Coyle, whose past appointments include a seven-year stint as director of operational testing and evaluation at the Department of Defense, also spent a total of 32 years at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
He was one of nine members of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission in 2005 and 2006, and was a deputy assistant secretary for defense programs at the Department of Energy in the Carter administration.
Most recently, he was affiliated with the Center for Defense Information, a national security think tank.
Should he be confirmed by the Senate, Coyle will fill the third of four OSTP associate director slots. The White House has not yet announced a nominee for the fourth post, which covers environmental matters.
]]>The group looked at projects in dark matter, dark energy, high-energy cosmic particles (cosmic rays, gamma rays, and neutrinos), and projects seeking high energy physics resources to study the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
Budget numbers
The four scenarios are:
"These budget scenarios provided very tight constraints that forced difficult choices in the planning," says the report. But "by constructing the optimal science program possible in each budget scenario, there emerged a consensus view of the priorities."
On the list
Even under the tightest constraints DOE and NSF should fund two next generation dark-matter experiments: upgrading VERITAS, a ground-based VHE gamma-ray detector, and the proposed $15 million High Altitude Water Cherenkov (HAWC) gamma-ray observatory.
"Even in this very lean scenario, the diversity offered by [the VERITAS and HAWC] projects is a priority, and their impacts are large for a relatively small investment," they argue.
The SuperCDMS-SNOLAB., an underground dark matter experiment based in Canada, should also be funded says the report.
Moreover, "Given the central importance of the CMB to our understanding of energy, matter, space, and time, and the unique contributions high energy physics can provide," CMB experiments would continue as they are relatively cheap.
Nearly all the projects have an international component: HAWC for example, would be based at a high-altitude site in central Mexico, and consist of 300 large, closely spaced water tanks, each outfitted with three 20-cm photomultiplier tubes to detect the Cherenkov light of charged particles from gamma-ray and cosmic-ray showers as they hit the tanks.
But funds from international collaborations would not help keep major US participation in other proposed projects—in areas such as dark energy—under scenario A, as there would not be enough funds to pay for major hardware.
No third generation dark matter experiments can be started in this decade under scenario A, says the report, "risking loss of US world leadership" in the field.
The best guess
The most likely budget for the field may be scenario C, as the NSF budget for 2009 is 7.8% above 2008, and the proposed 2010 budget is 8.5% above 2009.
Moreover Congress approved a doubling of science budgets over 10 years when it passed the 2007 America Competes Act.
In this scenario the US could have "a world-leading program [in dark energy]... with coordinated activities in space and on the ground," says the report.
PASAG recommended two additional third generation experiments for dark matter, and a global ground and space based program in dark energy.
"A significant DOE contribution to Joint Dark Energy Mission—a NASA-DOE space-based visible/NIR observatory—is possible, along with full support of BigBOSS—a new 4000-fiber visible/near infrared spectrograph for the existing Mayall 4-meter telescope in Arizona—and support for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)—a new ground-based 8-meter-diameter telescope to discover and measure the shapes and photometric redshifts of more than 3 billion galaxies," says PASAG.
Moreover, under this scenario C, the group recommends funding the Auger North observatory—a US$127-million array of 4,400 cosmic-ray detectors to be based in southeastern Colorado—as a northern counterpart to the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina. This project would be 60% funded by international partners.
"PASAG finds the science reach of Auger North to be important, and it recognizes the strong international support with the corresponding expectation that the US would be the host site," says the report. "Technically, construction could start in 2011."
PASAG suggests that the proposed US-led $299 million Advanced Gamma Imaging System (AGIS)—an array of 36 telescopes, each having a primary mirror diameter of 11m and making use of a novel two-reflector design—should be merged with the similar European-led Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA). "It is generally understood on both sides of the Atlantic that a merger of the two projects should occur to develop a global effort," they say. Under this proposal the US would have a reduced, but still significant, role in the project.
