The movie “Milk” opened last weekend. It tells the story of Harvey Milk, one of the first openly gay politicians in the United States. Although I have not seen the movie, without a doubt the story of Harvey Milk is a tragedy of epic proportions. He fought prejudice, and overcame tremendous odds to get elected. Ten months later he was gunned down, along with the Mayor of San Francisco, by a former colleague. The murderer was Dan White, an ex-policeman who admitted to shooting both men in cold blood, and was subsequently given a light sentence in the infamous twinkie defense. White served five years, and within a couple of years of being released from prison committed suicide. As if all this were insufficiently “Hollywood”, the events are strangely intertwined with the mass suicide at Jonestown (the second largest loss of civilian American lives, after 9/11).

We are tempted to think of all of this as ancient history, and irrelevant to our more enlightened times. But here we are 30 years later, and in the very state where Milk lived and died a (slight) majority of voters have gone out of their way to inscribe into the state constitution a measure explicitly depriving gays of civil rights. This is known as Proposition 8, and Sean has a nice post on why it’s an appropriate issue for a science blog.

As it happens, one of the largest individual donations to support Proposition 8 came from John Templeton. Of course, Cosmic Variance readers are familiar with the Templeton Foundation, as my esteemed co-blogger Sean has tangled with them previously. Templeton, when he’s not spending his money taking away the rights of his fellow citizens, has a predilection for spending money on scientists. Historically I’ve been uncomfortable with the Templeton Foundation because of their attempts to conflate religion and science. However, their Foundational Questions Institute appears to be a genuine effort to generate cutting edge science. Although I’m sure there is much I would disagree with in a conversation with Templeton, his support of basic science is to be applauded. Arguably the United States has been immeasurably strengthened by both the separation of church and state and the separation of church and science (the latter is not to be taken for granted; think of Galileo, or Bush’s incursions into stem cell lines and global warming). That even Templeton recognizes that science works best when it is unfettered, as much as possible, by external preconceptions is an encouraging sign. We can only hope that he spends more money on science, and less on politics. We thus wish Sean the best of luck in winning the $10,000 jackpot, a prize he will no doubt share with his co-bloggers.

NASA’s Phoenix Mars Lander, which some time back scraped up direct evidence of water on Mars’s surface, is slipping gently into the night. Not a surprise; the mission was always scheduled to last just a few months, and at this time of Martian year there just isn’t enough sunshine to keep the batteries charged.

Mission engineers last received a signal from the lander on November 2, the space agency said.

Rumor has it that the signal read “Yes We Can!”

The future of NASA is going to be one out of approximately 50 million pressing challenges faced by the new President. Under the previous administration (what was that guy’s name again? I seem to have repressed it), the agency drifted, ranging from embarrassing ideological scandals to hopelessly inept planning to blatant censorship on climate change to a depressing de-emphasis of real science. Obama, and whoever he appoints as NASA administrator, will have a very difficult job balancing competing pressures: rebuilding a science program that has been devastated by funding cuts, while also restoring our capacity to send astronauts into space, and doing so in a time of tremendous budgetary pressures. Darksyde at Daily Kos has a good post about what some of these challenges are, and some of the struggles of current administrator Michael Griffin. It will be very interesting to see what direction the agency takes; in a multipolar world, the U.S. won’t be the only important player in space exploration and space science, but hopefully we won’t just sit on the sidelines, either.

(Did you notice the link to an article on Discover at the beginning of that paragraph? That’s because, when I cut open a vein to sign our new blogging agreement in blood [don't worry, it wasn't my vein], part of the contract was that we would link back to the site in every single blog post we do. I’m sure nobody will notice.)

The sometimes crazy, sometimes razor-sharp Christopher Hitchens lets loose in Slate about Sarah Palin’s war on science. He hits most of the high points – fruit flies, grizzlies, and creationism (but misses the overhead projector nonsense). In any case, it’s worth a read, and I’ll just leave you with his concluding paragraph, to set the scene

This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. And those who prate of spiritual warfare and demons are not just “people of faith” but theocratic bullies. On Nov. 4, anyone who cares for the Constitution has a clear duty to repudiate this wickedness and stupidity.

Hitchens is such an elitist, and clearly not from Real America^©.

