There is a struggle going on for NASA’s soul. Is NASA all about sending human beings into space? Or is NASA about elucidating the secrets of the cosmos? The former is, of course, best embodied by the Apollo missions: pure, unadulterated rocket science. The latter is probably best associated with the Hubble space telescope (although NASA’s contribution to our understanding of the Universe goes far beyond Hubble). Of course, spacewalks and science are not mutually exclusive (as Hubble has demonstrated). But a singleminded focus on the former has led to significant weakening of the latter.

At present, it looks like there will be two more space shuttle launches. That’s it. Within a year, our nation will no longer have the capability to launch humans into space. For some this is a sure sign that America is sliding into mediocrity. Both the first and the last man to step on the Moon testified before Congress last May, speaking out against the Obama plan to shut down the Constellation program (video). Their testimony was reminiscent of a past age, where we proved our worth by beating the Russians to the Moon, and the natural next step is to now prove our worth by beating the Chinese to the Red Planet. The jingoistic associations are unsettling, and these arguments gloss over the staggering costs involved. To quote none other than Neil Armstrong: “If the leadership we have acquired through our investment is allowed simply to fade away, other nations will surely step in where we have faltered. I do not believe that this would be in our best interests.”

It is certainly amazing that we’ve had continuous human “inhabitants” in low-Earth orbit. Rocket science is, indeed, rocket science, and this should never be taken for granted. Launching people into orbit is a massive endeavor, and having them survive in the incredibly inhospitable environment of space is even more impressive. But the simple truth is that the contributions to basic science from the space station have been entirely negligible (especially in comparison with the staggering costs). Furthermore, I would argue that the Hubble space telescope has done significantly more to awe and inspire the world than the International Space Station.

A year ago we discussed an Academy report which criticized the direction of the manned space program, and recommended profound changes. Subsequently the Academy released a separate report sharply criticizing the scientific underpinning of NASA, and recommending similar changes. Two months ago the Obama administration outlined a new vision for NASA, in line with these reports, including the cancellation of the Constellation program (which was the new and improved version of the Apollo program). Given the immense sums of money involved, especially to influential states such as Florida and Texas, Congress has taken the liberty of trying to do an end-run around the White House, and fund Constellation despite the lack of a request for funding. In a triumph of politics over common-sense, money will be poured into building more rockets, rather than funding a broad portfolio of technological development (including better ways to get humans into orbit and beyond) and basic research (including unmanned probes and satellites elucidating the mysteries of the Universe). In the latest salvo, fourteen Nobel laureates, and a few astronauts for good measure, issued an open letter supporting Obama’s strategy, and advising Congress against throwing all of NASA’s eggs in the “heavy lift rocket” basket.

One thing is clear: for better or worse, the shuttle program is at an end. There is no clear successor, and it will likely be many years before another astronaut is launched into orbit by the United States. If you want to experience the thrill of sending humans into space (and it is an incredible, indescribable rush), you’d better hustle on down to the Kennedy Space Flight Center. The next-to-last launch is currently scheduled for November 1, 2010.

This past week has seen a lot of news stories about a “Manhattan-sized” plume of oil found in the Gulf of Mexico by researchers near the site of the BP Deepwater Horizon well. This sent my BS detector into the yellow zone, so I have been trying to get a better idea of just how much oil remains in the Gulf from this disaster. It’s definitely not gone.

So I went to Wikipedia. There, you can find a reference to a New York Times article from the beginning of August, where the total volume of the leak was estimated to be 780,000 cubic meters of oil. Now, that’s clearly in the category of “reasonable guess” – no one knows for sure. But it is very unlikely to be a factor of two larger or smaller than that, so let’s just use that for now. There are a lot of other uncertainties, for example the amount of natural gas (methane) that came out with the oil, how the flow rate changed with time, and so on. But again, let’s just ignore those.

How big is 780,000 cubic meters? Simply taking the cube root of this number, this is the volume of a cube 92 meters on a side. It would look something like this next to the Pentagon:

I can imagine two reactions to this comparison: 1) Damn, that’s a lot of oil! 2) That’s tiny compared to the volume of the Gulf of Mexico! (I bet one’s political views might play a role in which reaction comes first…)

If we were to take this volume and spread it out in a layer 1 millimeter thick, it would cover an area of 780 million square meters, which is a square about 28 kilometers on a side. The satellite images of the oil slick showed affected regions much larger than that, from which I conclude that the thickness of the surface layer must have been much less than 1 millimeter at those times. (But check my math, somebody!)