A conservative position
Although the majority of direct research funding is from programs at DOE and NSF, there are indirect funds from facilities such as the proposed Deep Underground Science and Engineering Lab (DUSEL) could have been included in creating the recommendations.
Instead, PASAG decided to take a conservative approach and not include the potential of any additional DUSEL research funding due to the "uncertainty in [DUSEL] funding...even though the US dark matter program would be greatly strengthened by it."
Although PASAG lists the recommendations for each budget scenario, they did not state which scenario DOE and NSF should fund. A decision over which planning model to follow will be made by the agencies sometime around April next year.
Paul Guinnessy
Former National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Alberts, former National Institutes of Health director Elias Zerhouni and Ahmed Zewail, a Nobel laureate professor of chemistry and physics at Caltech, will travel to the regions “to foster scientific and technological collaborations,” Clinton said in a speech delivered in Marrakech, Morocco.
The US also will expand the number of science, technology, environment, and health officers positions at its embassies by an unspecified number. And the government’s Overseas Private Investment Corp is to establish a “global technology and innovation fund” to finance S&T collaborations, she said.
“It was the Islamic world that led the way in science and medicine. It was the Islamic world that paved the way for much of the technology and science that we now take for granted,” Clinton said. “We want to look to your societies and we want to help Muslim majority communities develop the capacity to meet economic, social and ecological challenges through science, technology, and innovation.”
The measures come five months after President Obama promised to increase cooperation with Muslim-majority nations during a June speech at Cairo University.
Two of the envoys are foreign-born—Zewail is Egyptian and Zerhouni is Algerian—while Alberts spent much of his 12 years as NAS president engaging with science academies throughout the world. Zewail is also a member of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Responding to a question he posed during PCAST’s 22 October meeting, State Department science adviser Nina Federoff said the amount of US foreign assistance devoted to science and technology is “minuscule, probably not much more than a couple hundred million dollars, which is pathetic.” While funding is sparse, Federoff said a bright spot is a memorandum of understanding between the US Agency for International Development and the National Science Foundation, which commits the two to co-fund collaborations between US scientists and their counterparts in developing nations.
To complement the science envoys program, Federoff said her office is implementing a new “embassy science and entrepreneur fellows” program where scientists from other federal agencies, as well as university fellows already working at State, are assigned to certain US embassies for periods of up to three months.
In his Cairo speech, Obama promised additional steps to elevate S&T cooperation with Muslim, African and Southeast Asian countries, including “centers of scientific excellence,” and expanded scientific exchanges and scholarships.
In August, Obama further signaled his interest in aligning US S&T with foreign policy, directing his national security and economic advisers to reevaluate US foreign aid policy to take into account such global factors as climate change and natural resource scarcities.
David Kramer
Related Politics & Policy link
Progress for Obama's science diplomacy
Climate bill faces hurdles in Senate
The climate-change bill that has been moving slowly through the Senate will face a stark political reality when it emerges for committee debate on Tuesday reports the Washington Post: With Democrats deeply divided on the issue, unless some Republican lawmakers risk the backlash for signing on to the legislation, there is almost no hope for passage.
US Envoy: No bilateral climate deal with China
Todd Stern, President Obama's envoy for climate change has dashed hopes of a bilateral deal on climate change during this month's presidential trip to China in an interview with NPR's Louisa Lim.
"There is no agreement per se," Stern says, adding that there had been no intention of cutting a separate bilateral deal.
Obama's trip will focus on clean energy cooperation, and aligning Chinese and American positions ahead of the upcoming global climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The US is pushing for China to cut its greenhouse gas emissions.
"They absolutely have to cap their emissions in the sense of having them reduced significantly as compared to where their trend line is," Stern said. "China could make a reduction twice as ambitious as the US is doing, and that would still involve their emissions going up somewhere from where they are now."
