September 2009 Archives

Last week the White House nominated Arun Majumdar to lead the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA–E).

Based on the Defense Department's DARPA research agency, ARPA–E was established in 2007 as a semi-autonomous agency within the US Department of Energy to conduct high-risk, high-reward energy research. Funding for the agency was only delivered in February this year.

Majumdar is currently associate laboratory director for Environmental Energy Technologies Division at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a material scientist at the University of California, Berkeley. Steven Chu, the head of DOE, used to be his boss.

Unlike most research organizations, Chu has stated that he hopes ARPA–E funded research centers will be based around attracting the best people to work on problems—they won't be hired for specific projects. It's a similar working principle to how the Manhattan Project, which created the atomic bomb worked.

Under Chu's vision highly qualified scientists will stay at ARPA–E centers for about five years before moving back to academia or industry.

Majumdar helped shape several strategic initiatives in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy, and energy storage, and has experience in testifying in front of Congress—where he spoke to them on how to reduce energy consumption in buildings.

He has served on the advisory committee of the National Science Foundation's engineering directorate, was a member of the advisory council to the materials sciences and engineering division of DOE's Basic Energy Sciences, and was an adviser on nanotechnology to the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

More importantly for this position, Majumdar has been an entrepreneur, and has served as an adviser to startup companies and venture capital firms in Silicon Valley. This experience—between the borders of industry and science—should help build on Chu's strategic vision for ARPA–E; and on how the agency will interact between academia and business. One of Majumdar's hardest challendges will be deciding how "high-risk" research will be at these centers.

Paul Guinnessy

First published in FYI on 9/22/09. Modified for Physics Today 9/23/09.

In remarks at Hudson Valley Community College in Troy, NY on Monday, President Barack Obama reaffirmed his belief in the importance of basic research. It was Obama’s second major address in which he discussed at length the value of basic research.

Obama's remarks, lasting about thirty minutes, outlined the Administration’s strategy for "sustained growth and widely shared prosperity." Describing the building blocks of innovation as education, infrastructure, and research, Obama reiterated an important goal that he set in an April speech at the National Academy of Sciences to devote more than 3 percent of GDP on R&D—the US currently spends 2.6 percent. On Monday he said:

"We also have to strengthen our commitment to research, including basic research, which has been badly neglected for decades. That's always been one of the secrets of America's success—putting more and more money into research to create the next great inventions, the great technologies that will then spur further economic growth."

"The fact is, though, basic research doesn't always pay off immediately. It may not pay off for years. When it does, the rewards are often broadly shared, enjoyed by those who bore it—costs but also by those who didn't pay a dime for that basic research."

"That's why the private sector generally under-invests in basic science. That's why the public sector must invest instead. While the risks may be large, so are the rewards for our economy and our society...it was basic research in the photoelectric effect that would one day lead to solar panels. It was basic research in physics that would eventually produce the CAT scan. The calculations of today's GPS satellites, they're based on basic research—equations Einstein put on paper more than a century ago. Nobody knew they'd lead to GPS, but they understood that as we advance our knowledge, that is what is going to help advance our societies.

"When we fail to invest in research, we fail to invest in the future. Yet, since the peak of the space race in the 1960s, our national commitment to research and development has steadily fallen as a share of our national income. That's why I set a goal of putting a full 3 percent of our Gross Domestic Product, our national income, into research and development, surpassing the commitment we made when President Kennedy challenged this nation to send a man to the moon."

"Towards this goal, the Recovery Act has helped achieve the largest increase in basic research in history. This month the National Institutes of Health will award more than a billion dollars in research grants through the Recovery Act focused on what we can learn from the mapping of the human genome in order to treat diseases that affect millions of Americans, from cancer to heart disease. I also want to urge Congress to fully fund the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, because since its creation it has been the source of cutting-edge breakthroughs from that early Internet to stealth technology."

"So as we invest in the building blocks of innovation, from the classroom to the laboratory, it's also essential that we have competitive and vibrant markets that promote innovation, as well. Education and research help foster new ideas, but it takes fair and free markets to turn those ideas into industries..."

At this point in his remarks Obama discussed tax and other incentives to promote entrepreneurship. Yesterday, the National Economic Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy released a 22-page document, “A Strategy for American Innovation: Driving Towards Sustainable Growth and Quality Jobs.”

The paper describes these incentives and other current and prospective policies in a wide range of areas such as education and investment in nanotechnology. It also reiterates Obama's goal of doubling the budgets of the National Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and "invest three percent of GDP in R&D."

"We need a fundamental review of the way European institutions access and use scientific advice,"said European Commission president José Manuel Barroso in an speech yesterday to the European Parliament.

Barroso promised to set up two new science positions: a chief scientific adviser, and a commissioner for climate action, "to reflect the fact that climate change is a challenge that needs to be addressed across the whole range of our policies....[and] send an important signal to the world that, independent of the level of ambition that comes out of Copenhagen, Europe is serious about maintaining momentum for action."

Currently the EU has research commissioner Janez Potočnik to guide Europe's research budget, but Potočnik's role does not—unlike US science adviser John Holdren—help shape policy on issues such as climate change or health issues across the commission, only the opportunity to vote and speak on it in final committee.

The new proposed European science adviser will have “the power to deliver proactive, scientific advice throughout all stages of policy development and delivery. This will reflect the central importance I attach to research and innovation,” said Barroso.

Paul Guinnessy

Politics in Germany went nuclear last week as Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel, a member of the center-left Social Democrats (SDP) which is trailing badly in the upcoming national election, published evidence showing that the former government doctored a report on the suitability of a proposed nuclear waste storage site in Gorleben in Lower Saxony. Gabriel called the revelation a "downright scandal."

