• Where have we seen this before? A President’s Guide to Science, in video form.

• A holy union of incentives and science: A car key that disables cell phones when the car is in use.

• Will the hordes of laid-off techies be driven to crime?

• All this carbon offsetting and greening is nice and all, but the elephant in the room is still coal.

• Any chemists want to weigh in on what type of drugs can be manufactured at home?

• When Madoff strikes, no sustainable food business is safe.

• And finally, the perfect Christmas medley: electronics meets art meets taut consumerist criticism.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? The DISCOVER Science Policy Project gave a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. Today, renowned biotechnology innovator David Hirsh offers his advice for the coming administration. All past responses can be found here.

DAVID HIRSH
Executive Vice President for Research, Columbia University

First, there needs to be a redirection of funding to invest in fundamental discovery science—the applications will follow—especially in the areas of energy, “big physics,” the mind/brain and evolution.

Second, investment in people is essential. We need to offer better salaries and support for researchers, particularly in the early stages of their scientific careers. We also need to ease immigration restrictions to allow foreigners to resume coming to America for their science training.

Third, help cure the endemic science illiteracy in the U.S. by bolstering science education across the entire system—kindergarten through twelfth grade and beyond—and into the popular culture.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? The DISCOVER Science Policy Project gave a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. Today, renowned theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss offers an essay outlining his advice for the coming administration. All past responses can be found here.

LAWRENCE KRAUSS
Theoretical physicist

Memo to the Next President:

“Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard P. Feynman

Eighteen years ago, the former President of the United States, George H. W. Bush, addressed the National Academy of Sciences, stating:

“Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.”

It is hard to find a better statement of what the relationship between science and public policy should be. Science should be a tool to help policymakers understand the world as it is, and as it might be. Science itself doesn’t tell us to how to best organize our society to maximize opportunity and happiness, but it can help inform our decision-making.

The results of scientific inquiry are themselves neither good, nor bad, though science does have an ethos. That ethos involves honesty, integrity, and full disclosure. As the Nobel prizewinning physicist Richard Feynman said,

“The only way to have real success in science…is to describe the evidence very carefully without regard to the way you feel it should be. If you have a theory, you must try to explain what’s good about it, and what’s bad about it equally. In science you learn a sort of standard integrity and honesty.”

That characteristic, the fact that one must be willing to examine all the data, both good and bad, before developing conclusions is something that should carry over directly to public policy, however. Too often those in government are tempted to seek out those data that support their policies. But when this is done as justification for enacting legislation, the results are bound to be similar to the results of an experiment based on a bad theory. Democracy flourishes when there are informed legislators and an informed electorate. This means that our government will function best when the results of scientific inquiry are made freely and openly available to both the voters and those they entrust with their governance.

There is another facet of science that lends itself well to democracy, and perhaps that is one reason why it has tended to flourish in democratic societies. That is anti-authoritarianism. There are no scientific authorities. There are scientific experts, but there should be no authority figures whose statements are not subject to question by anyone. For government to function well, the same sense of openness needs to pervade all public activity. People must not be castigated for asking “why”, even if they may appear to be questioning one of our most cherished notions.

That brings up another of the great values of science. Science generally functions by unambiguously determining what is wrong, not what is right. Nature tells us what is wrong by explicitly singling out those ideas that do not agree with the results of repeated experimentation. Ultimately the correct ideas are harder to pin down. Even those models that appear to pass the test of experiment need to continually be checked against data to see if they need to be refined. But by keeping those things that work and discarding those that don’t, we eventually get closer to truth.

It is in this way, by distinguishing incorrect ideas and discarding them, that science has produced the progress it has over the past 400 years. And the process produces a truly open mind. One of the greatest experiences scientists, indeed anyone, can have, is to have some truly and deeply cherished idea proved wrong by the evidence of reality, for only in this way can we learn to look beyond our a priori prejudices and be willing to judge the world for the way it is, not the way one would have liked it to be.

Rational public policy should also be based in this way upon empirical evidence. Those ideas that fail the test of experiment should be abandoned, even if they conform to our personal moral inclinations. For example, we currently spend over $200 million dollars/year in this country on abstinence-only sex education for our children, in spite of the fact that scientific studies have demonstrated (the most recent 10 year study appeared in April of 2007) that this is not the most effective form of sex education. If we are truly interested in reducing unwanted pregnancies and the abortions that often accompany them, as well as the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, all of which are on the rise in this country, we need to focus on programs that work, not programs that we wish would work.

No one would argue with the need for a moral public policy. But moral choices should be grounded in the real world. Every one of us has a priori beliefs of what is right and what is wrong. But as President you must be willing to learn from experience, including the experience of the scientific community. When you find out your prejudices do not conform to reality, you must be prepared to do what is politically so difficult to do: to admit you were wrong and act accordingly.

