem disruption or destruction.

2. Buffering watersheds with recreation areas.
If you put a nice green-way around a lake, very simply, means that more people get to enjoy the resource. It also will make it more difficult for the resource to get degraded in other ways.

In both cases, this is difficult to get done. The stakeholders at the local level often lose to the strong local business and development groups. It's very uneven and while in the short-run the economic arguments that developers make can win out, in the long-run the locals lose the resource.

For example, a small lake could either have a green-way built around it for people to go and walk/bike/run, or a developer can be approved for the purchase and development of condos that completely surround the lake and are sold for 400-500k each. The developer goes to a town council and makes his case. He argues that it's good to bring people to the area, that it is good for his business, and he is well connected and contributes to the campaigns of the council members.

On the other hand, only the underfunded local conservation groups would oppose this type of development. The arguments that they must make are hard to hold up at the local level. They'll argue against local businesses and the hope of local development. What the could get more profit from doing is making the argument for option number two above. Demanding the developer back up the development far enough and requiring them to install a green-way could not only add to the value of the work they are doing (and potentially increase their profit margin); but it could go a long way towards protecting the resource in the long-run.

The bottom line is that at the local level we have a great deal of work to do in order to protect our water resources from the shortsightedness of over-development and short-run gains.

Science/Technology 2000-2010

2009-12-29T14:18:00.000-08:00

It's mere days from 2010 and I thought I'd spend a few moments discussing science and technology in the last decade. Most lists of this nature are triumphant claims of 'we did this and therefore we are amazing!' This is not really one of those lists.

Instead, I'm going to attempt to give some abbreviated context to it. After all, science is a slow and methodical process requiring years and even decades of dedication by bright people working together to tackle difficult problems. However, as I realized during writing this, most of our advancements are technological in nature.

I think technical advancements are important. However, it is a source of concern that we seem to have a relatively large focus on technical achievements and little focus on scientific advancement. Most of the achievements I've outlined below are based on scientific breakthroughs that are decades old. Our current system of financing and agenda setting for science and technology is imbalanced, and we're crippling our ability to discover new things by prescribing the work to be done to a few generations worth of scientists and essentially training them in our schools that 'that's the way it is.'

Publishing complete genomes.
Pick a fancy word, and add 'omics' to it... That's what has been done in the last decade. The starting point for the human genome project was long before the publication of the genome. A little reminder is needed in here that the folks who did wonderful engineering to create ABI sequencers and the neat trick that is shotgun sequencing all still bases itself on pioneering work of the 1940's through 1970's. Anyone who knows me has heard me say many times that Fred Sanger didn't much care about sequences. He was interested in the relationship between biological structure and function. it was in that search where he discovered a method for sequencing proteins (first Nobel Prize). Later, he developed a method for sequencing DNA (second Nobel Prize). The 'genome revolution' as many want to call it was, in my mind, a foregone conclusion considering all the innovation and scientific breakthroughs that had happened decades before.

Contrary to what most people think, I'd argue that the genome of Arabidopsis Thaliana is far more useful and important a scientific discovery. First, it is a model system that can be investigated much easier than the human system. Second, and definitely going against the human-centric side of my brain, the plant kingdom is a much less understood life system than the animal kingdom. We have far more to learn about the nuances of life and many of those new discoveries are hiding out in kingdoms outside of our own.

Social Networking.
The craze that began with Friendster and now includes Myspace, Facebook, and a host of others is a force to be reckoned with. We as a society have barely begun to rigorously investigate the new ways of communicating with each other that we've enabled through a mixture of better hardware, large databases, and flexible user-generated content.

It is the technical back-end that people rarely talk about. The trajectory of Moore's Law for data storage capabilities, the widespread use of SQL databases (and their variants), and the continued drop in the price of computer technology were necessary to make this possible. This too, was a foregone conclusion. It just so happened that we hit the critical point where this was possible in the last decade.

In the social sciences, our language and means of communicating with one another has changed as a human society because of social networking. Even the relatively 'new' concept of an email is blurring with websites having internal message capabilities. Unfortunately, the noise is very high on social networking. One lesson we might be learning about is that people really want to show off a lot.

However, with these new ways to communicate we can receive some great benefits - like learning about incidents in distant places that without this kind of technology we would have little chance to know about (nonetheless intervene and do anything about). Dissidents in China and Iran were able to get their message out to the world about what was occurring in their countries, almost in real-time. This is incredibly powerful. With great power, also comes great responsibility... that lesson is also coming back around.

Widespread adoption of Mobile Devices & Wireless Connectivity.
Not only have the mobile devices themselves gone wild in the last decade, but we are the most on-demand-connected that we have ever been in the history of humankind. Compare the best mobile phone from 2000 to an iPhone. Heck, to make it more fair, compare a nice desktop computer from the year 2000 to an iPhone.

In the year 2000, I had a desktop computer that boasted a large 32 gigabyte hard drive. I also was one of the few among my friends to have a CD burner (it was 4x and could create a music CD with 80 minutes of music on it). Now, my iPhone 3Gs has 32 gigs of memory, a touch screen, and can connect to the internet through a high speed data connection or through wireless internet. I can use the built in GPS and my Magellan application to navigate anywhere in the United States with turn-by-turn directions and updates from traffic cameras. That data connection, the presence of wifi, GPS systems like Magellan, and touch screens were something that many consumers didn't even know to wish for. However, the mp3's on the device were quite the discussion in 2000 with RIAA going as far to sue people over copyright infringement.

The Decade of the Geologist and Archaeologist
The last ten years have also been especially exciting for geologists and archeologists. Discoveries that helped us begin to understand the migration of people out of Africa, skeletons of interesting dinosaurs, and even in 2009 the discovery of Ardipithecus ramidus. While this sheds a great deal of light on some big holes in our fossil record, it too was a matter of time and luck. At least it is in large part a scientific discovery rather than a technical achievement. For that, we can at least be happy that we have not marginalized those fields too much (though it seems governments around the world certainly have tried).

Space Travel - Do-It-Yourself Style
One of the interesting things about the last decade in space travel and aeronautics was the challenge to build privately funded, consumer space travel. Burt Rutan and Richard Branson bought into this and pushed forward. Sure, they don't have a passenger system that can get to the International Space Station, but they met the requirements of the challenge. This too, was a technical achievement. Many decades of previous expertise was drawn upon to do this. The real push forward was to attempt to make it without direct government funding and an attempt to create a business model for it.

Google
Google blossomed in the last decade. As an entity they have probably outperformed everyone in technical advancements (with Apple being a close second). They have impacted our language with 'googling' meaning to use a search engine to search for something. The development of GMail revolutionized email and at the same time forced other free email providers (what few there were) to drastically increase the storage they offered to people. The creation of YouTube, which shortly after going live became part of the google family, has also impacted the way people share and consume videos across the globe. In recent years they have moved beyond the web application and search engine market into operating systems for mobile devices (Android) and developing their own web browser (google Chrome). They offer free website hosting (google sites), academic scholarly searching and indexing (google scholar). Oh, and there is always google maps, blogs, translation, and a complete online office product with document/presentation/spreadsheet/collaboration capabilities. Think about what you would do if someone said to you that you could not use anything from google for one day, or one week. If they aren't a top pick of the decade then I'm not sure who is.

Alternative Energy Source Improvements
Here I think the advances are again mostly technical and not scientific discoveries. Improvements in photovoltaic cells - primarily the amount of energy capture per unit area in a cell are increasing and the costs of these cells are going down. Battery storage systems for generated energy are improving, though not quite at the level where we need them. Hybrid vehicles of some variety are now sold in almost all industrialized countries (though I still think most of them are hideous, like the Prius). Even my favorite, hydrogen fuel cell or liquid hydrogen technology is gaining traction and heading through various stages of testing and development. Most of these concepts are old ones. But our attempts to make some of this into a reality are noteworthy in the last decade.

Thoughts on a curriculum for science policy

2009-11-28T11:51:00.000-08:00

Graduate students in the physical & life sciences and engineering should have exposure to science policy as a requirement of a PhD or Masters program. That is an assumption implied in this posting.

If you fall into the 'interested science student' realm, I hope this post is helpful in giving you a little taste. In most graduate programs in science and engineering, taking courses in other departments is acceptable (though may require a bit of paperwork). As you read, I hope you find something interesting to you and look around for an opportunity to dig in a little deeper. You might want to take a closer look at the courses I've labeled as a 'very useful courses.'

For anyone deciding whether to get a dual-degree in science/engineering and public policy (or public administration, or public affairs), this post is for you. There are few science policy programs out there. Few overlap with the major science and engineering universities, likely you'll take courses through or enter a program with no science policy focus (like I did at Duke). If you are going this route, the core courses I recommend are not universally offered as core courses everywhere (though almost all of them are available everywhere), so I wouldn't use the listing as some kind of selection criteria for a school.

CORE COURSES: These courses are essential for a scientist heading into the policy world. Often, some selection of these types of courses can be exempted if you've taken it before or as part of another course (like statistics). However, there is real value in taking a course with policy students and project focused courses are very worthy of taking instead of gaining an exemption. It is not easy to take all these extra courses, and (rarely) other experiences such as internships can add to your development in place of a course.

- Ethics (with substantive discussion of philosophical underpinnings)
- Policy Analysis (hopefully project based with a real client)
- Politics (American Govt or political process focused survey course)
- Management (public management focus)
- Economics (intro micro and macro)
- Statistics (likely something waived for many scientists)
- Negotiations (very helpful for managing conflict)
- Budgeting (critical for running a group or enterprise)
- Leadership (models of leadership for a group or enterprise)

VERY USEFUL COURSES: The following are courses I think are useful for scientists of various types. There are a number of policy areas where scientists have key roles working with policymakers. This is rarely discussed in science graduate programs and requires initiative on the part of the student to learn.

- National Security Policy (because of dual-use research and spanning all the sciences and engineering)
- Bioethics (critical for the life scientists)
- Innovation Policy / Entrepreneurship (more focused for engineers and applied scientists)
- Environmental Policy (all physical and life scientists and engineers could find this helpful)
- Health Policy (survey course helpful for life scientists)
- Urban Policy (architects, and civil engineers along with epidemiologists benefit here)
- Communications Policy / Public Affairs (computer scientists and engineers would find this helpful)

CRITICAL EXPERIENCES: A number of experiences the policy students get are not the same as graduate students in the sciences and engineering. In some cases (like grants), science and engineering students have more direct access than policy students. Most of the following items are beneficial to your development as a science or engineering student. Notably, an internship in a policy setting is the most difficult to do as a science or engineering student. Usually, this requires a discussion with your advisors/mentors and careful planning to ensure continued progress on your research work.

- Involvement in writing a grant and following up on budgeting and management of the grant.
- Involvement in your university or schools operation (committee membership, other collaborative work, starting up new groups or ventures etc.)
- Internship in a policy setting. (the further from your science, the better to learn about the breadth of policy)
- Meet with a local Congressmen, Mayor, Town Council Member etc. to discuss an issue where scientific expertise (yours) can be helpful.

CRITICAL SKILLS: The skills I list below are really what we all wish every policymaker had. It is up to each of us to identify those areas we need more polishing and focusing on them. Policy coursework and projects and work in real-world-settings contributes greatly to developing these skills.