But Beijing is resisting US pressure, arguing that it is using other measures. It already has announced a goal of improving energy efficiency by 20 percent by 2010. China also is planting trees over an area the size of California.
Jiahua Pan of the Institute for Urban & Environmental Studies in, Beijing says that negotiations will depend largely on decisive mitigation action being taken by the developed nations. China will have every reason to follow suit if the rich nations demonstrate leadership and commit to more substantial cuts than they have offered so far.
India pushes for common responsibility
Rajendra K. Pachauri says in Nature that India wants to be a constructive partner in Copenhagen negotiations on climate change. The country is taking domestic action even though it cannot accept mandatory emissions limits.
UN inspectors visit uranium enrichment facility in Iran
UN inspectors have received their first formal look inside Iran's once-secret uranium enrichment facility that has raised western suspicions about the extent of their nuclear program.
The semi-official Mehr news agency reported that the four-member team visited the heavily protected facility, carved into a mountainside south of Tehran. The tour marked the first independent examination of the site, but no conclusions about the state of the facility are expected until after the next IAEA committee meeting.
Chart: How the ‘Darpa for Energy’ is slicing its $150-Million pie
Wired.com has created a chart describing which area's the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency will be handing out more than $150 million for what the agency describes as “bold, transformational” energy projects (see also DOE awards 'Smart Grid' and ARPA-E grants).
The 100 "smart grid" grants will begin a modernization of the US electrical generation, transmission, and distribution system--a process that when completed will save consumers $20 billion over 10 years on their utility bills, Obama said. Ranging from $200 million to less than $1 million, the awards will pay for utilities to install 18 million "smart" meters, covering 13% of US homes--devices that will allow customers to monitor their electricity use in real time, and as utilities begin to move to dynamic electricity pricing, to program new smart appliances to operate when rates are low.
The awards will also pay for the replacement of 200,000 transformers and the automation of 700 substations--5% of the US total--improvements that will allow utilities to respond faster and more effectively to restore service after power interruptions. More than 850 sensors called phasor measurement units are to be installed, providing improved monitoring of conditions on the grid and helping prevent minor disturbances from cascading into power outages or blackouts. Awardees, who were chosen from 400 grant applicants, are putting up another $4.7 billion of their own capital for the grid upgrades.
Chu traveled to Google Inc's Mountain View, California, headquarters to unveil the ARPA-E grants, which are to support R&D for especially high-risk, but potentially high-payoff concepts for producing clean energy. All 37 awards went for projects proposed by universities or to small and large companies, though a number of DOE national laboratories were teamed with awardees. ARPA-E will award its remaining fiscal year 2010 funding of $249 million through a second solicitation later this year. As with the smart grid program, ARPA-E's resources are from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
"We're here to announce a portfolio of bold new research projects, any one of which could do for energy what Google did for the Internet," Chu said. Renewable energy, energy storage, industrial and building efficiency, petroleum-free vehicles, and carbon capture are all represented. DOE received 3700 responses--"a stunning level of interest"-- Chu said, when it first solicited expressions of interest in the ARPA-E program in April. The agency invited 300 of those to submit full proposals, which were put before 500 expert reviewers.
David Kramer
Money spent on the LHC was compared to that of the never completed Superconducting Super Collider (SSC). The taxpayer had "got nothing really out of it," said subcommittee chairman Brian Baird (D-WA). (see video at the 1:15:00 mark)
Baird then described the "tremendous" amount of money contributed to the LHC and how it failed to operate properly, adding "we put a hell of a lot of money into this thing on the promise that certain things would be achieved and now it’s not going to be achieved."
Baird predicted that investigations would have been undertaken and oversight hearings convened if this had occurred any other US government program. "You get to skate, partially because you know stuff that we don’t have a clue what you are doing," he said. "And I think that’s neat. I admire your knowledge, I admire your intellect."