Regular CV readers already know of John McCain’s past griping about planetariums. Well, apparently that planetarium is really stuck in his craw, because he brought it up again in the most recent debate:

(Obama) voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of visiting the AlderAdler Planetarium, you’d probably guess that the “overhead projector” he’s talking about is the spectacular “Sky Theater” — one of the most engrossing, gorgeous venues for displaying visuals about space. University of Chicago professor Andrey Kravstov has a wonderful defense of the theater in a comment on the New York Times website (h/t Deoliver47):

I am an Associate Professor of Astronomy at the University of Chicago (the University that today has added yet another Nobel Prize winner in the sciences for the US). I would like to comment on Sen. McCain’s statement during the today’s debate that Sen. Obama has earmarked “$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?”

The way Sen. McCain has phrased it suggests that Sen. Obama approved spending $3 million on an old-fashioned piece of office equipment (overhead projector).
The 3 million is actually for an upgrade of the SkyTheater – a full dome projection system, which is probably the main attraction of the Adler Planetarium and is quite sophisticated and impressive piece of equipment.

I find it appalling that Sen. McCain would call a science education tool for public (largely children) for
a historic planetarium with millions of visitors a year a wasteful earmark. The planetarium’s focus, as stated on their website (http://adlerplanetarium.org) is “on inspiring young people, particularly women and minorities, to pursue careers in science.” Is an investment in such public facility at the time when US
competitiveness in math and sciences is a constant source of alarm a waste?

“American’s ability to compete in a 21st Century economy rests on our continued investments in math and science education,” said Rep. Brian Baird, Chairman of the Research and Science Education Subcommittee in Congress, after the passage of The 21st Century Competitiveness Act of 2007.

Considering such investments “wasteful earmarks” today, even in the face of the financial crisis, will severely cripple US economic competitiveness in the increasingly high-tech world down the road.

— Andrey Kravtsov, Chicago, IL

Aside from arguing about the “wastefulness” this particular facility, politically I’m actually surprised that McCain is going after planetariums. People like planetariums. And the AlderAdler Planetarium is a place that millions of people go to — it’s not as if the earmark funded some high-tech facility in an obscure place that would serve only a few thousand people. If he was going to attack earmarks for science, he’d be better off going back to the bear DNA.

Sixty one Nobel Laureates have just released an open letter endorsing Barack Obama for president of the United States. As far as I know, this is far and away the largest number of prize-winners to ever endorse a presidential candidate. It’s a sign of just how bad things have gotten in this country.

Of course, there has been plenty of evidence for the decline of the scientific enterprise in the US (science funding issues, The Gathering Storm, the politicization of science). Eight years of Bush have not been kind to science. And given the challenges we are facing (e.g., how to sustain well over 6 billion people without destroying our planet), this is not the time to short-change the scientific enterprise. Sadly, there is much evidence that McCain will carry on the Republican trend. Picking a running-mate that believes the Earth is 3000 years old, and that humans have nothing to do with global warming, does not inspire confidence. The McCain campaign has finally responded to the questions from Science Debate 2008, and the answers are mostly platitudes, without substance or firm commitments. Obama, on the other hand, gives science its due. His campaign has released an extremely detailed plan to rescue science. Both Nature and Physics Today have done fairly thorough comparisons, as has a certain somebody’s better half.

When 61 Nobel Laureates express such dismay at the current state of affairs, and such uniform and clear conviction that Obama is the best candidate, perhaps it’s time to take notice?

Update: All three of the 2008 American Nobelists in science have now endorsed Obama. And a few other Nobel Laureates have added their names to the letter, including New Mexico’s very own Murray Gell-Mann.

Science Debate 2008 has asked Senators Barack Obama and John McCain to answer 14 top science questions facing America today. The theory is that we are living in a science dominated world and we should know where the candidates stand on science issues – a topic not usually covered by the press. Obama sent in his answers a couple of weeks ago and McCain’s appeared today. A side-by-side comparison of the candidate’s replies can be found here.

However, perhaps a set of prepared responses to a set of prepared questions is not the most telling way to judge a candidate’s stance on science issues – or any other issue for that matter. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad the folks at Science Debate 2008 have set up the questionnaire and am pleased that both candidates took it seriously enough to provide answers. But, perhaps the most telling glimpse into a candidate’s views on a subject can be obtained when that subject comes up during a live interview. Here’s what John McCain had to say today when speaking to the Associated Press and Florida newspapers:

“That’s nearly a million every day, every working day he’s been in Congress,” McCain said. “And when you look at some of the planetariums and other foolishness that he asked for, he shouldn’t be saying anything about Governor Palin.”