- Identifying levers and choke points in a policy process.
- Differentiating between process, format, function, and rhetoric.
- Framing and reframing an issue.
- Managing a multi-person group to produce a product under a time constraint.
- Writing clear and concise memos.
- Presenting verbally and in writing scientific information to a range of audiences (from primary school children to scientific colleagues).
- Develop and sustain an engaged network of friends, peers, and mentors.

INFORMATION SOURCES: We all need to have good information at our fingertips. In the scientific world there are a dizzying array of sources of information. The same is true of the policy world. Tailoring to your interests and backgrounds is important. Equally important is having a general understanding of what is going on in the rest of the world.

- Council on Foreign relations daily brief (subscribe from their website)
- NY Times Sunday Paper (or daily if you're a news junky.. they have email alerts)
- WSJ alerts (subscribe from website)
- Washington Post (subscribe from website)
- White House updates (subscribe from website)
- Various Govt Agency updates (subscribe from their websites)
- Google Alerts (find the things you are interested in and set some up)
- Science & Nature weekly table of contents (subscribe from their website)
- Science Policy Weekly Brief (subscribe from their website if you're a AAAS member)
- Federation of American Scientists e-news (subscribe from their website)
- Your local US Congressmen and US Senators (subscribe from their House or Senate websites)
- National Academies Press (subscribe online.. listings of all publications coming out)
- Wikileaks / Wikisources (good for primary documents on controversial topics)
- Local city/town information (subscribe from city/town govt websites)

AFFILIATIONS: Having professional or organizational affiliations is helpful. In some cases being able to claim affiliation is quite simple (like donating once a year). Somewhat funny, many people don't realize they are members of an organization (like IEEE where you get membership if you've paid to go to a conference!). Here are a few of the more interesting or bigger ones.

- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
- American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)
- Sigma Xi: The Scientific Honor Society
- American Medical Association (AMA) - unlike more open groups, they only allow physicians
- American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
- American Cancer Society (ACS.. again)
- American Physical Society (APS): A sub-organization of the American Institute of Physics
- American Society of Microbiology (ASM)

If you've read this far, great! There is the terse beginning to the blueprint. Now get to it...

2009-11-24T12:55:00.001-08:00

type="text/javascript"
src="http://wave-api.appspot.com/public/embed.js">

President's Council on Boethics - Offically Dead!

2009-09-30T14:02:00.001-07:00

Today, the President's Council on Bioethics officially is dead.

For those who want the evidence, it is in what President Obama has not said today in his Executive Order that continues a number of councils and groups: the President's Council on Bioethics did not make the cut.

Back in the spring, we knew this was going to happen. In the beginning of summer (mid-June) there was a little spectacle as the members themselves apparently were notified their services were no longer necessary.

Now, today, it is official. Here is how you can tell.

The original Executive Order 13237 created the council in 2001. After a council or group is created, it has to be renewed. The renewal date is specified in the original order. Each President has more or less followed the same process for this. They often renew a whole slew of them at once, for a period of two years (unless otherwise stated). The Bioethics council was renewed every two years. The last renewal came as part of Executive Order 13446 of September 28th, 2007. It stipulated an end date of September 30th, 2009.

Today, President Obama signed a renewal order for a whole bunch of the other councils and groups that weer in that 2007 update order.... EXCEPT the council.

There you go, an explicit description, of its death.

If you'd like to go hunt around in Executive Order Archives and convince yourself, here is the link where you can start.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush-subjects.html#B

Education is your training for battle

2009-09-11T06:17:00.000-07:00

I woke up at 6:00am. That is what my track teammates and I did most days, as we needed to get a run in before heading to class. I came back from my run, showered in my apartment on Pace St., grabbed a power bar and some Gatorade (breakfast of champions), and plodded over to the bus-stop on Alexander Ave. It was sunny, but not especially hot.

I stood next to a young woman, who said to me ‘did you hear about the airliner accident in New York City?’ I respond that I had not, but that something in my gut tells me it has something to do with the problems in the middle –east. She looks at me befuddled, and our conversation sort of putters out. This had been an area of great interest for me, middle eastern affairs, and I’d just been reading about the problems in Jerusalem. This interest led me to taking a class called ‘Muslim World’ the next semester with a then-new faculty member Ibrahim Moosa. What happened next is why I took his course.

I arrived at the West Campus bus stop without thinking too much of what she’d said. I wander over to Alpine Bagels, thinking I’ll grab some orange juice on my way to class. I walk in to a mass of people standing silent and packed in so tightly you could not see the tables or chairs, all you could see was the tops of heads all the way down the room. The radio was off, and everyone was fixated on the small 20” televisions mounted on the walls in the far corners of the room. The sound was cranked all the way up to the point where it was crackly and too loud for the miniscule speakers embedded within the front face of the television.

I could feel the blockages in the throats of every human being in the room. I made my way through the crowd down towards the TV. I stared. The second plane hit. The shrill in the room and the physical vibration of the West Union building shook me so thoroughly that I’ve rarely felt comfortable there since. The foundations of many were cracked, a piece of their souls fabric torn, and the visceral emotions revealed themselves from the depths of every person there all at once.

Within an instance, people were frantically calling on cell phones, crying, looking around desperately for someone to talk to. In a room full of people, everyone looked at each other as if they were totally alone. The mixture of sorrow, confusion, anger, and fear paralyzed most of the people in that room for some portion of the first ten minutes after the ghastly images had seared themselves into our minds.

This was my 9/11 experience at Duke. I was 21 years old, and I stood in a jam-packed room with hundreds of others and witnessed it – live on TV.

I am now 29 years old, and about to finish my graduate degrees here at Duke. When I think back to that day, and to the remainder of my undergraduate tenure at Duke, I am proud of how I responded to it. The next semester I took a class on Islam. I took that course because I was unwilling to participate in a discussion without being informed.

The enduring lesson of 9/11 for me as an undergraduate was simple. Education is your training for the battle you decide to fight during your lifetime. Choose your weapon carefully, learn how to use it effectively, and take up a good fight to make our country and our world a better place for civil societies to flourish.

In Dual Use Work: Help From The Scientific Community May or May Not Be On the Way... It's Classified!

2009-09-04T13:40:00.000-07:00

One thing I've learned through many annoying meetings is that when it comes to dual-use research, getting independent outside advice on agendas for science and ways to promote research, improve safety, and continue to provide high quality security for the public is hard. Here is a couple of reasons why...

1. If you want someone to review the research and provide advice, most of the time those outside people don't have the clearance to look at the necessary details to provide any kind of insights.

2. If someone wants to hide what they've done to avoid scrutiny, they can get it classified.

Classifying scientific information builds a brick wall which grinds to a halt advances in dual-use research. It also stymies research oversight - since many people with the necessary clearances have had those clearances sponsored by groups that have a vested interest in the continuation of that research (like a govt agency performing it, or a company who has contracts to perform the research).

This, overall, reduces the ability to provide clearly unbiased and independent analysis and advice on dual-use research and other research that is classified.

GMail Addiction & The Worlds Most Massive Sentiment Dataset

2009-09-01T14:44:00.000-07:00

Today, September 1st, 2009, GMail had another epic crash. It remained open for IMAP/POP access, but it was down for the web-interface for a couple of hours.

This brings to mind a two pretty major questions...

1. How dependent are people on GMAIL?
I'm not sure you really want to know the answer to this question. The bottom line is that GMail is too big to fail. That's right. If we had a massive problem with it, and somehow (impossibly) google was in financial dire straights; we'd be forced to bail out google and protect GMail at all costs.

Think about how many people use it for their main source of email. It can send and receive as if it is a multitude of other email accounts. It has very large storage abilities, and it's incredibly accessible from just about anywhere with a superb level of stability (this intermittment outage blip being actually very rare).

1.1 Personal Email Accounts
A large number of people use GMail as their personal email account. You know, the account you give your friends that is 'non-work.' So that you can stay in touch. It is that permanent account lots of us use that is not going to become extinct when you leave your school or employer.

People keep schedules and notes on it, personal letters and correspondence of all variety. For the digital age, it is a glimpse into your own world and an extension of your brain. It has flexibility for the user to organize it however you want. Make labels for different things. I have 40+ labels in my account. They range from labels that are associated with projects, like 'DiVE' that is for all emails associated with the virtual reality facility I have a collaborative project going with, to 'Rebecca' which automatically sorts and labels all emails from my older sister.

GMail is one of my most trusted personal assistants. It contains a huge amount of institutional memory for me. If I don't remember the house code for the alarm at my friends place when I stay over, I go directly into GMail on my iPhone and find it in that email from 3 years ago that I have saved. Thankfully, trusty GMail never fails to find that email, otherwise I'd get arrested!

1.2 Business Accounts
There are a huge number of small businesses, non-profits, and other groups that use GMail for their work. Google has a way of doing this that is less costly and highly efficient. If GMail were to go down, the impact on businesses and productivity is a complete unknown. This is incredibly significant. Knowing how big of an effect this would be is crucial to understanding how a system like GMail could have ripple effects if something were to happen to it.

This would have a particularly dramatic effect on small businesses, and other local venues that don't have large scale deployments of email servers and fat contracts with IT companies to manage and service these systems. The little guy gets a lot of bang for their buck from GMail, and its that huge diaspora of little guys that have a noticeable impact on our economy. If they get an interruption, we all are in trouble.

1.3 The Mobile User
Let's slice this a different way. The huge increase in the number of smartphone users over the last 10 years also means that many more people check email on their mobile phones. GMail happens to be particularly adept at this, with sleek applications that work on almost every phone out there.

If you rely on GMail on the go, for business or personal, and it goes out; you could be left in the middle of nowhere or without knowledge of what you're going to do next. Waiting to hear back on that tentative meeting at 4:30pm with your boss? Anxiously hoping that you're new girlfriend will be free tonight to go out to dinner at the new Mexican place? GONE. Now what?

2 Why is GMail still a invite only (I've been told it's not 'really' beta anymore)?
A great deal of this part is going to be my own opinion and speculation. There it is, there's the disclaimer.

2.1 Invite Only (quasi-Beta) = Legally Not As Accountable
The subheading here might make you think I'm taking a potshot at google. I'm not. If you're constantly adding new features and would rather not have to spend an insane amount of money on your legal department, make it more exclusive. Check out the labs section for GMail. They're always adding new slick features that they are testing out.

Also, think about this major outage today, and take into consideration the large and unknown userbase of folks who take advantage of GMail capabilities for real work. Do you want them all screaming and yelling and going to court with google whenever there is a service interruption? It would cripple google, and would destroy GMail. Yep, it would destroy the thing that people are so dependent on.

2.2 Sentiment Data
The little known gem of GMail and of google is the sentiment data they have. It could be the motherlode of the google treasure chest. The only other folks with anywhere near this amount of sentiment data is Facebook.

Mining sentiment data is lucrative and has purposes for a large number of groups that you might not expect. Imagine if you are an advertising firm and you'd like to know what the 10 most used phrases are in emails? The folks at google could track that down for you. Then, you could use some combination of them in your next advertisement for Sprint or At&t ... and people would think you're company was pretty on top of things.