If all the oil were dissolved uniformly into the Gulf, which has a total volume three million billion times the size of the leak, the concentration would be about one third of one part per billion. That’s an interesting number all by itself, and not at all as small as it seems. But not all the oil leaked is in the Gulf – much of it evaporated and a good deal has been consumed by bacteria. But the rest of it went somewhere, right?

Now to the underwater plume. In the abstract of the Science Magazine paper that led to all the news stories, the authors said “Our findings indicate the presence of a continuous plume over 35 km in length, at approximately 1100 m depth that persisted for months without substantial biodegradation.” I cannot find the word “Manhattan” anywhere in their article, and so I have to conclude this was some mainstream media (WSJ?) person’s rather inept attempt at putting the size of the plume into perspective. It was parroted endlessly in the media as if it had meaning. In fact it’s quite misleading – clearly the term “Manhattan-sized” conjures up images of the whole island of Manhattan along with all the tall buildings…but as we have seen the total volume of oil leaked into the Gulf is about the size of one of those buildings.

So what is this plume? The authors define it as “a discrete spatial interval with hydrocarbon signals or signal surrogates (i.e., colored dissolved organic matter or aromatic hydrocarbon fluorescence) more than two standard deviations above the root-mean-square baseline variability.” That is, a place in the water where there is clearly oil present at detectable levels. It can be at quite low concentrations and still be detectable. One of the article’s main findings was that “Gas chromatographic analyses for only monoaromatic hydrocarbons of several water samples gathered using survey guidance confirm benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and total xylenes (BTEX) concentrations in excess of 50 μg L^–1 within the plume at 16 km downrange from the well site.” This is all bad stuff we don’t want in the water or getting into the food we eat.

I assume a lot more scientific research will need to be done to know the actual damage that the presence of these oil components will do to marine life, the fisheries, and the food chain. The authors took a stab at making an estimate of how much oxygen depletion was occurring due to biodegradation of the oil, concluding that “it may require many months before microbes significantly attenuate the hydrocarbon plume to the point that oxygen minimum zones develop that are intense enough…to threaten Gulf fisheries.” That’s good news for marine life, I assume, but means that the subsurface oil will take quite some time to be bioegraded, which is bad in the longer term. So why hasn’t the media talked about that aspect of the article?

There is no question that this was a huge amount of oil leaked into the Gulf and that the impacts will be felt for many years to come. It is an epic disaster by any measure and may have consequences no one has considered yet. But we have to be rational about the real impacts of the disaster, and rational about the real risks involved in deep water drilling. The only way is to continue vigorously the kind of research we saw in the Science Magazine article, and debate the findings openly. BP needs to release publicly everything it knows about the spill.

The big news this week in astrophysics is not the discovery of a new planet. Nor is it the first glimpse of a galaxy on the other side of the Universe. It’s much more important: the arrival of the latest Decadal Report. It all started over a year ago, and fellow blogger Julianne has been a major participant.

The full report is an excellent description of the entire field, both where we are now, and where we’re likely to be headed. If 200+ pages is a bit much to swallow, the report contains a 5 page Executive Summary (with 5 tables laying out the project rankings and costs). Probably the best place to start, however, is Julianne’s discussion of the report: post 1, post 2, and post 3.

For those with no attention span whatsoever, here is my 6 bullet-point summary:
1. Surveys rule the roost. The next decade is about survey telescopes. The #1 space priority is an infrared survey telescope (WFIRST) (a successor of SNAP/JDEM). The #1 ground priority is a wide-field optical survey telescope (LSST).
2. Another golden decade of cosmology (and planets). Both the top space and ground priorities originated as dark energy/cosmology missions. They turn out to be excellent planet missions as well.
3. Bang for the buck. Smaller, diverse, rapid-response programs provide excellent science return. The “Explorer program” and the “Mid-scale Innovations Program” are the #2 priorities for space and ground, respectively. Specific missions within these programs are unspecified.
4. The birth of gravitational-wave astronomy. We are (hopefully) entering the decade of gravitational-wave astrophysics. The Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) is the 3rd ranked space mission. This is a big deal: gravitational-waves have yet to be seen, but the astronomical community nonetheless recognizes and prioritizes the role they have to play in exploring our Universe.
5. Clash of the Titans. The 3rd priority for ground-based astronomy is a huge (30 meter) optical/infrared telescope. There are two projects well underway (GMT and TMT). The report encourages the NSF to pick one for federal investment.
6. Etcetera. Other things that are discussed include an X-ray telescope (IXO), a high-energy gamma ray telescope (ACTA), a submillimeter telescope (CCAT), and a number of smaller missions and projects (including full funding for NASA’s Astrophysics Theory Program). Note that the Hubble Space Telescope’s successor, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), is not extensively discussed in this report, since it is already funded and is on track for launch in the next few years.

