This summer, I sat in with some big shots to discuss the future of science policy in an Obama Presidency, and of space policy in particular. One of the ideas I pushed, and which received general support, was the importance of a cabinet-level science advisor to the President, one who would be appointed and confirmed quickly, and given maximal access to the President and his decision-making process. Many scientists and science societies agree.
Now that Obama is planning his transition, the question moves to a more practical realm: who should he appoint?
First, I think the science advisor should be a biologist. The 21st century is going to be a century of biology, in the way the 20th was the century of physics. We need a biologist advising the president.
Second, the advisor can't be focused only on the science. He or she has to have experience dealing with public controversies and conflicts. And he or she must understand politics as well as the workings of a lab. Science is bigger than what scientists do; it affects everyone's lives, it affects global commerce and global geopolitics. The science advisor has to be able to see the whole field, and put it in terms that a non-scientist can grasp readily.
The first name I'll toss out is unlikely for many reasons. I haven't bounced this off her, or anyone else at NCSE, but I think our executive director, Eugenie Scott, would be great at the job. Everyone (even creationists) respects her, and scientists love her dearly. She understands science, and she understands people. She's worked the line between science and politics for decades, and has done so with grace and ease. She knows the scientific community, she knows the political community, and she knows the policy community. She understands how science connects to people's daily lives, and we could all feel confident that things would work out if Barack Obama were getting advice from her.
Given that she's unlikely to leave NCSE or to move to DC, we'll consider other options, though.
Francesca Grifo has run the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program for some time now, and is well-respected by all. She's worked at the interface of science, policy, and politics for a long time, and would be a good person to bend the President's ear, and to clean up the abuses of science we've seen in the last 8 years. Her background in climate change and environmental science would be especially handy in the White House, as would the respect she'd command with the community of federal scientists, maligned and abused so horribly over the last 8 years.
From a different angle, you've got E. O. Wilson, an elder statesman with an established reputation and skills as a writer and a science communicator. He'd be an interesting choice, but there are those who found his work on sociobiology to be politically incorrect. Whether that would disqualify him isn't clear to me, but I think we want to aim for a science advisor who is a bit closer to the mainstream of current scientific research, and Wilson has spent the last couple decades pursuing an important but very different program, verging on a sort of metaphysic. I think we want a science advisor who is more grounded.
Francis Collins is also an elder statesman of science, and one skilled in using the federal bureaucracy to the advantage of big scientific endeavors. Whether that's the right background for this sort of advisory role is debatable, though. Federal science shouldn't be so focused on giant projects (like Collins's Human Genome Project), nor am I entirely happy with the way that molecular biology and genomics seem to be squeezing out other parts of the biological sciences. I'd rather a more integrative researcher and thinker.
Moving from that speculative realm, Obama's campaign science advisors probably constitute the transition team's short list: "Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate and former head of the National Institutes of Health; Gilbert Ommen, a former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Peter Agre, a Nobel laureate and ardent critic of the Bush administration; NASA researcher Donald Lamb; and Stanford University plant biologist Sharon Long."
Ommen is experienced in the ways of DC, and his work at the AAAS would give him a good grounding in science policy as it's been done in the past, but would also leave him somewhat hidebound. Varmus is well-respected, and his time at the NIH would also give him good experience wrangling deals in DC. I worry about diverting attention from the breadth of biology to an increasingly narrow focus on medical research, though, and am skeptical about having a doctor (such as Ommen or Varmus) in a science advisory role. Then again, Varmus is a key figure in the open access scientific publishing world (and an advocate of bicycling and other alternatives to cars). Both of those show an interest in the broader ways that science influences society, which is an essential part of what the science advisor has to be able to explain to the President. (Bora endorsed Varmus for science advisor back in January.)