In a more warm & fuzzy way, sentiment data could be used for scholarly research and to help create histories. Knowing what were the common things people talked about, or the origination and mapping of phrases that emerge in language and in intercultural settings is an incredibly powerful thing to start tackling.

It is in the interest of google to protect this sentiment data. Because GMail has become so widespread; the data is the most mature and important of any that this world has seen.

The Bottom Line
I hope I've at least shed some light here and made you realize just how widespread and dependent people are on GMail. I also think that to a certain extent, the possibility of GMail crashing has large, and relatively unknown, impacts on productivity and economics. Also, there is a real strong desire by google to protect GMail by keeping it beta, and carefully guarding the motherlode of sentiment data.

What still needs to be done, however, is the following:
1. There needs to be a way for each individual user to backup (read: save on your own machine) the entirety of your GMail account. This means all the data, the metadata associated with it, the files, and the settings for your GMail account. This could avoid possibly disastrous problems going forward.

2. The impacts of service interruption on the economy and other systems needs to be studied. It is not in the best interest of anyone to have this little knowledge about all the places that could be impacted by outages like today. It is an unlikely and many would argue pessimistic strategy to study this. I disagree. It is important to do a reasonable set of modeling and planning to avoid major problems when service interruptions occur. Google themselves do this, and they were able to put the system back up within a few hours. However, since it is an integral and impacting part of the lives of so many people; there needs to be a much better understanding of its presence and impact should something happen so that partnerships and better planning can be put in place to avoid more serious problems.

3. There needs to be some better understanding of what the sentiment data is used for, and more discussions about how to use it in positive and constructive ways - like the example for historical uses. What we don't want is there to be some shadowy use of it that is never discussed. That brings up all kinds of questions and problems that can be adequately avoided by some clear decisions and communication up-front.

OTA (Oh That Again!)

2009-08-31T08:22:00.001-07:00

I've waited long enough. The time has come to tell you how OTA and the oderous shadow it casts hurts science policy.

I keep stumbling across an old guard in the science policy world that constantly looks back in a nostalgic way about the Office of Technology Assessment that was part of the legislative branch of our government. Here are a few valid gripes I have with some of the prevailing attitudes and actions of the more nostalgic of these people. I'll keep the AAAS fellowship clique out of this post, as they deserve their own post at some point.

1. If OTA was that amazing, why did it get killed?

This is usually met with some set of very weak explanations about members that wanted to kill it, or the Republicans being evil, or any other lame political and flimsy excuse. If the old guard really wants to think through this with a critical eye, they may want to look at another group in the legislative branch that was created in modern times and managed to thrive - The Congressional Budget Office (CBO). There is a great Kennedy School of Government Case about Alice Rivlin and the creation of CBO. Even as a scientist, I can tell you who Alice Rivlin is. That should be a start- CBO had real leadership and I don't think OTA did.

2. People are not automatically great because they worked for or were affiliated with OTA.

Perhaps the most obnoxious to the next generation of scientists and people who care about the interaction between science and society is this assumption. It presumes that anyone after OTA are automatically not as professional as OTA. This is the smug assumption that disenfranchises the next generation from the future. It smacks of cronyism and downplays the merits of good talent.

I liken this to the silly assumption that someone who worked for a member of Congress is automatically informed on all subjects of substance that are important to the nation. It is just flat out wrong.

3. Why talk about the past when you're failing to develop the next generation.

Perhaps the most saddening thing about the science policy community is how they treat their young. It's a cannibalistic community where it cannot afford to be one. Scientists that attempt to bridge the gap to science policy are often chastised for doing so. It is frowned upon for graduate students to become interested in or involved in this type of work. The bottom line is that it is hard enough for the current generation of developing scientists to engage science policy without the community failing to embrace them. The numbers are small enough, and the task is daunting enough that more collegiality is a mandate.

This is where the politics seems to eclipse the needs. Many of the old guard feel marginalized and mistreated. This has been brooding for so long within some people that they jump at the chance they get to do something about it and behave like a bull in a china shop.

I have one strong word of advice for the old guard on this point. Do not destroy the next generation of leaders and professionals. Be responsible and be a good steward. LIFT AS YOU CLIMB.

4. Why recreate it if you have no great ideas on how to make it better (and not get killed this time)?

I've heard from more than a few of the old guard that OTA should come back. There are arguments for it, especially in terms of some of the work it did. However, none of the people I have talked to seem to really have anything to say about what to change. This goes back to my first point, where if you are naive enough to believe that it was killed for no good reason, then you also believe nothing needs to change. There is so much wrong with this simple-minded approach that I could not possibly write it all here.

If you want to recreate OTA or something that serves a similar function, figure out what was wrong with the last incarnation of it and produce some innovative proposals that fix it. I've heard very little in this (read: crickets).

Summary:
In order... from these four points, my message on what to do is very simple.

1. Focus on leadership and figure out who the leaders are and should be
2. Evaluate and elevate people based on metrics that are useful and inclusive.
3. Refocus efforts on the future and not the past by investing in the next generation.
4. Create new innovative solutions and institutions that solve the problems of the past.

Voice Over IP: Not Perfect In Emergencies

2009-08-29T09:07:00.000-07:00

In Durham, NC. a man died in a fire on August 17th at his home in Northern Durham. Eleven days later on August 28th, a 911 call-center operator was fired for how she handled the emergency call from a neighbor reporting the fire.

The firing was reported as justified because the operator failed to keep the person calling on the phone long enough to resolve the confusion over the address where the fire was occurring. It is entirely unclear if the miscommunication made a difference in whether the mans life could have been saved.

Interestingly, and indeed the most unfortunate is that the neighbor who called in the fire was calling from a VOIP phone. The neighbor was using Vonage, and the address was not recognized in the 911 call center. This is a technology problem. It is one that is needless, and it is something worth fussing about.

There is a system for ensuring that VOIP phones are recognized by 911 call centers. In fact, in Durham anyone can call the non-emergency line and have their line tested. Vonage themselves boasts their commitment to making sure that the phones are hooked up correctly and recognized. Well, this was one of those few instances where it didn't work.

The call center has now filed a complaint with the FCC against Vonage. Little good it does filing a complaint considering the significance of the outcome. The bottom line is that this is a story about two things.

1. A cautionary tale about VOIP and advanced technology not being able to jive with our most fundamental and important of emergency systems

2. A call for some reform in our FCC regulations to do something about getting these new technologies that come into being so fast, into the fold with existing systems across the country.

Marvin Jacobs, the man who died in that fire on August 17th... he'd want to know that we did something about this...

URL to Herald-Sun story
http://www.heraldsun.com/pages/full_story/push?article-911+operator+fired+after+fatal+blaze%20&id=3343733-911+operator+fired+after+fatal+blaze&instance=homefirstleft

US Federal Water Policy - A New Wave Is Coming

2009-08-26T12:47:00.001-07:00

In an effort to exercise a part of my brain that was expanded greatly during some work in the summer of 2008 in Washington, I'm going to run-on a bit about US Federal Water Policy. This way, it won't be quite as rusty and I won't forget everything I learned :)

BACKGROUND

US Federal Water policy seems to center around a few things, in my opinion, that are the basis for this discussion.

Water projects are used as a particularized benefit for members of Congress. This is described in the canonical description of Congress by Mayhew way back in the day.
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE , Corps) has districts that more or less overlap reasonably well with one or a few Congressional districts, making them a target for projects that members of Congress can get some credit for and drum up support in their district
The Corps is in charge of more of our domestic water and water related land resources than any other group. Other groups do have projects similar to what the Corps does (like Bureau of Reclamation), but the Corps is the elephant who has primary stewardship of US water.
Budgetarily, the Civil Works (Corps budget) does not compete with other portions of the Army budget or other National Security budgets.

In the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2006, there was a call for the government to revise how the Corps picks, evaluates, and implements projects. This is to be done by the executive branch, and then reviewed by the National Academies. The name of it is the Principles & Guidelines (P&G).

WHY THIS MATTERS

This was a big deal. The reason it was a big deal is because it is calling to revise the system which members of Congress have figured out and manipulated to their advantage since its last revision in 1983 under Ronald Reagan. The P&G is the third rail of US water policy.

Under Reagan, the P&G was overly focused on National Economic Development (NED). Functionally, this meant that environmental quality, and public safety (amongst other things) were not treated in a manner that created a balanced decision process for proposing, planning, and executing water projects. Before this goes too far in the other direction, it is important that we do what we need to for economic development. However, without having a balanced way to approach it could leave us destroying things in the name of economic development that maybe we really ought not to have done.

Also, under the NED focused old rules, many important projects got marginalized and didn't make it to the top of the pile. A prime example is the Louisiana Coastal Protection & Restoration project (LACPR). This is the famed project that could have mitigated some of the destruction of Hurricane Katrina. Due to myriad factors of how members of Congress watch their own back, and the focus only on economic development - the project never happened. A funny sidenote, the blowup of Sen. Boxer from California was at Brigadier General Walsh who was in a hearing talking about that project.

THOUGHTS ON PRINCIPLES

Last September (Sep 12, 2008), a first draft of updated principles was published in the Federal Register. A hotly contested and stakeholder driven effort within the executive branch, this was a long-awaited beginning to what will likely be a multiple year process that will need all hands on deck. I was pleased to have been involved with that first draft and with some great people that worked tirelessly to get the ball rolling.

I will not go into the internal details of why some things exist in that draft or identify who did what. What I will do, however, is relate a few bigger-picture principles that I believe are emblematic of what we SHOULD do for US water policy...

The following are much more global principles

All the planning and implementation should be done using the same standard. It should not matter what agency you are or where in the government you are, if you're doing a water or land related water resources project, it should be done uniformly. This isn't cookie cutter, but the planning process should be followed the same way in different places (don't worry, its flexible enough to meet all the different needs).
We should care about ecosystem functions and services. This means specifically accounting for them.
We should be much wiser about floodplains and flood-prone areas. This means more thought should be given to how we use those areas, whether or not we build something there, and whether we are willing to create other policies that impact these areas.
We should care about economic development and at the same time care about the restoration and preservation of ecosystem functions. This upweights the ecosystem with respect to economic tradeoffs to go back against the sole-economic-model.
Our water planning is best accomplished thinking about scales of whole watersheds. Since water tends to flow in a watershed system unit, any project should reflect that.
There should be explicit accounting of effects on ecosystem functions. This means first trying to avoid impacts, then if it is unavoidable mitigating the effects. Accounting for all of this during planning and so an informed decision can be made is crucial.
Make sure that public safety is incorporated into the planning process in an appropriate manner. It is not true that it should trump everything, but its a component we need to care about.

The next section of principles are more geared towards the government process.

Make sure that best practices, up-to-date and sound analytical techniques, tools, and high quality data are used throughout the process. This is where taking advantage of expertise, wherever it is found (academia, elsewhere in government, ngo's etc.) becomes crucial. Good inputs get good outputs.
Make sure that the plans have enough detail. Roughly speaking, the detail ought to be in line with the scale and scope of what is being proposed.
Make sure that full cost accounting is used. Look for the costs and benefits and display them in monetary units when possible, or other units when monetary is not possible. There are many cases in which you cannot (and sometimes indeed should not) monetize something. We ought to make sure we account for things even if they are not monetized, and we cannot automatically allow monetized things to trump non-monetized ones.
Improve and ensure transparency of the planning process. The best planning is open and involved planning. Sure it can be contested and can get heated, but it's better to use the sunshine to disinfect something than to go behind closed doors.
Make planning a more collaborative process. It is tough to plan things that effect many people (like water resources that affect EVERYONE). Working with other agencies and stakeholders is critical to getting many trained eyes on a plan and adding needed value to a planning process.

THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD... BUT...
Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? Guess what, these principles didn't exist before. It was too esoteric and was not principle based in the past. Outlining the basic assumptions of what should be accomplished in water resource planning sets the stage to do the planning itself properly.

The previous lists are the boundaries and maxims that have to be abided by and kept in mind for any planner for a water resource project. They also should be what is kept in mind for each step in the process and in the decision-making step at the end. It's a lesson in common sense and promoting sound and informed judgement. Not a bad thing to enshrine in the government somewhere when you get a chance...

An example of Flu Preparedness

2009-08-17T13:54:00.000-07:00

Below is an email I received today through my department at Duke. I think that, by and large, we have a good handle on how to respond to Flu this fall. This is, believe it or not, an example of science policy done right.

Throughout the summer, Duke University held many meetings with administrators, infectious disease physicians, basic science researchers, and others to develop a comprehensive plan of action for responding to flu. This week, they rolled out a website for flu response, and have started their comprehensive program.

I can only hope that other universities will put a similar level of care and attention to detail in developing plans like these.

----

Flu Preparations for the Fall Semester
____________________________________________________________

As you have probably heard, Duke administration is concerned about possible outbreaks of H1N1 flu this fall with students returning to campus. They have developed the following procedures and guidelines to reduce the spread of this flu. Please read the information below, and make sure you stay home if you experience flu-like symptoms and help reduce illness in our Department and throughout the Medical Center and University.

Thanks!

Experiencing Flu-Like Symptoms:
• Faculty and staff who have flu-like symptoms (distinguished by a fever of 100◦ F or higher, and may also include cough, sore throat, runny or stuffy nose, body ache, headache, chills, unusual fatigue, diarrhea or vomiting) should stay home during the period in which they are contagious and seek medical care as needed from their primary care physician or an Urgent Care Clinic as necessary.
• Staff with flu-like symptoms should communicate directly with their supervisor in the same manner they would for any other illness. Staff with patient contact must also notify Employee Occupational Health and Wellness (EOHW) at 684 -3136 opt. 2 or after hours at 684-8115, ask for EOHW Flu; Duke Raleigh Hospital staff should call 954-3952.

Temporary Time-Off Policy:
• Absences due to influenza will be covered under existing University or Health System time off policies, unless a staff member has exhausted all accrued time off.
• Duke will establish a temporary policy to allow benefits-eligible staff members who have influenza and have exhausted all accrued time off (PTO – including short-term, long-term and carry over banks – or Sick Time, Vacation and Discretionary Holidays) to receive an advance of up to 3 days of accrued PTO (short-term bank) or Sick Time based on their regular daily work schedule.
• The temporary policy will be effective from September 1, 2009, through March 31, 2010, and can only be used by a staff member once during this period. The policy will be reevaluated next spring to determine if it should be extended.
• Advanced time will be deducted from a staff member’s subsequent pay period accrual for Sick Time or PTO until the balance returns to zero.
• Additional communications regarding detailed procedures will be distributed to departmental HR and payroll representatives in the coming weeks.

Return to Work:
• Consistent with current CDC guidelines, staff with patient contact who have flu-like symptoms must remain home for at least 7 days from symptom onset or until the resolution of symptoms, whichever is longer. All other staff must be free of fever for at least 24 hours before returning to work. Additional communication will be sent if CDC guidelines change.
• Staff must receive clearance from Employee Occupational Health and Wellness (EOHW) prior to returning to work.
• Contact EOHW by e-mail at eohwflu@mc.duke.edu or call at 684 -3136 opt. 2. After hours, call 684-8115, ask for EOHW Flu; Duke Raleigh Hospital staff should call 954-3952.
• Departments will receive confirmation when staff have been cleared to return to work.

Telecommuting:
• Managers are encouraged to use discretion in determining whether staff members who have influenza can work from home until they have been cleared by EOHW to return to work.
• Decisions to allow telecommuting should be based on various factors, including the staff member’s role and responsibilities, performance history, and access to appropriate technology capabilities and support.
• Guidelines for flexible work arrangements, including forms, templates, questions-and-answers can be found at: http://www.hr.duke.edu/flexwork/

Vaccination:
• Free vaccinations for seasonal flu will be available to all faculty and staff this fall. The seasonal flu vaccine will not protect against the H1N1 influenza virus. A separate vaccine is being developed for H1N1, but it is expected to be available in late fall and only in limited supply.
• Seasonal flu vaccinations will begin with health care workers the week of Sept. 28. A detailed schedule will be communicated in the coming month.
• Seasonal flu vaccinations for all other faculty and staff will begin the week of Oct. 12 and continue until Dec. 3. A detailed schedule will be communicated in the coming month.
• H1N1 vaccine, once received, will be distributed based on criteria as defined by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

Contingency Planning:
• Senior administrators have been working with various administrative departments that provide central support services such as dining, facilities, transportation, payroll, etc. to establish contingency plans in the event of a widespread influenza outbreak.
• All schools and departments are encouraged to identify essential services and develop contingent staffing plans if needed.

In the coming weeks, various “Fight the Flu” educational materials will be distributed and posted throughout Duke. These materials are part of our ongoing efforts to encourage preventive health practices to limit the spread of influenza this fall. Electronic copies of these materials, as well as information about preventive practices, answers to frequently asked question, and updates about Duke’s response to the flu, are available at http://www.duke.edu/flu/

Janet Rowley: From Bush Bioethics to Obama Medal of Freedom

2009-08-13T08:25:00.000-07:00

Alarmists will look at the title of this post and get excited. This is not a trashing of Dr. Rowley.

Janet Rowley M.D. is a physician of some considerable reputation and a bioethicist. Her past scientific work has been in the field of human genetics and specifically in studying different types of leukemia and the importance of gene translocations in cancer.

Professor Rowley has held dean positions, as well as received a number of honors, highlighted by the Lasker Award (1998), the National Medal of Science (1999), and just this week the Medal of Freedom (2009). What many of the news sources, wikipedia, and the pundits have failed to mention anywhere is her membership in President George W. Bush's "Presidents Council on Bioethics."

Rowley was on the Bush Council throughout its existence, participating (sometimes dissenting) in all the discussions that created the most controversial and politically divisive reports from a bioethics panel to ever exist in the United States. To her credit, Rowley was critical of President Bush when some of the other scientists were dismissed from the Council in 2004. Also to her credit, she has been public about her support for stem cell research and very balanced in how she describes the benefits the research could bring. Prof. Rowley summarized this well in an opinion piece.

Everyone benefits when science works with the political system, rather than being kept at the margins. At a time when the promise and challenges of new technology are greater than ever, we need a national conversation driven by sound science and our common values. Scientists don't expect to dictate all the rules for stem cell research or for any field with complex moral issues. But we should have a clear voice in the democratic exchange, to help ensure that our research guidelines give us the best chance of finding new treatments and enriching life.
We've lost eight years; let's get started! Only by harnessing our intellectual and financial resources nationally will we be able to realize the potential of stem cells as the therapeutic tool we all hope they will be.
- Janet Rowley, March 23, 2009. US News & World Report

Around the same time as this opinion, a large number of members of the President's Council went onto an online forum at the Hastings Center and openly disagreed with President Obama for reversing the Bush Stem Cell Executive Order. In their remarks online, this is how they characterized President Obama.

With respect to the progress that had been made in reconciling the needs of research and the moral concerns of many Americans, we can only judge, therefore, that the president’s action has taken a step backward, and we regret that.

- Gilbert Meilaender, Paul McHugh, Benjamin Carson, Nicholas Eberstadt, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Alfonso Gómez-Lobo, William Hurlbut, Donald Landry, Peter Lawler, and Diana Schaub, 03/25/2009

There it is, the word judge in reference to someone serving at the pleasure of the President. These members, in an unprofessional setting in an online forum, openly judged the President rather than going to him directly. Notice that Prof. Rowley is not in this group.

However, it doesn't end here. It is important to note that the chair of the council, Edmund Pellegrino, made his own statement in this.

As an individual council member, speaking for myself and not the President’s Council on Bioethics, I support the substance of the objections of some council members to recent relaxation of existing policies regarding human embryonic stem cell research. Ethically, I cannot support any policy permitting deliberate production and/or destruction of a human fetus or embryo for any purpose, scientific or therapeutic.

– Edmund D. Pellegrino

What does this tell you? Well, it boils down to Pellegrino agreeing with the previous group, but hoping the rest of us wouldn't read that far and would miss or omit his agreement. Nice try.

Ok, after that interlude, back to Prof. Rowley. The timing of those pieces, the faction that passed judgement on President Obama, and Prof. Rowley going in the opposite direction is itneresting - only two days apart. Then, in June, the council was disbanded by the Obama Administration. It was rumored that R. Alta Charo (from Univ. of Wisconsion) would be involved in a new panel, but it seems she's going to take a position at the FDA, despite being in charge of bioethics issues during the Obama-Biden Transition.

The bottom line is that for whatever reason, Prof. Rowley has had her bioethics life separated from her descriptions in various media sources and it has been cleaned up. Nowhere in the material from the White House or in the media has anyone mentioned during the Medal of Freedom hoopla that she had anything to do with the Bush Bioethics council. The unanswerable question is, why?

MacArthur Fellows in the Obama Administration

2009-08-02T14:18:00.000-07:00

Did you realize how many people in the Obama Administration were awarded MacArthur Fellowships? A quick glance and I counted 6 already. There are not all that many MacArthur fellows out there, and to have 6 of them in the Administration within the first six months is interesting for sure!

There are 622 people they have been awarded to over the years. If you take out the number that are deceased, the number that are not directly relevant to civil service, and the number that would probably be completely opposed to serving a President - the number is probably much smaller in terms of a pool of relevant people. A full analysis of that would take a while, but the point is the same - it's a pretty small group.

I'm willing to bet there are more than 6 in the Obama Administration and I just missed them or didn't recognize the names. So this is a likely incomplete list. It is also worth noting that the MacArthur Foundation is based out of Chicago, so it stands to reason that any Illinois Senator would be very familiar with the group and familiar with the fellows program. Oh, and no it is not a 'genius' grant.

Let's look at them...

John P. Holdren (1981) and now the head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Henry Louis Gates Jr (1981).. ok not in the Administration, but we've seen him a lot recently.

Eric Lander (1987) who is a genetics and genomics expert and serves on the Council of Advisors for Science and Technology.

Jane Lubchenco (1993) and now Undersecretary in the Dept. of Commerce and the Administrator of NOAA.

Frank von Hippel (1993) whose center at Harvard this Administration took almost a dozen people from and whose apointments range from Dept of Defense, the National Security Council, the Dept. of State, and the Dept. of Homeland Security.

Bruce G. Blair (1999) former head of the World Security Institute and a policy analyst now serves as an advisor on nuclear disarmament for the Administration.