The evidence consists of a telex message from officials in chancellor Helmut Kohl's government, which was run by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

The uproar is becoming an election issue as the former environment minister under Kohl is current Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is running for a second term.

Nine years ago the German government formulated plans to abandon nuclear power by 2022 as part of a governing coalition pact between the green party and SDP.

Merkel however is planning toauthorize Germany's existing nuclear plants to have their lifespan extended and build new plants, if she can form a government with the liberal Free Democrats (FDP) after the election.

Merkel's case hasn't been helped by safety accident revelations at nuclear power plants and leaks at storage facilities during the summer. However, like most countries with nuclear power the most controversial issue is the nuclear waste.

According to Die Spiegel:

Gabriel told said politicians tried to cover up warnings that radioactive material could seep into groundwater, an issue that was played down in the final report. Opponents of nuclear energy have long alleged that Gorleben was chosen as a long-term storage site for political reasons before its safety had been properly determined and that alternative locations were not given proper consideration.

In reponse, Merkel has pledged to review all Gorleben files going back to the 1980s

Wolfram König, the president of Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection—which runs the test facility at Gorleben— stepped into the controversy by speaking out against the site's suitability as a permanent waste depository to the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung.

"The feeling of confidence that there was an unbiased procedure (to choose a location for long-term storage) has now been destroyed," said König, who called for a new "transparent and fair" process to choose a permanent storage location.

Paul Guinnessy

Related Links
Krümmel Accident Puts Question Mark over Germany's Nuclear Future
Authorities find radioactive brine leak in German storage facility
Nuclear power? Yes, maybe

US President Barack Obama is to nominate physicist Patrick Gallagher to run US Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Gallagher, 46, is currently the NIST deputy director.

"NIST is a unique agency with a strong culture of world-class scientific achievement," US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke said. "Pat Gallagher has come up through the ranks and his continued leadership will be critical to an agency that is central to the nation's ability to innovate and compete in global markets."

If confirmed by the Senate, Gallagher will direct an agency with an annual budget of approximately US$ 800m that employs approximately 2,900 scientists, engineers, technicians, support staff and administrative personnel at two primary locations: Gaithersburg, Maryland, and Boulder, Colorado. Gallagher will succeed William Jeffrey, who left NIST in 2007.

Gallagher, who has a doctorate in physics from the University of Pittsburgh, came to the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) in 1993 to pursue research in neutron and X-ray instrumentation and studies of soft-condensed matter systems such as liquids, polymers and gels.

In 2000, Gallagher was a NIST agency representative at the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and became active in US policy for scientific user facilities. In 2006, he was awarded a Department of Commerce Gold Medal, the department's highest award, in recognition of this work. In 2004, he became director of the NCNR, one of the most heavily used facilities of its type in the nation. In September 2008, he was appointed deputy director of NIST.

Paul Guinnessy

The Orion capsule that will take astronauts back to the Moon and beyond could be delayed by more than two years if the Ares-1 rocket is canceled as part of the recommendations of the Augustine Committee that is studying NASA's manned space program. The comment comes from a NASA official quoted by the Orlando Sentinel.

The Ares and Orion programs are part of the $35 billion Constellation program that will replace the space shuttle with a smaller medium lift vehicle to get astronauts into space, and a larger unmanned Ares-V heavy-lift vehicle to get major components into orbit.

The Orion capsule, which will sit on top of the Ares-1 rocket, passed its preliminary design review on Tuesday, a major step towards building actual hardware.

The review evaluated the vehicle's capability, as currently designed, to support three types of missions: flights to the International Space Station, weeklong missions to the moon and missions to the moon for up to 210 days.

"The Orion vehicle design is much more mature than you might see on many programs at the review checkpoint because we have worked so closely with our NASA counterparts every step of the way during the vehicle design phase," said Cleon Lacefield, vice president and Orion project manager at Lockheed Martin in Denver. "To date we have completed more than 300 technical reviews, 100 peer reviews and 18 subsystem design reviews."

However, Ares 1 faces mounting technical and financial problems, which suggest that the likelihood that the launcher will be canceled in the next few days is high.

Paul Guinnessy

The UK Royal Society has released its long awaited comprehensive report on the risks associated with geoengineering the climate.

The 12-member working group spent a year assessing the impact of two major different methods that could counter global warming: blocking sunlight from reaching the Earth by injecting dust into the stratosphere, and secondly different technological ways to pull carbon dioxide out of the air.

Geoengineering is "no magic bullet," said John Shepherd of the University of Southampton, who chaired the RS report. "It is an unpalatable truth that unless we can succeed in greatly reducing CO₂ emissions we are headed for a very uncomfortable and challenging climate future," said Shepherd. "and geoengineering will be the only option left to limit further temperature increases."

The report cautions that there could be serious unintended and detrimental side effects on ecosystems and human population. It recommends further research to discover whether the potential risks outweigh the benefits. Not one single technological method can be used to cool the planet says the report, and none of the techniques are ready to be deployed on a large scale.

"Geoengineering and its consequences are the price we may have to pay for failure to act on climate change," said Shepherd. "However, used irresponsibly or without regard for possible side effects, geoengineering could have catastrophic consequences similar to those of climate change itself. We must ensure that a [international] governance framework is in place to prevent this."

Paul Guinnessy

Related Link
Geoengineering the Climate

Related Physics Today articles
Geoengineering: What, how, and for whom? February 2009
Will desperate climates call for desperate geoengineering measures? August 2008