Baird said it was a Member’s responsibility to ensure that federal revenue is well spent, saying that constituents’ taxes allocated to research facilities like the LHC could have been used for a child’s education, a new car, or to repair a roof.
Money used on "big gizmos," said Baird, could be spent on programs with a more immediate and a more direct benefit to a society. Besides curiosity, "how can this spending be rationalized?" he asked.
The witnesses respond
"It really has to be justified by the results," said Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory Director Pier Oddone, one of four witnesses testifying in the hearing.
"I completely agree with you that our field is in deep, deep trouble globally if we do not deliver on the LHC," Oddone added, "our intent is absolutely to deliver." In a reference to Christopher Columbus's unexpected discovery, he added, "we may be going toward the spices in India, but we may run into America."
Another witness, Dennis Kovar, the director of the DOE High Energy Physics Program, responded that the US contribution to the LHC was working as designed, and under the Office of Science’s project management practices, was on cost and on schedule.
He said the LHC was a very complicated machine that is defining the state of the art, and as such is a "high risk." While acknowledging that it is "not good right now," Kovar said that there is "the expectation that it is going to run at some point."
A larger problem, Kovar stated, was the difficulty of better documenting and communicating the value of highly technical research performed at facilities such as the LHC to the larger public.
People need to better experience science, he said. Among immediate gains from US participation in the LHC are advances in US technology, the training of a workforce that goes on to work in many areas, and the appeal of cutting-edge discoveries to the public.
Hugh Montgomery, director of the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility described how metrics have measured the success of accelerator performance at Jefferson National Laboratory, Fermilab’s Tevatron, SLAC’s B Factory, and Brookhaven’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider. "You are getting real scientific measurements and return on your dollars in general," he told Baird.
Lisa Randall from Harvard University expressed disappointment that the SSC was not completed, and assured Baird that it was only a question of time before the LHC would be operating. Governments, she said, were the only source of funding for cutting-edge basic research of this type.
The role of physics
Earlier in the hearing, the witnesses discussed the likelihood of profound consequences from future discoveries in high energy and nuclear physics research, expressed concern over the number of US high energy physics facilities that were closing, and the necessity of maintaining US leadership in the area.
In response to Rep. Daniel Lipinski’s (D-IL) observation that research in these fields is expensive and that more needs to be done to better communicate its results, the witnesses spoke of the importance of the media and other programs to engage the public. Oddone and Montgomery described the public’s enthusiastic response to outreach and teacher education programs at their laboratories.
Kovar expressed concern that advances in accelerator technology have moved overseas, and with it the vendors who provide it.
It was, Kovar said, extremely important for the US to maintain its leadership in these fields.
Other witnesses explained how the construction of accelerators in the United States has strengthened domestic technologies leading to advances in areas such as the web and medicine. Laboratories serve as "the great attractors" said Montgomery, drawing the world’s best scientists to the US.
The subcommittee continues its work on a reauthorization bill for DOE’s science programs over the coming weeks.
Originally published as FYI's Questions Raised About DOE High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics Programs by Richard M. Jones.
Edited for Physics Today by Paul Guinnessy.
Official Russian statistics suggest that 25,000 scientists emigrated from Russia between 1989 and 2004, and another 30,000 went abroad under temporary contracts says the newswire service RIA Novosti. Independent reports estimate at least 80,000 emigrated in the early 1990s alone.
According to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's press office, Medvedev responded by initiating work on a plan for developing Russian science.
Both Medvedev and Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin have called for increased science investment in the last year, triggered in part by the US stimulus bill which channeled billions of dollars to basic research.
Medvedev's visibility with science investment increased recently when he opened the Second International Nanotechnology Forum held in Moscow, which was attended by a number of government officials.
In his speech, Medvedev said that Russia had all the intellectual, organizational and financial resources necessary to become a leader in nanotechnology by investing $10.5 billion of government funding over the next few years to 2015.
Medvedev praised the university system suggesting that "they represent a genuine potential advantage" compared to international competitors.