Cecilia Munoz (2000) who is now the Director of the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs. She was formerly with the National Council of La Raza.

A few they should consider... In my not so humble opinion...

Lester R. Brown (1986) for his many books about how to change things in this world that ail us all - Plan B 3.0 being the great book he wrote recently.

Robert Axelrod (1987) for his many books and writings about cooperation - including The Prisoner's Dilemma.

David Werner (1991) who is a health care policy expert and coined the term in the disability community 'nothing about us without us.'

Wes Jackson (1992) who is the head of the Land Institute and a leader in understanding sustainable agriculture.

Elouise P. Cobell (1997) who is a banker and reknowned Native American leader.

What 'We The People' Have A Right To In Health Reform

2009-07-28T13:52:00.000-07:00

So is health care a right? I think the pulse of the people is that some form of it is a right. The arguments we make about health care and health reform as a right will have dramatic effects on what exactly we decide to implement in health care reform. As far as I can tell, there has been little substantive national discussion on what minimal standard 'We The People,' have a right to. As a nation, we need to answer the rights question in order to piece together a plan of action and move the nation forward.

The real rub, believe it or not, is where we decide to link the rights argument in the documents where our rights are all written out. To do this, we need to take a walk down memory lane and look at The Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution. I promise, this is not an esoteric lesson in semantics. This is the throbbing pulse of a debate we all care about and it is our civic duty to engage it openly and honestly.

In the Constitution, we should focus on the goals it sets to 'establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.' That is the big overarching goal of the Constitution, and the rest is more or less procedural. In the Declaration of Independence, we should focus on the unalienable rights 'among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.' The rest of the Declaration is more or less a laundry list of very appropriate complaints against a tyrant King in Britain.

It is probably best to look at the Declaration of Independence first. More than likely, it is the right to life or the pursuit of happiness that many in the public debate and in the media focus on. If we have a right to health care as part of our unalienable right to life, then to what degree - what minimal standard - must be set by the government to protect this right? This route is pretty firm and sets a lower bound for what everyone absolutely must be provided.

If we are more inclined to say that health care is part of our pursuit of happiness, then - to what degree - must the health care be supplied to the people to protect this right? Is it an attempt to expand access through programs, subsidies and tax breaks? This is pretty murky and there is a lot of room to innovate here. All manner of wonkish policy solutions in Washington can have a field day with this argument no matter which party one belongs to.

Fewer among us will think of liberty as where to look for health care arguments. Well, in many cases liberty includes having the right to make up your own mind and make your own decisions. It also includes that right to not be interfered with by another. This autonomous decision-making might relate to health care because it supports having a choice about our health care. This liberty argument gives rise to the counter argument that people claim their liberty and desire not to he interfered with is violated by the ambitious health reform program.

The current health reform program seems focused on the liberty portion of the Declaration of Independence. Give people a public option. At this point, I hope you’re scratching your head and muttering ‘well, I think we should be talking about the life or pursuit of happiness bit…’ Seems more relevant, doesn’t it?

In the Constitution, a more utilitarian approach is employed in the wording. This is where the universality comes into the health reform discussion. A common defense, establishing justice, and general welfare all point to a desire to provide overall service across the nation to all citizens. Only those that believe health care is a right will make this linkage to universality through The Constitution. If you don’t believe in health care as a right to begin with, then you’ll not believe in universality arguments at all.

If you believe health care is a right, and see the connection to universality in The Constitution, then the minimal standard is top priority. The current clash of the titans over health reform ought to answer this rights questions for us first. Who knows, some of the talking heads might conclude that they are fighting over the wrong things, or better yet, that they have fewer disagreements than they anticipated.

Regardless, we as a nation need to define the minimal standard for health care. It starts with the basics. Everyone getting a good physical every year is a humble beginning. We should look at providing preventative care such as prostate & breast cancer screening. We should look at providing counseling on diet & nutrition to help with diabetes and obesity problems. We should look at providing various types of screening for children in order to identify problems early. We should look at vulnerable or adverse circumstance populations that we need to take full responsibility for – our nations Veterans, the disabled, children, and pregnant women are good examples – all of which we have a duty to assist in their time of need.

Only when we figure out what we have a right to, and determine what set of things we need to provide to people can we endeavor to harness the innovative and creative spirit of the people to put together a plan we can all be proud of.

The NIH Budget Woes

2008-03-16T17:23:00.001-07:00

Let's get the party started right with this topic. Look at the chart below.

Other information about the current state of disrepair is that only 24% of RO1 proposals are successful. Further complicating this, is that a vanishingly small 12% of RO1's get funded the first time around. Likewise, the average age of an investigator when they receive their first RO1 has jumped up from 39 to 43 years of age.

So you have to be older, apply for things multiple times, and have an even smaller margin to fit in to get funding. That's not a healthy sector if you ask me...

The graph, and the data came from:

A Broken Pipeline? Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk, co-authored by Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, The Ohio State University, Partners Healthcare, the University of California Los Angeles and Vanderbilt University.

What is interesting about this report is that it does a pretty good job of putting into perspective the trends that will threaten biomedical research in the next 10-20 years. The future component of it has some scary aspects to it. Zerhouni - NIH Director - stated that in that timeframe we'll transition to having more scientists above the age of 65 than below the age of 35.

On the one hand, this is exceptionally alarming and does indeed point to an unsustainable situation. On the other, I keep thinking about the predictions that some have made that roughly 50% of the federal workforce is going to retire in the next 10 years. I'm curious if the biomedical research sector is going to experience this demographic thinning and switch due to the baby-boomers retiring as well as irresponsible administration fiscal policy and an outdated administrative and institutional management structure within NIH.

Big caveat on my last statement. I absolutely agree that we've underfunded biomedical research and that we are going to have a problem with the workforce. Equally, I agree that we've made a commitment as a country to being a leader in biomedical research. So the advocating role that the report plays is significant and should be considered useful.

But, just as I like to distinguish between institutional, advocacy, and policy analysis; the report should be teased out that way. NIH has its own institutional issues that it should be forward thinking about - including its review procedures and how it maintains its workforce and a top-notch research portfolio. The scientific community has its own issues with trying to promote the field and reminding the American people that we've all committed to this over the last 50 years and that in order to continue to make progress, we have to be constantly looking at how we're doing and be flexible enough to ensure a sustainable pipeline.

Presidential Candidate Science Debate

2008-03-10T11:24:00.000-07:00

There is a group out there that really wants to see the candidates participate in a science debate. We had a discussion last week at our Duke Science & Society group meeting about this. I didn't take notes at our gathering, but I will try to relate what I think about the topic (and I'm sure that others who were with us said some of these things, so I can't take credit for all of it, but certainly cannot remember who said what).

Many thought that the candidates and their science advisors should participate. I was curious about this. I wanted to better understand what outcome people wanted. I wanted to know what kinds of questions would be asked and how we expected a candidate who would 'do well would answer the questions.

What exactly do we expect a candidate to know about science?

I think this is a tough question. A lot of discussion was had about this. Some argued that they should know approximately the current state of the field in a given area. For instance, they should know what the field thinks about climate change.

I wanted to know that they would seek sound scientific advice and would use it appropriately and weight it appropriately given all the other things that had to be taken into account in an analysis process. This was met with skepticism from some of my peers. They wanted to see more. I think this is why we have a call for a science debate. Some even wanted the candidates to demonstrate a basic proficiency.

At what depth should they be capable of answering something?

I think there is a dangerous expectation about this part of the discussion. Many almost expect a presidential candidate to be omnicompetent - something I believe is unreasonable. I want to know that they would approach areas and questions and seek assistance from scientific advicors and scientists. Further, I wanted to see them demonstrate that they view things more as complex problems and less as binary decisions.

Should they participate in a science debate, or should scientists be more assertive in the mainstream process of elections and campaigns and the mainsteram debate process?

At one level, this almost comes across as being a group of elites that are unhappy that they don't get paid enough attention to. That has all the hallmarks of a special interest group. It is the special interest group area that I think the science debate actually falls into.

Sure, I believe we absolutely have to include science in the analysis process and need great science advisors to be advocating for sound science and evidence in any important decision-making process; however, we can't go so far as to domineer or take over the process.

There is important scientific advice and science policy questions that are part of almost every agency in the federal government. Why take the science out and treat it separately in a debate, as opposed to injecting the scientists passion into the mainstream process. If we empower the American people and participate just like everyone else, we can bring the issues we care about into the fold. We want to be accepted and included that way, so why not make the effort in that direction rather than trying to carve out our own separate 'special' spot.

The bottom line is that it has to be balanced and we have to learn that we aren't the only stakeholders, just like the non-scientists have to learn that we are an important part of the process too.

More Thoughts on Presidential Advisors

2008-02-28T21:33:00.001-08:00

So in my last post, I briefly discussed Obama's and Clinton's science advisors. In a comment, Jeremy noted that neither advisor has ever performed scientific research, and that having non-scientists as advisors might "cripple" the advising. In general, I think it would be great to have more card-carrying scientists in advisory roles. But...

I think that the science advice a president receives is somewhat different from, e.g., the economic or military advice. Economists who work in the White House will actually have to do economics as a part of their job. And their training in, say, macroeconomics or finance has a very direct and simple link to the type of policies they would give advice on. Similarly, military experts may have very relevant insights on how to plan a military campaign. In short, simply being an economist or being in command of troops often provides you with a skill set that has policy implications.

In science, on the other hand, the connection isn't that simple. My experience in space plasma physics, object-oriented programming and differential equations doesn't necessarily make me better qualified to set an entire scientific agenda. I feel somewhat comfortable discussing policy not because of my science background, but because I have gone out of my way to learn about policy. That is, the policy side of science advising involves skills extrinsic to being a scientist.

Nevertheless, despite these caveats, I do think that all else being equal, it would be much better to have a science advisor who has performed scientific research. Unfortunately, all else is rarely equal.

Presidential Science Advisors

2008-02-25T16:01:00.000-08:00

The presidential primaries have been going on for almost 2 months now, and it might be useful to get some information into their science advisors and policies. For background reading on all the major candidates, check out Science magazine in the January 4, 2008 issue. Since then the field has narrowed considerably, but it still makes good reading. You can find the issue here.

On 2/18/08, the science advisors to Clinton and Obama faced off in an informal debate at the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. You can read about it here. Of course, both advisors (Alec Ross for Obama and Thomas Kalil for Clinton) both said they would increase basic research funding, attack climate change and end the politicization of science. McCain declined the invitation, and I couldn’t find anyone who specifically advises him about science issues. Go here to read Clinton’s policy details, here for McCains and here for Obama’s. Clinton's and Obama's are-not surprisingly-very similar. McCain does not go into much detail on anything except climate change, an issue that he's been passionate about for a while.

Ross, Obama’s advisor, graduated from Northwester in 1994 and is known for his social entrepreneurship and founding One Economy, a non-profit that aims to increase technology access among low-income Americans. Kalil worked under Bill Clinton as the Deputy Assistant for Technology and Economic Policy, and has written several articles on S&T policy.

Whoever ultimately wins in November, it’s not clear what role a science advisor would play in any administration. Any decision, even one that heavily involves science, must also balance economic, political and ethical factors. Accordingly, the science advisor position isn’t always as important as us scientists would like it to be. According to the June 2007 issue of Physics Today, Eisenhower was the last President whose science advisors had direct access. Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado has compiled an excellent resource on past advisors that you can check out here.