This was a comment about Obama’s earmark requests in response to queries about the earmarks Governor Palin has requested for Alaska. Quite frankly, I am left speechless at the phrase: “planetariums and other foolishness.” Perhaps I’m biased, but I never thought of planetariums as being foolish.

So, I did some checking on the internet. This is one of the great things about this election – the actual facts can be checked by anyone on the web. Here is the text from Obama’s FY08 funding request:

Adler Planetarium, to support replacement of its projector and related equipment, $3,000,000 :

One of its most popular attractions and teaching tools at the Adler Planetarium is the Sky Theater. The projection equipment in this theater is 40 years old, and is no longer supported with parts or service by the manufacturer. It has begun to fail, leaving the theater dark and groups of school students and other interested museum-goers without this very valuable and exciting learning experience.

Sorry, but replacing 40 year old equipment at one of the leading science education facilities in this country (the Adler Planetarium is located in downtown Chicago and is the oldest planetarium in the Western Hemisphere in existence today) is one of the best investments in the future that I can think of. I’ve always equated planetariums with science education – an area where the US seems to be lacking. In fact, the state-funded university where I was an undergraduate had one and its projection equipment was less than 40 years old. In fact, when I was in the 4th grade, my class took a field trip to the McDonnell Planetarium in Forest Park. It was one of the coolest things I did in grade school (well, that and the trip to see the Egyptian mummies) and I remember it to this day.

I wonder what Senator McCain would say if Senator Obama had supported funding for a hockey arena instead.

Not to give in completely to nepotistic back-scratching, but Jennifer has done the thankless task of combing the web sites of John McCain and Barack Obama for statements about science, and reports back on what she found. This comes on the heels of Obama’s answers to a set of questions from ScienceDebate2008 — McCain hasn’t answered yet, but he’s expected to soon.

I would never have the patience to do something like this myself, as stuff that appears in prepared statements on websites is likely to be bland and inoffensive, right? (One could go even further and comb through their legislative records, but that’s a truly Herculean task better left to superhumans like hilzoy.) But as it turns out, you can learn things.

Nowhere is the difference between the two candidates more stark than in their stated policies on education. McCain predictably champions No Child Left Behind (NCLB), when every educator I know considers the program to be a major FAIL. Beyond that, his education policy is inexplicably vague and obsessed with giving parents greater control over where their kids attend schools — so much so, that I suspect it’s a bit of a “dog whistle,” i.e., code for something else that only those tuned to that particular frequency can hear. There is no specific mention of math and science education. At least he recognizes the potential for online learning through virtual schools, and offers financial support to help low-income students pay for access to those online resources.

But again, Obama also supports online educational tools, with far broader financial support for educational opportunities of all kinds, and offers many point-by-point specifics. He supports the need for accountability in schools, but recognizes that NCLB has failed in large part because funding promises weren’t kept by the Bush Administration. His policies seek to address not just teacher training and retention, but also high dropout rates, soaring college costs, and the need for high-quality childcare to assist working parents (particularly single moms). And he wants to make math and science education a national priority.

I don’t especially enjoy constantly bashing the modern Republican Party and contrasting them unfavorably with Democrats. There certainly is a respectable intellectual case to be made for small-government conservatism, and even if I didn’t agree with all of the particulars, it would be interesting and worthwhile to engage in policy debates from the perspective of mutual intellectual respect. Nor do I especially think that Democratic politicians, as a group, are anything to be that excited about. But at the current moment, the Republicans have so cheerfully given into anti-intellectualism and cultural backwardness that there isn’t much to have a debate about.

Better conservatives, please. It would be good for the country.

The democratic national convention has now officially nominated Obama as the democratic nominee for POTUS. Earlier in the week Willie Nelson performed. Tonight Vanity Fair and Google throw a shindig. As it happens, I could have finagled to hang out with Willie Nelson backstage. And it is not inconceivable that I could have swung an invite to the VF/Google party. (A long complicated story involving poker, kiteboarding, and an indolent brother). So, you may be asking yourself, am I now in Denver hanging out with all the politicos? Actually, no. I’m sitting in Waimea, Hawai’i. For years I have been wanting to go observing, but for some reason observers are hesitant to allow theorists to play with their $300M toys. But why should Julianne have all the fun?