I’m excited about all of these facilities. I’ve written papers related to many of them (JDEM, LISA, and LSST), and I am convinced they will all profoundly deepen our understanding of our Universe. The Decadal report represents a tremendous investment by the astro community, involving hundreds of scientists making extremely painful and difficult choices. At the end of the day, a clear ranking has been produced, and a strong case has been articulated. Now the task it to convince the full astronomy community, Congress, and the taxpayers that we have done our homework, and that these missions are worthy of major public investment. We have an incredible decade ahead of us!

The US astronomical community is anxiously awaiting tomorrow’s press conference on the release of the “Astro2010 Decadal Survey”. Now, the astronomical community has press releases all the time, but almost all are about communicating scientific results or images to the general public. Tomorrow’s is different. What we learn will shape the next ten years of investment in astronomical infrastructure, and set the course of much of scientific innovation in the ten years after that.

For close to half a century, the astronomical community has gone through an extremely productive exercise in navel gazing, producing exhaustive reports once a decade to lay out our priorities as a field. These reports are the result of a year long process of consultation, analysis, and lobbying. Through the National Academy of Sciences, the community organizes a series of committees to evaluate every aspect of US astronomical research. They try to identify scientific areas that are ripe for breakthroughs, and then to match these areas with specific technological investments in astronomical tools (primarily telescopes, but also increasingly computational and theoretical resources). The committees then do their best to rank these investments into a prioritized list.

The process of making a prioritized list is relatively horrific, since it involves choices between extremely different, non-overlapping projects. For example, if you’ve spent your life understanding optical and near-infrared spectra of galaxies, you’ll be rooting for a gigantic ground based telescope — most competing projects will be of little utility for your research. However, as a field, we are forced to face up to the fact that sometimes the best way to move forward on an astrophysical topic is not necessarily where we, as individuals, have chosen to do so. We also have to recognize that what may interest us personally may not be the most important question in the field. For example, I’m a nearby galaxy kind of girl, but I’d be a fool not to recognize that extrasolar planets are far more “ripe” for dramatic results. Finally, accepting these facts is not equally easy for all individuals, and many people are willing to go the mattresses for their preferred outcome. One hopes for good behavior, but people will be people.

The reason the process is so high-stakes is that the ranking that comes out of the Decadal Survey is taken very, very seriously. The upper administration of NASA and the National Science Foundation take these recommendations as commandments (i.e. don’t bother seeking funding for the satellite telescope that was ranked 15th). Ever more seriously, congressional staffers read these reports, making Congress extremely unlikely to finance anything but a top ranked project. (The few times that earmarks have been laid out for specific projects, it’s been Seriously Frowned Upon by the community, and by any administrator who has based their planning on the ranked list). Frankly, this is great, even if it’s hard. We wouldn’t want anyone else to make these decisions but us, as hard as it is to sometimes see your favorite project nudged out by something you are far less interested in.

So, the big things to look for in the news tomorrow are the first ranked ground-based project (i.e. NSF funded) and the first ranked space-based project (NASA funded). In the current funding climate, and with the growing costs of building competitive facilities, the community is unlikely to get more than one major initiative rolling — if that. This decadal report is unlikely to make the mistakes of the last one, which can best be described as being equivalent to asking a 3 year old whether they’d prefer a bathtub full of ice cream or a pony. This round, there was much more attention paid to cost, so that the committee could make realistic decisions.

Frankly, it’s a bit of a scary time. The situation reminds me a bit too much of the Superconducting Supercollider. The funding levels needed to make big advances are at a point where we really can’t afford more than one major initiative a decade. That puts us in the unfortunate position of having a single point failure. Say we back one big project. Suppose that the one big project goes over budget (as cutting edge facilities frequently do) to the point where it gets cancelled, 10-15 years from now. Then, we’re left with nothing, and young astronomers start looking for jobs in Europe.