Scientists generally believe that science and scientists should be better used in politics and policy making. I believe that too…but I’ll also be the first to admit that it’s unclear what the sentiment means. Science and data are often very important, but I’m afraid of political debates being “scientized.” That is, I think that global warming is about economics and ethics as much as science. That’s why I am somewhat skeptical of a Science Debate. Go here for some analysis and useful links. I’d be interested in your thoughts as to what the role of a science advisor should be.

Research On Disabled Populations - IRB Membership Considerations

2008-02-23T20:15:00.000-08:00

Below is a memo I wrote for a class. Much of the way I characterize some of it was influenced by Rebecca Dressers book When Science Offers Salvation, as well as my experience working to create the position of disability representative for the IRB at Duke University Health System (and where I still serve as the disability representative).

It is my opinion that bioethics is a form of science policy (it fits in my taxonomy idea). I'm sure others might disagree, but that's part of the fun of discussion!

Problem
Institutional Review Boards (IRB’s) are tasked with protecting the rights of human subjects in research. They are expected to abide by a litany of federal regulations, international declarations, and align the research with the sentiments of the community. They accomplish this through a committee decision-making process that brings stakeholders and knowledgeable scientists together in one place.

One particular voice is not heard in this process; the voice of the disability community. The federal regulations should include specific provisions requiring a disability representative be included in the constitution of an IRB for all research that is performed on a disabled population.

Background
It is estimated that one in every five people in the United States are disabled, and our last census showed that 50 million Americans claimed to be disabled.(1,2) This segment of our population is very heterogeneous. It crosses boundaries of race, gender, culture, background, sensitivities, morals, values, and level of education. A corollary with the large percentage of people that have disabilities would be that by the numbers an appreciable percentage will participate in biomedical research. This percentage, though no studies specifically have been done, is likely larger than that of the non-disabled populations.

This might be attributed to research protocols underway that need to be tested on those people who have a specific disease or disorder, many of which would allow the individual to self identify as disabled under definitions used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the definitions of disability used by the United Nations.(3)

The main themes for the disability community are inclusion and representation, as well as protection from discrimination. In the last 30+ years we have seen the creation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA in 1990, and the IDEA in 1997. The passing of these acts demonstrates another feature of the disability community, that the community is very vocal.(4)

Disability representatives are charged with representing this varied constituency. With respect to human subject research; the expertise these advocates bring is background knowledge of these many acts and laws that most people are unaware of the specifics about. Disability representatives provide insight into how to best meet the regulations and foster a more collaborative environment between the research enterprise and the disability community in order to more effectively develop research plans.

One very simple example would be making available large print, or Braille consent forms to participants in a study that specifically recruits blind or visually impaired subjects. Another example would be providing readers and other trained individuals to read consent forms to those with disabilities.

An ideal disability representative, displaying the following qualities, would be an immense help to IRB’s: (5)

1. Knowledgeable of the ethics of research with human subjects.
2. Knowledgeable of the underlying science.
3. Accurately and realistically portray information about research.
4. Pays attention to and connected to all the disability community.
5. Is prepared to / capable of addressing a wide variety of outcomes that disabled individuals face.
6. Appreciates the diversity of the disability community.
7. Avoids narrowness in seeking policy or public health change.
8. Avoids haste and oversimplification of the present state and the proposed direction of research.
9. Adopts conflict of interest guidelines in order to prevent an undermining of their position
10. Can direct individuals to useful materials, and warn them of misleading material.
11. Scrutinizes and helps set standards for reporting and media coverage about research.

In terms of our present policies, disability representatives meet criteria for inclusion as IRB members (6) : It is also noteworthy to relate that these guidelines are resonated in CIOMS, and the Common Rule, amongst others.

21 Code of Federal Regulations. 56.107
Subpart B—Organization and Personnel
(a) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution . . . including consideration of race, gender, cultural backgrounds, and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects.
(c) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in the scientific area and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
(d) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
(f) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of complex issues which require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.

Altnernatives

1. Amend the Code of Federal Regulations to specifically denote the requirement of disability representatives on IRB’s similar to how prisoner representatives are included to protect that vulnerable population.

2. Create a guidance document from the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) at the National Institute of Health (NIH) concerning the review of research directly recruiting a disabled population.

Analysis
Since they are closely tied to the disability community, and are knowledgeable about their concerns, fears, attitudes and values; disability representatives are capable of representing the participant community. Their insight can augment the risk/benefit calculus by providing a perspective on what factors are weighted and to what extent they influence prospective participants. Thus, they would have valuable insight in the planning and implementation of a research protocol.(7)

While one may combat this with the argument that disability representatives may be overly enthusiastic about research, overemphasizing benefits, fostering therapeutic misconception, and at times narrow in their thinking; that risk is minimized by finding members who display the positive qualities previously noted.(8)

One might also argue that the inclusion of community members already in IRB’s would provide the same benefits, and would remove many of the possible drawbacks of having a representative specifically for disabled individuals. I do not find this to be compelling because public views in IRB’s are often subdued on account of four main reasons. These are; (1) a lack of technical expertise, (2) they are vastly outnumbered, (3) they are appointed by the institution and (4) they lack a formal role in the process.(9) Disability representatives, however, are in the unique position to be able to combat these points.

One of the strengths of including disability representatives on IRB’s is enforcement and implementation of procedures that comply with the ADA and the Rehab Act of 1973. These representatives could serve as a check on the rest of the research enterprise, ensuring that the types of rampant abuse of research participants that pop up does not continue.(10)

An example of where disability representatives could have helped to prevent such abuse is what happened at the Leben Home for Adults in Elmhurst, N.Y. In January of 1998, twenty-four men with mental disorders were made to sign consent forms allowing doctors to perform surgery for an enlarged prostate. Many of these patients were not even conclusively diagnosed with the problem (11). It is this type of breakdown of the review process and standard procedures, combined with neglecting valuable input from the disability community that causes these types of abuses.

Alternative 1
In section (a) of 21 CFR 56.107 Subpart B, disability representatives are especially qualified to address these considerations based on their close ties to the disability community. In section (c) a disability representative meets this since many are not primarily interested in science, and have backgrounds and professional positions elsewhere.

The pertinent sections of (d) and (f) respectively are truly where disability representatives can make their entry points. Most are not involved with the institutions as in part (d), and they provide the type of expertise that is spoken to in part (f).

Based on the criteria set out by the FDA, there is no reason to exclude disability representatives from IRB’s. We can extend this by mandating inclusion of a disability representative on IRB’s. Inclusion of a disability representative on an IRB would also serve as an ADA compliance check, given the familiarity they would have with that act.

Alternative 2
The Office of Human Research Protections produces guidance documents for IRB’s on a regular basis. These are intended to clarify the federal regulations and provide additional insight into how these regulations might be best applied by IRB’s on a day-to-day basis.

Changes in federal regulations regarding human subject research protections will most certainly benefit from providing this additional guidance documentation. However, should it be improbable that alternative 1 occur; this alternative could have the same affect.

Many IRB’s follow, to the letter, guidance documentation from OHRP. In this sense, any guidance that recommend including disability representatives on IRB’s and explain the roles and contributions that they can provide will likely be followed as if it was a change in the federal regulations.

Recommendatios
The need for disability representatives on IRB’s is there; now we must change our policies and guidelines to incorporate them in an appropriate manner. This means changing the federal regulations that we looked at before to include a minimum of one disability representative on each IRB and creating guidance documents from OHRP.

REFERENCES:
1 Private communication with Andy Imparato. President American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).
2 An estimated 17.3 million self-reported disabled persons per the 2000 US Census, which doesn’t take into account unemployed or other qualified groups based on ADA or UN definitons. US Disability Statistics, Cornell University. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/census.cfm
3 Kaplan, Deborah. The Definition of Disability. The Center for an Accessible Society. http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/demographics-identity/dkaplanpaper.htm
4 Shapiro, Joseph. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. © 1993 Three Rivers Press. New York, N.Y. pg 104-141
5 Dresser, Rebecca. When Science Offers Salvation. © 2001 Oxford University Press. New York. N.Y. (while not specifically stated, many of the criteria listed were inspired by this text, specifically pg 153-172)
6 FDA regulations obtained from Sugarman, J. Ethics of Research With Human Subjects. © 1998 University Publishing Group. Frederick, M.D. pg 91-92.
7 Dresser, R. pg 124
8 Dresser, R. pg 157
9 Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics , Oxford University Press, 5th ed. 2001.
10 Dresser, R. pg 111-128
11 Levy, C.J. ‘Inquiry finds mentally ill patients endured ‘assembly line’ surgery.’ New York Times. New York, N.Y. March 18th, 2001.

DARPA - TIA - Data Mining

2008-02-17T16:26:00.000-08:00

I'm taking a course on Contemporary Issues in National Security. One of the current topics we are disccussing is TIA - Total Information Awareness. This was a project supported by the Office of Information Awareness. This office was created in early 2002. It no longer exists for various reasons. It came out of DARPA.

One of the reasons IAO and TIA aren't around anymore is that they were looked upon as inappropriate invasions of civil liberties. They were also attacked for using unproven methods, in secret, on the American people.

At the deep level, what it turns out people were unhappy with was the use of Pattern Analysis methods for predicting risky individuals or risks of terrorism. I draw upon this conclusion on account of a Senate Hearing in the Judiciary Cmte regarding data mining. The hearing took place on January 10th, 2007.

The testimony for the hearing can be found at the following URL:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2438

What was most confusing about the statements from the people at the hearing was the nuance that they missed. Put simply, there is a difference between research and implementation. In a research setting, hypotheses are tested and questions about validity and usefulness are ones the investigators try to answer. Implementation is, of course, the efficient and effective deployment of some system or program etc. It is not answering questions about validity (for the most part).

The grey area for TIA was that it was seen through IAO as being something people assumed was already proven. On those grounds, it seems straightforward for the many in that hearing to argue that it was not effective and inappropriate to use these methods and have them dictate real actions without a rigorous investigation and defense of the power of the method to achieve the intended results.

However, the counterargument that seems to have never been addressed is the following: How does the government ever go about testing a system that uses data mining techniques aimed at meeting the need for national security?

At this point, unfortunately, it can become a chicken or egg. Nobody wants to, rightly, implement something that hasn't been tested. At the same time, the hearing in the Judiciary Cmte seems to almost go as far as to say one can never test it. This would seem almost anti-research.

The only compromise that came to my mind was to submit projects or programs like TIA and others that want to test data ming methods which could be used for the purpose of protecting national security to research oversight committees such as Institutional Review Boards. I would propose this as one of the necessary, but not sufficient, steps towards testing these kinds of things. The other necessary step would be going through a judicial review of the program - such as we see with the FISA court.

NB: I'm not trying to comment on the merits or criticisms of pattern analysis as a tool in predicting certain types of behavior. I'm merely pointing out that the most prudent thing to do is not to count anything out; rather provide the best mechanisms and oversight possible to test and determine things appropriately.