He also stated that Russia needs to facilitate the return of researchers who fled the country and create favorable conditions for research, and expressed concern how Russia will train up the 100-150,000 workforce needed for nanotechnology.
"It is obvious that we need modern, informed, qualified professionals in this [nanotech] field, people who have been trained in the new programs.... If the existing nomenclature of specializations does not provide the capabilities we need, then we simply need to change it and to prepare the sort of professionals that we do need," he said. "A shortage of personnel remains a serious barrier to Russia’s serious engagement in nanotechnology."
Paul Guinnessy
"For most of its history Earth has experienced vast alterations," states the report, "in response to natural variations in our planet." But humans are now emerging as the dominant agent of change it says.
"It is essential going forward that we have the scientific tools and evidence to understand and anticipate how the Earth will be transformed in the future, and at what rate, in response to these growing pressures," says geoscientist George Davis of the University of Arizona, chair of the AC-GEO.
"To identify these influences and their potential impacts requires an understanding of the Earth, its history, and its systems that's grounded in basic science," he adds.
The report recommends that NSF coordinate US research into these areas. "The [NSF] geosciences directorate must engage other NSF directorates and external partners in an ambitious research program that furthers our understanding of Earth, and provides the basis for objective and sound policy formulation and decision-making," says NSF director Arden L. Bement, Jr.
The challenges ahead for the geosciences, says the report, are:
"We as geoscientists must work to meet the challenge of understanding [the Earth's dynamic and complex interactions], and use that knowledge to advance our [governmental] stewardship of its systems," says Tim Killeen, NSF assistant director for geosciences.
Society as a whole must learn to use a grounded and rational set of guidelines for making decisions regarding environmental and resource management says the report, and "leading many of those discussions will be geoscientists ... who will share their understanding of the Earth system with the public and with decision-makers, providing the scientific knowledge that will ultimately guide society as it comes to understand its evolving relationship with the planet."
The AC-GEO's recommendations for NSF's directorate for geosciences, which has three divisions--atmospheric and geospace sciences; earth sciences; and ocean sciences—are to:
"We as a society face a daunting task," says Killeen. "Through the help of [this report], we will make great strides in realizing a new vision for the geosciences—and for the future of our planet.
Paul Guinnessy
The total funding ranking includes research support not only from federal agencies, but also from foundations, industry and other sources.
The university pulled in $1.68 billion in medical, science and engineering research in fiscal 2008, half of which was based at the Applied Physics Laboratory. Since NSF changed its methodology in 1979 to include spending by the Applied Physics Laboratory in the university’s totals, the university has remained top of the list.
APL employs 4,300 people working specifically on some 400 R&D projects with annual funding of about $800 million.
The institutions ranked second through fifth—University of California at San Francisco; University of Wisconsin at Madison; University of Michigan and UCLA—all reported spending in the $800 million to $900 million range.
Top of the federal list
Johns Hopkins also ranked first on the NSF’s separate list of federally funded research and development, spending $1.42 billion in FY2008 on research supported by NSF, NASA, the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Defense.
"More than half of our annual expenditures is invested in research," said Lloyd Minor, provost and senior vice president of academic affairs at Johns Hopkins. "Our success in attracting external research support is a testament to the talent, dedication and leadership of the faculty, staff and students."
In FY2010, positions on the list may change slightly due to the heavy investment in R&D as part of the administration's billion dollar stimulus package.
Virginia Tech dropped from 42nd to 46th out of 679 universities, not because of a lack of funding—which increased by $7 million to $373 million in 2008—, but because funding increased more dramatically at other institutions.
"While our overall growth was below our goals, the areas that account for competitive research awards continued to grow," said Robert Walters, vice president for research. "We increased our external federal funding by more than 5 percent and our industry funding by almost 20 percent. In the current economy, those numbers are encouraging."