Timothy Ferris, in The Science of Liberty:

In 1900 there was not a single liberal democracy in the world (since none yet had universal suffrage); by 1950 there were twenty-two.

Tyler Cowen at Marginal Revolution has an ongoing series of posts in which he highlights “good sentences.” At first the conceit bugged me a bit, as how good can a single sentence be? It’s not like you have space to develop a sensible argument or anything.

But that’s the point, of course. A really good sentence packs a wallop because it fits an enormous amount into very few words. One technique for doing that is to exhibit an underlying assumption that is a remarkable claim in its own right. If I were to have tried to make the point that Ferris makes above, it would have been something like this:

Liberal democracies were established in fits and starts over a period of hundreds of years. The first major steps happened in countries like Britain, the United States, and France, where aristocratic systems were replaced (with different amounts of violence) by rule by popular vote. But I would argue that a true liberal democracy is one that features universal suffrage — every adult citizen has a right to participate. By that standard, there weren’t any liberal democracies in existence in the year 1900; but fifty years later, there were twenty-two.

Makes the point, but it’s a somewhat ponderous collection of mediocre sentences, rather than a single one of immense power. That’s the difference between someone who writes things, like me, and a true writer. I’m trying to learn.

Ferris’s book seems excellent, although I’ve just started reading it. It has a provocative thesis: the Enlightenment values of liberal democracy and scientific reasoning didn’t simply arise together. The emergence of science is rightfully understood as the cause of the democratic revolution. That’s the kind of thing I’d be happy to believe is true, so I’m especially skeptical, but I’m looking forward to the argument.

I keep meaning to write something substantive about the theft of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, but my day job does sometime intervene. (Over six hundred postdoc applications in theoretical physics, but not to worry — only about 400 of them are in areas related to my interests.) There are some good discussions at Time and Foreign Policy, and you can’t poke your nose into the science blogosphere without reading someone’s take on the issue.

My own take is: what in the world is the big deal? Indeed, I would go so far as to ask: what could possibly be the big deal? Most of the noise has simply been nonsensical, focusing on misunderstandings of what scientists mean by the word “trick” and similar deep issues. And some people got upset when a dodgy paper was accepted by a journal, and they discussed giving the journal a cold shoulder. Cry me a river.

But I don’t really want to defend the scientists involved, because I’m not informed enough about who they are and what they did. For all I know, they may be very nasty and unethical human beings. (Actually that’s not true; I know Michael Mann, and he’s one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet.) And I see no reason not to do a thorough investigation, and hand out appropriate sanctions if there’s real evidence of wrongdoing.

What baffles me is the idea that this changes the conversation about climate change in any way. This isn’t a case like Jan Hendrik Schon, the rogue physicist who rose to prominence on the basis of falsified data, and was later exposed. The job of monitoring the climate is one that has been taken up by more than just one or two groups of people. There have been thousands of peer-reviewed papers that have provided evidence of global warming. Not to mention common sense; when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has shot up dramatically over the last century, and the temperature has done the same thing, it takes some willful stubbornness to avoid the obvious conclusion. All of the noise we’re hearing about “Climategate” is based on politics, not on science.

And that’s what really puzzles me. I understand the non-scientific motivations of certain climate denialists; in the abstract, they don’t want to accept that the unfettered actions of capitalism can ever have any deleterious effects, and in the concrete, many of them are paid by oil companies. (See this charming “letter to the American Physical Society,” whose handful of signatories includes “Roger Cohen, former Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil.”) Those are powerful incentives to ignore the evidence.

But what is the incentive on the other side supposed to be? What exactly is the motivation for the nefarious conspiracy of people who are supposedly plotting to mislead the world about global warming? What do the people counting oysters get out of this?

Are there a lot of people out there who think that scientists as a group (since the vast majority of scientists appreciate the problems of global warming) have knee-jerk reactions against technology and industry? Let me propose another motivation for whatever corners the East Anglia group might have contemplated cutting: they’ve seen the data, they know what’s happening to the planet, and they’re terrified of what the consequences might be. They know that the other side is motivated by non-scientific concerns, and they want to fight back as hard as they can, both for the good of humanity and for the integrity of science. There’s no question that scientists can go overboard, pulling the occasional shenanigans in the pursuit of their less lofty goals. (Like, you know, other human beings.) But nobody wants to believe that we’re facing a looming global ecological catastrophe. They believe it because that’s what the data imply.