The New NIGMS Strategic Plan

2008-01-26T07:39:00.000-08:00

I have a bias, I care about the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institute of Health (NIH) a little more at this point in my career than other NIH centers. That might have a little to do with the fact that my fellowship is thruogh NIGMS. It could also have a lot to do with the focus of NIGMS and some of the unique things that NIGMS does that all other NIH centers do not do (and have not ever done, nor will they ever do).

I've taken some snapshots from the strategic plan and placed them below. After each I've given a little comment about why I think these are especially relevant or important in our current era of biomedical science.

The entire plan can be found at the following URL
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/StrategicPlan/

I'd recommend the section 'Why Basic Research?' as it does a very good job of explaining the importance of basic science (basic biomedical science) and the temporal relationship between that kind of science and its ability to deliver something at the other end. It also makes it clear that there is often a dissonance for many between what is funded by NIGMS and what the possibilities for those - often strange looking - funded projects to produce incredible innovation.

In particular, NIGMS will make a deliberate effort to fund new investigators. These actions are especially relevant in limited funding climates that can disadvantage applicants who are new to the NIH system. NIGMS will also continue to provide bridge funding for highly meritorious investigators who are especially at risk during constrained budget periods.

In an age of an increasing scarce resource (money for science), this is a great statement to make. It reflects a desire to make a balance between bringing new investigators into the fold and reduce the perception or reality of cronyism. It also makes it clear that NIGMS recognizes the very real problem that great investigators face in the long run; funding and projects can go in cycles of great highs and sometimes scary lows. It is important to be sure to not allow the cyclic nature to un-necessarily force out great investigators.

NIGMS will continue to develop alternative in-house review practices and criteria that address review challenges, especially those that affect interdisciplinary research, quantitative biology, new scientific fields, and the entrance of new players into the biomedical research community.

This is huge if done right. Acknowledging the importance of using different criteria for evaluating interdisciplinary research and research in new and emerging fields is a problem many talk about but few have dared to try and deal with. This demonstrates a great deal of forward thinking and accepting the current reality of science.

Some of these NIGMS-funded research efforts will involve clinical studies, but the Institute will not fund purely outcomes-based research, nor will it systematically examine issues related to health access and delivery.

This is a firm statement of both function and direction. It sets the stage for something that has not been made clear in the past; whether some of their funding was redundant or if it was serving purposes that were already nominally served by another institute or center. It remains important for NIH to have a component of its funding institutes/centers purposefully remain far away from what amounts to contract science. NIGMS is saying firmly that it will be that institute.

NIGMS will continue to play a key role in supporting the creation of research resources including sample repositories, databases, and interoperable software and hardware tools that enhance data exchange among diverse groups of researchers. As part of this involvement, NIGMS will develop policies to ensure the broad availability and interoperability of publicly developed resources.

This is interesting on at least two fronts. The first is that NIGMS is making it a priority to get into the world of database work. It is often the case that sample repositories that have been kept for a long time, and databases that contain information from experiments performed over long periods of time provide incredible benefits. When new methods or insights are learned after a period of time, returning to this information to evaluate it has the possibility to assist in the process of making leaps forward. One such database is the Protein Data Bank. This data bank, a repository for all the 3-D coordinates of macromolecular protein and nucleic acid structures, is the central place for structural bioinformatic studies. Without it, we would not have the ability to identify motifs and other insights about the 3-D nature of these complex molecules and would further be incapable of investigating relationships between structure and function (one of the holy grails in biology).

The second is that it explicitly states an objective that has to do with policy. In an interesting divergence from the rest of the document, it characterizes interoperability of databases as not just a technical issue, but rather one that has a policy component as well. Having interoperable databases and creating standards for how development and the integration process should go is going to have to include good policy analysis and policy setting to be successful.

NIGMS will leverage its training investment by encouraging institutional training grant recipients to continually improve their existing practices while also welcoming new approaches. NIGMS is keenly aware of the need for more personnel in quantitative disciplines as well as the integrative sciences like physiology, pharmacology, and the clinical sciences. The Institute will consider approaches that provide institutional incentives that encourage students to interact with investigators in more than one discipline.

This is important because it reflects the theme of engaging new investigators and new interdisciplinary initiatives. While other strategic plans in the past have paid lip service to supporting interdisciplinary work at a less detailed level; NIGMS has made consistent and thorough statements of just how it will incorporate this theme throughout its strategic plan.

It is also important to note that most of the training grants and fellowships for graduate students in the basic biomedical sciences are provided by NIGMS. They are the main institute within the NIH that is concerned with and supports the training of the next gneration of basic scientists. This reiterates their commitment to doing that and supporting it being interdisciplinary training.

Dimensions of diversity include ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, and national origin. The Institute is also aware of the low representation of women in leadership positions in the basic sciences and aims to close these gaps. NIGMS acknowledges the special circumstances faced by various segments of society in accessing career opportunities.

NIGMS is the only NIH institute that specifically thinks about and deals with biomedical science workforce issues. They have the MORE (Minority Opportunities in Research) division. This division has been incredibly successful in being one of the few places to specifically target minorities for increased access to research careers. Also, NIGMS has not reduced other types of fellowships and funding in the process. So there has not been a sense that it has been increasing one at the cost of others. That is a big point of contention for those who oppose what some might call entitlement programs.

Likewise, NIGMS has acknowledged and made it clear to others that they indeed are the only ones who think about and deal with short and long term workforce issues. Within the context of the above statement, they also specifically say they are going to do more to understand workforce issues (by conducting research on it and using that evidence to drive the programmatic needs). As far as I know, this would be the first time that NIH or a center within it has decided to take sole ownership over caring about workforce issues and using research to better understand it and drive its program.

The Institute will consider implementing a "broader aims" component of research project grant applications that explicitly evaluates an investigator's training, mentoring, and diversity activities.

One of the big problems that junior faculty site at major research institutions is the tenure process and what you get credit for (and what you don't). Sure, most places say they care about training and mentoring activities of a tenure candidate; the reality is that it matters not at all in comparison to how much you bring to the institution in grant funding (everyone wants more and more indirect costs). If NIGMS makes this a real component that matters, it will become a component that other institutions take more seriously because it will affect the bottom line.

Since universities and grantees take their cues from the funders in an almost frantic manner, hopefully this be just one component that contributes to a shift towards a more balanced view of how we train, mentor, diversify, and support the next generation of scientists.

the Institute will explore ways to increase communication among scientists working in diverse fields, potentially leading to new interactions and discoveries.

This, yet again, is a specific statement that demonstrates an understanding of problems faced by interdisciplinary scientific investigations. For most, it seems obvious. However, just because the problem is an obvious one doesn't mean the solution is readily identified and implemented. This could be a very fruitful area for the social scientists to use their strengths to assist the physical and life scientists.

The Institute will also work to diminish misperceptions about biomedical science and scientists that stem from outdated stereotypes and lack of information. NIGMS will continue to provide students, teachers, and the general public with educational materials that illustrate the value of basic research and encourage the pursuit of scientific careers.

This is good because it specifically addresses a common problem often cited; that non-scientists don't understand the scientists and visa versa. It also finally says that NIGMS should make its case better about why it is important. Since it is the main institute to fund basic science research, it will have to bear the burden of defending basic science.

The Importance of Why

2008-01-21T16:10:00.000-08:00

Jeremy, Tom and Nick all raised excellent points in their posts (see here, here, and here). I like Jeremy's taxonomy of advocacy, organizational/institutional, and decision-making. Nick also highlighted the importance of rational argument and empirical evidence in making public policies.

But what's missing in all these discussions is a coherent view of why exactly do we turn to science in the first place. In other words, what are our goals? Is it improved health, national pride, better weapons systems, economic growth? If science is funded to advance all of these goals, which ones are the most important and why? If these questions are not even asked, we might overlook both the benefits and limits of parts of science.

Consider public health. Despite publishing the most research papers, and spending 50% of civilian research funds on biomedical research, the US has poor health outcomes compared to other developed countries. Biomedical research funding at best loosely correlates with public health indicators [1]. So if science by itself doesn't lead to a better quality of life, what does? And how should science be organized to achieve this aim?

Also consider science in political disputes. Nick writes that the scientific method is the "robust rationale through which any conceivable political problem might be dispatched." But how will the scientific method help us to do this? Science will not tell us how to decide among competing social priorities, or decide what the priorities are in the first place. Science doesn't tell us to value the environment, care about people in other countries, that segregation and racism are wrong, that you are innocent until proven guilty, etc.

And even if we do agree on these issues, science cannot possibly tell us that we should care more about global warming than war in Africa. These are moral values, the resolution of which must be codified in our political arrangements. In some cases science might actually makes political problems worse by allowing people to hide behind selective facts instead of debating their beliefs [2].

I think that we (as future science policy specialists) must get a handle on the "why science" question. If we avoid it, I fear that we may brush over the other factors that are needed to help science serve the common good.

[1] Check out McKinlay and McKinlay, The questionable contribution of medical measures to the decline of mortality in the United States in the twentieth century, The Millibank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Summer, 1977), pp. 405-428

[2] See Brooks, Harvey, The resolution of technically intensive public policy disputes, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 9, No. 1 (Winter, 1984), pp. 39-50

Also read Dan Sarewitz's "Does science policy matter?" in the Summer 2007 issue of Issues (http://www.issues.org/23.4/sarewitz.html)

Science as a decision-making policy

2008-01-20T14:53:00.000-08:00

Every few weeks I am privileged to participate in a policy dialog: the other day a town-hall style public gathering to discuss a land zoning change for a new mall, science/society issues two weeks ago now at the NAS, a sustainable housing conference in the face of climate change before that. Those are my favorite days, not just because of the feeling of mastery over a mysterious civic universe that new information allows, but also because of the camaraderie in social responsibility.

Regarding science policy as a discrete discipline, we would be better served to see ourselves as socially conscientious individuals with the benefit of a scientific skill set. Neither of those qualities are trivial for all the requisite supporting factors implied in the development of an intellectual. Moreover, the scientific method is robust rationale through which any conceivable political problem might be dispatched. As such, we need not restrict ourselves to whatever boundaries might encompass a "science policy." If we are to serve society, it will be done by applying scientific thought to societal problems in the manner we have been trained as scientists--by weighing evidence and testing hypotheses.

Despite a high-functioning scientific community that enables advanced technology, divisive political ideology is widespread and persistent in the public and their elected officials alike. Perhaps even more than government corruption, that reliance upon irrational belief in decision-making ensures the continuance of backward policy. Reason is the antidote to belief systems that allow fearful reactionary decisions. Indeed, without close adherence to reason, the success of those policy dialogs I so enjoy would not be possible. Fairness and prudence in any sphere depend upon the kind of rational thought championed by the scientific community. In discussing science policy as an academic discipline, we cannot lose sight of the goal of science as a decision-making policy.

Another Angle on Science Policy

2008-01-19T07:58:00.000-08:00

Jeremy raises an interesting point in his post on whether science policy constitutes a distinct field. Underlying his basic point is the question "What is science policy, and who 'does' it?"
Rather than attempt to construct a comprehensive list or even a broad taxonomy of science policy fields, I would argue that some aspect of science policy can most likely be found in the fields that we already work in, and that by learning to recognize those touch points we've identified a way to get involved in science policy, however indirectly.