Paul Guinnessy
]]> Selected rankings:1. Johns Hopkins, $1,680.927 million
2. University of California, San Francisco, $885.182 million
3. University of Wisconsin, Madison, $881.777 million
4. University of Michigan, all campuses, $876.390 million
5. University of California, Los Angeles, $$871.478
6. University of California, San Diego, $842.027 million
Less than $50 million separates 40th and 50th ranked universities.
40 University of Alabama at Birmingham, $404.615 million
41 University of Maryland, College Park, $395.037 million
42 Louisiana State University, all campuses, $391.234 million
43 University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, $390.349 million
44 University of Maryland, Baltimore, $379.407 million
45 University of Rochester, $375.218 million
46 Virginia Tech, $373.281 million
47 North Carolina State University, $366.137 million
48 Scripps Research Institute, $377.047 million
49 University of Chicago, $357.278 million
50 Michigan State University, $356.7.7 million
The shake-up in science funding announced earlier this year is a "huge mistake" that jeopardizes the UK's ability to make discoveries needed to drive technological progress, said Ramakrishnan.
Ramakrishnan moved to the UK from the US ten years ago to join the Medical Research Council's Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) in Cambridge.
]]>The Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) has suffered from a financial crisis caused by over-spending on some high-profile projects such as the Diamond synchrotron light source. In response, STFC has cut back some grants and support for some facilities, and is conducting a major science review through its advisory panels, and with input from the science community and STFC's international partners. The report is due in December. The STFC has "to live within constrained budgets if need be, and to diversify our funding base," says STFC's Keith Mason.
A misquoted article
The Times article misquoted the STFC's chief operating officer Richard Wade, says Mason and took other comments out of context.
The UK's agreement with CERN is governed by an international treaty, and could only be changed with UK Government approval and with consultation with the other CERN partners, it cannot be made unilaterally by the STFC alone. It was the strength of this international agreement that during the 1980s, protected the UK's particle physics community's membership of CERN but also allowed the UK to negotiate a reduction in its membership fees.
CERN membership did however, have a knock on effect of leading to cuts in other areas of UK particle physics.
A vision for today
"The STFC's position in relation to the LHC is made clear in our July vision document," says Mason, "which states that 'our highest priority in particle physics is to exploit the Large Hadron Collider at CERN'."
The vision document also says that the UK's highest priorities in ground-based astronomy is to exploit membership of the European Southern Observatory, which gives access to the Very Large Telescope and to the ALMA millimeter astronomy array, and to carry out R&D towards the next generation European Extremely Large Telescope. The UK is also heavily involved in the proposed Square Kilometer Array radio telescope.
A bleak UK budget
However, the public sector, which funds the majority of research in the UK, is expected to suffer significant cuts next year because of the recession. The ongoing science review will "ensure STFC is prudently prepared for the tougher budget environment," says Mason, and "ask tough questions about the future direction of our science and technology program, including the balance between [science] disciplines."
The consultation encompasses all of STFC's programs, and includes an examination of the cost-effectiveness of international subscriptions, including CERN, the European Southern Observatory, the ILL neutron source and others.
"All UK publicly-funded bodies have a responsibility to ensure value-for-money," says Mason, "and STFC has discussed with our international partners the need to restrain costs and, if possible, reduce expenditure."
The next few months will be challenging says Mason, "but an exciting opportunity [for STFC] to set the course for the future."
Paul Guinnessy
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 the Associate Laboratory Director for Energy and Environment 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 that created the atomic bomb worked.
Under Chu's vision highly qualified scientists will stay at ARPA-E centers for about 5 years before moving back to academia or industry.
Majumdar helped shape several strategic initiatives in the areas of energy efficiency, renewable energy as well as energy storage, and has experience in testifying in front of Congress—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 advisor 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 advisor 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 his hardest challendges will be deciding how "high-risk" research will be at these centers.
Paul Guinnessy
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."
]]>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
]]>