Most of the world is stunned to hear that Obama is the recipient of this year’s Nobel Peace Prize. It is likely that Obama is the most surprised of all. I’m sure the uniform reaction is: “But what has he actually done?” He’s been President less than nine months. And it’s not like he had major “peace” accomplishments in his short tenure as a Senator. So has the Swedish Academy (or, actually, the Norwegian Parliament, which is an interesting story in its own right) gone insane? No. It’s fairly apparent that Obama is receiving the Nobel because he has been forcefully articulating a compelling future. In his speeches and actions, he is attempting to bring together Israelis and Palestinians, Christians and Muslims, Blacks and Whites, Rich and Poor. He has a clear vision of a world at peace, in a broad sense of the term. Although this may be unattainable, we can certainly get a lot closer than we are now. The Prize is “to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations,” and indeed, over the past year Obama stands apart.

From the scientific perspective, Obama has had tremendous impact (the Peace Prize singles out his “constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”). His appointees are first-rate, and there is a feeling that we are finally starting to move in the right direction. It is hard, of course, to point to tangible scientific results that have arisen because of Obama. There simply hasn’t been time enough. But this does not negate his impact; the momentum is apparent and encouraging. It is a similar story in international diplomacy. Obama also benefits from eight preceding years of Bush. Within the scientific community, the Bush administration represented a dark age. Any subsequent reasonable policy would seem to be enlightened. Thus to have a truly exceptional policy, informed by actual science and scientists (instead of cynical political aims), has a profound effect on the state of affairs. It is a similar story in international diplomacy.

My guess is that the Nobel committee wants to be relevant. A major criticism of the Physics Prize is that it has a relatively minor impact on the field of physics. It’s almost always given decades after the fact, to researchers that are already well known and well established. For the vast majority of recipients, their work is not suddenly transformed by the Prize. If anything, they become significantly less productive, as they’re now busy traveling the world and giving talks and (justifiably) enjoying the prominence only a Nobel can confer. Do not misunderstand: I am certainly not criticizing the Nobel Prize. It brings much positive attention to the field, and for the most part singles out very deserving recipients. It is the ultimate advertising campaign for physics, and we all benefit from it. (It would nonetheless be interesting to compare it to the Fields Medal [effectively the Nobel for mathematics], which is only given to mathematicians under the age of 40.) In this context, giving the Peace Prize to Obama is an inspired choice. They are hoping to give him more stature and leverage to help him achieve his goals; they want to help make the world a better place. It affirms the importance of American leadership on the world stage, and endorses our President’s vision of a world at peace. All Americans, regardless of political affiliation, should celebrate this.

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey is one of the most ambitious and successful astronomical surveys ever performed. It has left an impact far and wide, ranging from asteroids to cosmology. As Sean has mentioned, the SDSS would have been impossible without optical fibers and CCDs, and this year’s Nobel Prize in Physics acknowledges the development of these technologies. The SDSS would also have been impossible without Jim Gunn.

President Obama yesterday conferred The National Medal of Science to Jim Gunn, as well as 8 other scientists. This is our nation’s highest scientific honor. It is a clear demonstration that our society values science, and acknowledges its contributions; even though this may not always be apparent in the squabbling on Capitol Hill, or on school boards “debating” evolution. Once a year scientists take pride of place, and are officially thanked by a grateful Nation. As usual, Obama unleashes his eloquence:

So this nation owes all of you an enormous debt of gratitude far greater than any medal can bestow. And we recognize your contributions, but we also celebrate the incredible contributions of the scientific endeavor itself. We see the promise — not just for our economy but for our health and well-being — in the human capacity for creativity and ingenuity. And we are reminded of the power of free and open inquiry, which is not only at the heart of all of your work, but at the heart of this experiment we call America.
…
there are those who say we can’t afford to invest in science, that it’s a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I could not disagree more. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, and our health, and our way of life than it has ever been. And the winners we are recognizing only underscore that point, with achievements in physics and medicine, computer science and cognitive science, energy technology and biotechnology. We need to ensure that we are encouraging the next generation of discoveries — and the next generation of discoverers.