Sharon Long is a plant biologist, focusing on the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in leguminous plants. She just finished a 5 year term as dean of Stanford's School of Humanities and Sciences, and in stepping down after a successful time in administration, cited her desire to get back into research. "I have an enduring love for science, and deep loyalty and gratitude to my lab colleagues, who have worked productively through my term as dean," she said. "We have made progress in our research and some exciting surprises have emerged. However, our field is evolving rapidly, and, for an experimental scientist, active participation with lab research is a central requirement of scholarly life." Given all that, it's likely that she doesn't want to drop her research to move to DC. Nonetheless, I think she'd be another great choice.
So, no answers here, but hopefully a start of discussion.
- Log in to post comments
I think you need to actually present some solid arguments for a biologist in the position. To me it seems like you claim it will a "century of biology" because, well, you are a biologist. As a chemist, I of course see it as a century of chemistry, especially due to energy and climate change issues being of utmost importance.
It may be the century of biology, but during Obama's presidency the big issue will be energy and its flip side, climate change. While biology has much to offer in renevable sources of energy, there is also need for other fields of research. Solar power is still very much physics, fuel cells are chemistry, and energy efficiency is pure engineering.
Allocating the job to only one branch of science doesn't sound good to me. I'd look for someone who understands energy and its use, whatever science it takes.
While I agree with dkw that you are biased (and that is OK), this did get me to thinking about the big picture: what kind of scientist should the science advisor be? Perhaps it should be a small team of scientists representing most of the basic and relevant applied sciences. However, this would end up being a not-so-small team of disciplinarians who probably can't communicate with each other let alone with the President. We should have two science advisors- both of whom have a career built on interdisciplinary research and exceptional communication skills. The problems facing society today (the problems the President cares about) will not be solved by any single scientific discipline but through groundbreaking interdisciplinary teamwork. Obviously one of them should be a climate scientist. The field of climate science draws on the fundamentals of physics, chemistry and yes biology. Remember I said it is OK to be biased!
Re Harold Varmus
Dr. Varmus was not only a strong advocate of bicycling transportation, he was himself a bike commutator, at least during his tenure at the NIH.
On his first day on the job, he rode his $5000 Spectrum Titanium/Carbon hybrid (which today would cost in the neighborhood of $10,000) to work from his home in Cleveland Park in DC (the NIH is located in Bethesda, Md.). Upon arrival, he was carrying the bike into the building where his office was located when he was stopped by a security officer. The officer informed him that he couldn't bring the bicycle into the building without the permission of the director. His response was, I am the director.
dkw: Lawrence Summers, not a biologist, says "If the 20th century was defined by developments in the physical sciences, the 21st century will be defined by developments in the life sciences. Lifespans will rise sharply as cures are found for chronic diseases and healthcare will come to be a larger share of the economy than manufacturing. Life science approaches will lead to everything from further agricultural revolutions to profound changes in energy technology and the development of new materials."
The chemistry of climate change is pretty much resolved, and the issues that have to be addressed on a policy level relate to the production of new sorts of power (wind turbines, biofuels, nuclear power, geothermal, etc.) and mitigation of the effects of climate change on the biological world, and especially on human habitation.
Chemists may have useful insights into ways to sequester CO2, or to synthesize biofuels more efficiently, but most of the scientific policy challenge in global warming is not chemical in nature, but consists of biology, engineering, and the fluid dynamics of atmospheric modeling. And in terms of energy production, any smart advisor will tell the President to pursue a range of options and to keep the basket of options well balanced.
And in terms of research focus, Summers' conclusion is borne out by the recent pattern of Nobel Prizes. If you look at the chemistry Nobel Prizes for the last decade or so, many are in biochemistry or molecular biology, and it has become practically a backup prize in physiology and medicine for biology results that don't seem to fit into the narrow parameters of that other prize. This isn't a knock on chemistry, of course, just a note about the areas currently under the most rapid development, and the most urgency at a grand policy level.
Stem cells and genetic testing are obvious policy areas where science advice will be important, as will ecological crises from the oceans to the atmosphere to the forests, rivers and lakes. Bioterrorism, emerging diseases, and existing pandemics all require a biologist's insights. I could go on.
If Genie became Obama's science advisor, I would stay in America, because that would be just so cool. I also feel confident making that promise since it won't happen ever.