Further, I think that some of the best opportunities for entering the science policy field lay not in the formulation of policy, but in the administration and evaluation of existing policy. To wit, in my own job I see science policy through the framework and perspective of an oversight agency. Below I've posted just two examples of recent government-issued reports that raise concerns about the administration of existing science policy.

National Institutes of Health: Conflicts of Interest in Extramural Research

http://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-03-06-00460.pdf

Drug Safety: Preliminary Findings Suggest Weaknesses in FDA's Program for Inspecting Foreign Drug Manufacturers

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08224t.pdf

I'd love to see in the comments to this post how your job is touched by some aspect of what you consider to be the policy side of science.

Is Science Policy A Field?

2008-01-13T17:35:00.001-08:00

This question has been asked by many. I think it is important to engage it. I find it difficult to make firm statements about my feeling of whether it is 'right' or 'wrong' to say that science policy is or isn't a field (or sub-field etc.). At this point in my training I don't believe I am as informed as I'd like to be to say anything too definitive. So I'll try to stay Washingtonian about it and be moderate so that I may be in a position to learn more!

There are numerous places where the intersection of science and policy can be seen. The following are the big three that I have seen the most.

- Advocating for science as an enterprise (lobbying for more funds to conduct scientific research, or combating a policy that was inadequately informed by science when it should be... both are examples here).
- Policies for organizations, companies, or institutions that are involved in the enterprise of science (science administration and training - at all levels across all groups)
- The inclusion of good scientific information in any other policy area where it is relevant (science in policy analysis as an example).

Each of them, necessarily, is wildly different from the other. What is most compelling to me is that it may be instructive to have scientists understand the difference between these three and be better informed about what those who engage in solving policy issues in these areas do. Conversely, I think that in those three areas, the mechanistic ways that scientists approach problems and the domain-specific information they can provided ought to be sought out more often (and listened to more patiently and carefully).

Commentary Section:
What I found both interesting and unexpected was that while I was at the NAS student forum, many people seemed to be talking across purposes with respect to those three areas. What a government agency does, or a group like NAS does, are very different from one another in the 'science policy' that they do. Same goes for a private company who makes a product that they sell to scientists to conduct research. It was my impression that many of the students in attendance were blinded by this and that it probably lent itself to greater confusion than clarity.

This didn't stop at the students either. When I stood by my poster and talked with the few that came by to see it, I got very different responses. The one that struck me was one individual who was critical as to the relevance. As a quick review, my poster was a very plain comparison between three dual-degree students curricula. One doing a PhD in a basic biomedical science dept (myself) alongside a public policy degree (MPP). The next is a student getting an MD and an MPP, and the third a student getting a Masters of Enviornmental Management and an MPP. My basic endeavor was to try and understand the similarities (if they can be identified) and differences between these people, their academic trajectories, and to try and identify some of the barriers to them going through this dual-degree training.

What struck me most about my critical viewee was that I got the feeling that he didn't think this poster belonged (he didn't seem to have a problem with the content beyond that). If the viewee was an individual that felt that only the inclusion of scientific information in policymaking was science policy, then I can see why he would believe this didn't belong. So this brings me back to the three areas and my struggle to try and reduce my confusion.

As a side-note, the students were much more interested in the idea of thinking about interdisciplinary training and the inherent problems and barriers associated with it. I think it is safe to say that this might be a big cognitive dissonance between students of this generation (ie students currently in graduate school) versus the generation before us (the ones who got into science in the post-WWII era dominated by the long-lasting effects of Vannevar Bush policies - and his very capable contemporaries). So part of this blog is going to be aimed at responding in a positive and supportive way to my peers because this is all confusing enough, and not trying to bind together as a community is only going to hurt us in the long run.

How To Contribute

2008-01-09T15:47:00.001-08:00

I'd really like for others to contribute. Just send me a note and I can add you to the blog so that you can post here (jnb3 AT duke DOT edu). I'll serve as moderator for posts, and as it develops we can set ground-rules where applicable.

In terms of direction, I'd like that to be organic in nature when it develops. I'll both solicit people to write their opinions on topics, and accept unsolicited ideas and posts.

Discussion centering around a post can remain within the comments section. Only a full-fledged formal response representing the level of effort and analysis that went into the original post ought to be posted on its own. Then it can have its own set of comments etc.

I'd like this to become a situation where both ideas are played with and discussed, but also where a professional and distinctively informed tone is set.

On Networking

2008-01-05T11:59:00.000-08:00

It is my goal to collect the contact information from people and then redistribute it to those who have submitted theirs. ( send to jnb3 AT duke DOT edu )

What would be helpful as Tom Browning (from UT Dallas and HHS) said, would be not only to just have someones name and email address, but also what their field is. By this I think Tom meant your primary field where your degree came from, or where you are currently working.

I consider this to be important in the context of a nice dinner Tom and I and a few others had last night. We set out to assemble a group for dinner whom we didn't know all that well and represented a variety of disciplines. We had a geologist from Univ Delaware, an Economist from Stanford, a Neuroscientist from Uniformed Services Institute, a Biochemist / Public Policy person, and two Public Affairs person. It represented both a domestic and international perspective.

As we talked over our good Irish Pub food at Dubliner, the discussion that progressed around me reaffirmed my conviction that knowing a little about one another and taking the time to find a common ground of language or terms or concepts upon which we can each contribute to the discussion is incredibly important. At each turn, everyone added perspectives that were grounded in their background, academic training, and experience. This is what I was hoping to get out of this conference (and I was happy to have gotten it).

It is my sincere hope that I can do my small part to help further facilitate this and continue it. So please, send me your contact info, and above all please contribute your views, ideas, opinions, and tutorials or perspectives on good things to know that we all could learn from.

An example of something I asked someone today to do is to provide some resources and explanations of the importance of understanding some of the basic economic principles (of the kind you get taught in an introductory or intermediate economics course) and how they relate to science policy. So stay tuned, hopefully the person I asked to do that will take a stab at it!

Also, please feel free to copy/paste the contents of your posters (as if it was a written policy memo etc.) onto the comments section. I know that presenters didn't get much of an opportunity to go look at each others posters. So we might get benefit from seeing them.

Some Reading On Science Policy

2008-01-05T06:40:00.000-08:00

As someone who isn't receiving formal training in science policy (as few places really are lucky enough to teach this formally), I often wondered how it is that those who are interested in it can learn or read more about it.

This is where I started my reading, and it grew some from that. In no way is this the best list of first books to read (since I haven't read all the science policy books I would have no way of making that assertion, nor would I do that even if I had read them all).

Anyway, onto the list of books and some other resources... If you've read any of these please comment on them. Also, please submit more books to the list! I recognize that there are many ways to slice it to decide what kind of book is about science policy (ie that things in defense and energy and climate are science policy as well... so submit those too!)

Ones I have read to get a decent historical background:

American Science Policy Since World War II by Bruce L. R. Smith (Paperback - May 1990)

Pasteurs Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation by Donald E. Stokes (Paperback - Sep 1997)

Science: The Endless Frontier (a report by Vannevar Bush)

Wikipedia Page on Science Policy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_policy

Ones I'd like to read (want to send me a copy?):

Biocracy: Public Policy and the Life Sciences

by Lynton Keith Caldwell (Author)

Hard Science, Hard Choices: Facts, Ethics, and Policies Guiding Brain Science Today (Dana Press - Dana Foundation Series on Neuroethics)

by Sandra J. Ackerman (Author)

Science and Public Policy: The Virtuous Corruption of Virtual Environmental Science

by Aynsley J. Kellow (Author)

Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line

by Thomas F. Gieryn (Author)

The New Political Sociology of Science: Institutions, Networks, and Power (Science and Technology in Society)

by Scott Frickel (Editor), Kelly Moore (Editor)

Science And Technology Policy in United States: Open Systems in Action

by Sylvia Kraemer (Author)

Shaping Science and Technology Policy: The Next Generation of Research (Science and Technology in Society)

by David H. Guston (Editor), Daniel Sarewitz (Editor)

Designs on Nature: Science and Democracy in Europe and the United States

by Sheila Jasanoff (Author)

Science and Technology Advice for Congress (RFF Press)

by M. Granger Morgan (Editor), Jon Peha (Editor)

The Politics of Expertise in Congress: The Rise and Fall of the Office of Technology Assessment

by Bruce Bimber (Author)

The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers

by Sheila Jasanoff (Author)

Share Your Ideas

2008-01-04T11:33:00.000-08:00

If you get a chance, please put any and all ideas and comments about the forum and what you would like to see, or what things we all can do on here.

I'd like to try and not be prescriptive in this request, but sometimes people will be able to get rolling if they see a guiding question or two (and please feel free to totally ignore these!)

Some of those guiding questions are in the other post. They were just things I could think of off the top of my head. It isn't exhaustive, but it has to start somewhere!

Also, if you'd like to self-identify as having a continued interest in connecting with the folks here at the forum, please email me with your contact information

jnb3 AT duke DOT edu
I can also be found on facebook and linkedin

Jeremy

Welcome to the First NAS S & T Student Policy Forum!

2008-01-04T11:08:00.000-08:00

This blog serves as a starting point for what I hope is an ongoing conversation and collaborative effort to nucleate the participants of the NAS 2008 Student Policy Forum focused on Science & Technology Policy.

It is my hope that it can be much more than that. Namely, that it can serve as a space to propose, discuss, and ultimately provide a forum for us to generate ideas about how to better engage science policy as a scientific community.

With that, I'm going to summarize a few ideas that have come up so far from the forum and the discussions I've been fortunate enough to be involved in.

- How can the diverse and geographically separated interests by students be brought together?
* Both Duke and MIT have started science policy groups from grassroots interest. They should be exchanging information about what they are doing and make sure they cross-pollinate ideas and people. Likewise, the places where programs are actually in place for science and technology policy should be assisting in this process and facilitating the interactions more proactively.

- What can the NAS do to continue to support this?
* Since NAS had the foresight to bring this group together, we should leverage their strengths to continue this. One idea is to have member groups or institutions that the NAS supports somehow in order to further inform scientists about policy issues, and continue to develop new leaders in science policy. A recommendation is to continue to have these forums and conferences on a regular basis, and to have a section of the NAS website devoted to providing resources for scientists interested in policy (either peripherally, or as a primary focus in their developing careers). This could include curricula, fellowship information, tutorials etc.

- What can students do to better organize themselves?
* Ask your graduate student affairs deans and your immediate graduate student directors for the various programs about supporting initiatives that focus on science policy. Bring in speakers from AAAS, NAS, and other groups to talk about the policy components to their work. Many of the panelists and administrators we meet at this forum are examples of the kinds of people who one could invite to talk.
* Network. It is important to keep up with others who do the things you are interested in. Just like reading the latest paper from a competing scientific group or reading the review article about the new area you are working on at the bench, keeping up with peers is important. In the policy world, this is networking. Trade business cards, get email addresses, meet people, and be vultures in targeting important people of interest. Then when you meet them, give them the 30 second run-down of why they should be interested in you enough to give you their information.
* Go back and teach others. It is a lofty, but not unreasonable goal to have all scientists informed at some fundamental level of the importance of policy on science as a enterprise, and their work as an example to them. This is a difficult task, but all levels including the peer level must engage in this task.