Full transcript here. Jim Gunn was honored “for his brilliant design of many of the most influential telescopes and instruments in astronomy, and in particular for the crucial role those technological marvels played in the creation of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which has cataloged 200 million stars, galaxies, and quasars; discovered the most distant known quasars; and probed the epoch of formation of the first stars and galaxies.”

Sitting in the audience were members of the administration, including Steve Chu (Secretary of Energy) and John Holdren (Science Advisor), widely respected scientists in their own right. Seeing them gathered with Obama, celebrating science, is a hopeful image. There is a perception that scientists are losing the goodwill amassed in the last Century, and are now thought of as just another interest group. But we need science to address many of the world’s most pressing challenges. We need young people to be inspired, and to want to become scientists. Occasions like this remind us that science, and scientists, will play a crucial role in our future.

The Review of U.S. Human Space Flight Plans Committee has just released a summary of their report. This “Augustine” report (named after chairman Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed, not St. Augustine, which might have made for more entertaining reading) discusses the future of US manned space exploration. The full report should arrive within the month.

The summary makes one critical point: NASA is woefully underfunded to accomplish its stated goals (Let’s go to the Moon and Mars and beyond!). The committee’s basic message is that, under the current funding profile, NASA can barely retire the space shuttles and the International Space Station. Any ambitious manned space exploration plans will have to be delayed by a minimum of 15-20 years (Bush wanted us to be playing soccer on the Moon by 2020). The committee says an additional $3 billion/year for ten years is required to have a viable manned exploration program, on top of the roughly $10 billion/year currently being spent (for reference, NASA science programs weigh in at under $5 billion/year). As far as space exploration is concerned, the current trajectory isn’t going to get us anywhere.

One interesting aspect of this report is the absence of science. Out of 12 pages, science is mentioned twice. In the third line of the report, we are advised that spaceflight “really is rocket science”. Cute. Towards the end of the introduction, we are told “Human exploration can contribute appropriately to the expansion of scientific knowledge”. The emphasis is theirs, not mine. Perhaps they’re feeling a little defensive? As well they should. From what I can tell, nobody has articulated a compelling scientific case for human beings to go beyond low-Earth orbit. Or even leave Earth, for that matter. From a scientific perspective, the International Space Station has been an unbelievably colossal waste of money. As the Economist tells us, “the useful science that has been done on board could be written up on the back of a postage stamp.” (Sam Ting’s AMS would be an exception. But this is unlikely to have been the most cost-effective way to go about this experiment.) The space shuttle program, on the other hand, has been instrumental in producing amazing science, epitomized by the launching and servicing of the Hubble Space Telescope. Given the immense cost of the shuttle program, however, the science return on investment remains fairly slim. How many space telescopes could have been built and launched by conventional rockets, for the cost of all that shuttle development?

It could be argued that the manned space program is not about science at all. It’s about slipping the surly bonds of Earth and fulfilling our “natural destiny”. There is certainly something compelling about this, although I would argue that the current plans are ludicrously expensive and overly ambitious. My main concern is that the public misses the distinction: NASA sometimes appears to conflate human exploration and basic research. When we talk about sending humans to the Moon or Mars, we’re not talking about scientific exploration. If science is your goal, you send unmanned probes and satellites, at a tiny fraction of the cost. These missions carry no risk to human life, and considerably larger scientific payoff.

Like any science fiction fan, I’m intrigued by the idea of human colonies on the Moon and Mars and beyond. But if these long-term aspirations suck the oxygen out of the room for basic science, humanity on the whole loses out.

President Obama addressed the National Academies of Science yesterday. If anyone doubted that change has come, and come to science, they need to watch this video. We’ve been waiting a long, long time for a president to take this kind of interest in furthering the cause of science in our country. His budget calls for a doubling of our nation’s investment in basic research in the coming years:

“No one can predict what new applications will be born of basic research: new treatments in our hospitals; new sources of efficient energy; new building materials; new kinds of crops more resistant to heat and drought.”

“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 are based on the equations that Einstein put to paper more than a century ago….”

“We double the budget of key agencies, including the National Science Foundation, a primary source of funding for academic research, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which supports a wide range of pursuits – from improving health information technology to measuring carbon pollution, from testing “smart grid” designs to developing advanced manufacturing processes. And my budget doubles funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science which builds and operates accelerators, colliders, supercomputers, high-energy light sources, and facilities for making nano-materials. Because we know that a nation’s potential for scientific discovery is defined by the tools it makes available to its researchers.”

Words fail me.