Alison Coil and Ben Weiner have been kind enough to let me tag along on one of their observing runs. We’re looking at outflows from post-starburst galaxies at high redshift. We’d like to understand whether winds from starbursts or AGNs might have inhibited subsequent star formation. (More details in a future post.) We’ll be using the Keck observatory on Mauna Kea, arguably the world’s premier (Earthbound) telescopes. Our nights were allocated months ago. Apparently this is not the sort of thing you can switch at the last minute because you want to go to a party. Even a Google party.

So a difficult choice had to be made. After much soul-searching, science won out. Instead of socializing with movie stars and shaking Obama’s hand (again), I’ll be standing on a 4200 meter summit in the middle of the Pacific.

What’s in a name? What if I had a major mid-life crisis and ceased being JoAnne Hewett and insisted on being Susan Smith instead? How would friends and relatives get in contact with me? What if I thought I told everybody, but had forgotten about my best friend from high school who suddenly needed me? How would people connect the theoretical research of JoAnne Hewett with that of Susan Smith? Would all the work and untold fame associated with JoAnne Hewett be lost to the new Susan Smith? My identity and history would be lost, as well as a sense of who I am.

People change their names all the time, of course, for various reasons. But what about major research institutions? What if the federal government suddenly decided to change the name of one of its more prestigious national laboratories? One that has been in operation for more than 40 years and has generated several Nobel prizes and major discoveries?

This is precisely what is happening to the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, my home institution. The US Department of Energy, in its infinite wisdom, is proposing to change SLAC’s name to something as yet undecided. A committee of representatives has been formed to recommend new names for the laboratory. Persis Drell, SLAC director, quotes part of the rationale as:

Our stakeholders have suggested that the name is also no longer fully representative of the laboratory with its increased involvement in photon science and particle astrophysics in addition to our particle physics program

SLAC is in the midst of a transition. We are no longer operating an accelerator for High Energy Physics. We are building the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS), which has an exciting discovery potential in Photon Science. I can’t help but note that the word linac appears in the name of the new machine. In fact, the linear accelerator at SLAC is the cornerstone of the new LCLS. The LCLS could not be built without it. So doesn’t it seem appropriate that the lab housing the LCLS be named Stanford Linear Accelerator Center? It is hard to understand this argument.

There is also some legalese about the DOE wanting to trademark and patent the name SLAC, but is having difficulty because one apparently can’t patent a name containing “Stanford.” The University and DOE are communicating on this issue, but there is no resolution yet. Of course, there are numerous companies dotting Silicon Valley which freely use the name “Stanford” in their moniker, so it is hard to understand this argument as well.

The employees at SLAC, no matter what their discipline may be, are understandably upset. They have started a petition, addressed to the President of Stanford University and to the Secretary of Energy, asking that the name of the laboratory not be changed. This petition addresses the history of the lab, the role of accelerators in both photon and particle science, and the close connection between the lab and the university. The petition can be found here, and anyone who agrees with it may sign.

Lab name changes have happened before, albeit under different circumstances. Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Laboratory was known as CEBAF (Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility) before 1996, which is the name of its main accelerator. CEBAF was founded in 1984 and the name change took place just after construction was completed and just before the beam turned on. Likewise the National Accelerator Laboratory became the Enrico Fermi NAL in 1972 while the lab was under construction. So while laboratory names have changed, it has happened only before data taking had commenced and long before history and reputation had been established.

I wish I could wake up and discover this was only part of a really bad dream.

The Orlando Sentinel (which clearly has a dog in this fight) is reporting that Obama is backing off of plans to cut NASA’s budget. The article is somewhat brief on details, but it seems clear that Obama is now willing to continue shuttle flights until 2010 and to continue the Constellation program (which he was originally going to freeze for 5 years to save money for education).

I’m all for more money for education, but one just can’t stop and restart projects that require major intellectual infrastructure. When highly trained aeronautical engineers are laid off, they’re not necessarily around 5 years later. Re-starting from scratch 5 years later is not cost effective, and may not even be possible after all the relevant expertise has dispersed. In the speech, Obama also acknowledged the mismatch between plans for Constellation and its funding level, and recognized that the disparity has led NASA to cannibalize everything else.

So, it sounds like he’s climbing the NASA learning curve, which can only be seen as good news. He may still ask for changes in NASA’s priorities, but he’s clearly becoming educated on what’s actually feasible. I’m not arguing that NASA necessarily should continue Constellation (since many space-related scientists would love NASA to tilt more towards becoming the NSF in space), but that in previous incarnations of Obama’s space policy, he was clearly talking as someone who didn’t have a detailed understanding of how NASA’s ~17 billion dollar enterprise operates. Now, he does.