Next, one of the most important and at the same time one of the most misunderstood aspects of science that is particularly relevant for its impact upon policy is this: Science does not provide just merely another story about the world. It is a story with logical consequences. Choosing to accept some aspects of the story but not others is logically inconsistent, and policies that result from such inconsistency will be flawed. For example, as much as you may not wish to alienate those who feel that their religious beliefs require them claim that the world is 6000 years old, it is vitally important to realize that a 6000 year-old earth is in conflict with everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, geology, and astronomy. Such a belief is inconsistent with boarding Air Force One and expecting it to fly. The same laws apply in one case as in the other.

You as President must support tolerance for individual sensibilities, religious or otherwise. But when people’s beliefs are inconsistent with what science has told us about the world, you must have the courage to lead rationally, and the communication skills to help carry the nation along with you.

Finally, I would be remiss if I did not mention the greatest challenge to peace that science has created for any President: a world full of nuclear weapons. While science created these threats to civilization, rational thinking based on empirical realities can perhaps lead us to a world that is not held hostage to them.

Whatever your views on nuclear weapons, I urge you to consider courageous unilateral actions that can alter the present course toward greater proliferation of these awful weapons.

Sixty years ago, after nuclear weapons were first used in war, Albert Einstein said, “everything has changed, save our way of thinking.” You have the opportunity, as President, to finally lead such a change. It may be the most important thing you can accomplish for peace and security throughout the world.

I wish you the best success and the wisdom to once again restore the relationship between science and public policy to its rightful place in government.

Sincerely,

Lawrence M. Krauss

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

WALTER WILLETT
Epidemiologist and nutrition expert

Support more research on alternative, sustainable energy sources, transportation, and food production. In the long run, this is crucial for the quality of life of Americans.

Commit more research funding to translation of existing knowledge into practice. We know what should be done to prevent most of the major diseases that burden our population, but we often don’t know how to do this most effectively or efficiently.

For example, we know that our children need to be more physically active and eat more fruits and vegetables, but we don’t the most effective ways to translate this knowledge into behavior.

Restore funding for research. This has been declining in recent years in terms of real dollars, at a time when the rest of the world is ramping up their research investment. Science is one of the few areas where the U.S. has had world leadership, and we are at risk of losing this.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

ALAN STERN
Planetary science researcher, former Associate Administrator of NASA

Set an integrally scientific and technological course forward. Mr. President, challenge the nation to lead the world and show by example how science and technology can transform the twenty-first century as deeply and successfully as it transformed the 20th century.

Act as an evangelist for a more scientifically literate public that is better able to evaluate issues such as global change, technology solutions to energy policy, evolution, and gene therapies. Too often our society devalues scientific literacy in the public. Yet with the wide array of public policy issues demanding scientific and technological solutions, our leaders must encourage a broader scientific literacy.

Spark new growth in America’s scientific and technical workforce. America is not training enough engineers and scientists. Mr. President: Fuel the nation’s future by doubling the army of scientists, engineers, and other tech workers who can be deployed to invent and deploy twenty-first century solutions to twenty-first century problems.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

WALTER BENDER
Former executive director of the MIT Media Lab

Promote more risk-taking within government funding agencies: Industry has all but given up on research of any kind except marketing research, and for the most part, universities are slipping into a mode of incrementalism, because that is the safest way to secure funding.

Specifically, I’d increase the discretionary programs 1,000 fold. As with any enterprise, the government (management) should set clear goals, but the means to achieve those goals should be left to the “intelligence in the leaves.”

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

STEVEN NISSEN
Cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, innovator

Restore funding at the National Institute of Health. For many years, the NIH budget has remained essentially flat. This means that, in inflation adjusted dollars, actual expenditures have decreased.

Avoid government intrusions on the academic independence of scientists.

NASA’s leading climate scientist, James E. Hansen, was repeatedly prevented from speaking out about the problem of global warming. Censorship for political purposes is antithetical to good science and must be scrupulously avoided in the new administration.

Consider major new initiatives to promote breakthrough advances in science and engineering, analogous to the current $10 million “X-prize” that will be awarded to the first team that demonstrates a practical automobile that can achieve 100 mpg.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

DANIEL HILLIS
Computer scientist, inventor, and author

Look at any list of the most important “American” scientific accomplishments and you will see that they are in large part the accomplishments of immigrants. Our strength in science and technology is, and always has been, based on our willingness to welcome and support scientists from other nations. We need a president who will lead us back to our historical position of openness and generosity.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

PETER SINGER
Bioethicist

Free up scientific research on stem cells by revoking Bush’s restriction of research to stem cell lines that were created before his speech in August 2001. It was never defensible to give more protection to embryos consisting of a few cells than we give to sentient beings like dogs and chimpanzees. In any case, thanks to advances in science, the potential for creating a new human life now exists in almost every cell in our body.

Step up research on issues related to climate change, including ways of reducing the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions, developing solar energy, and assisting poorer nations to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Follow the lead of the Gates Foundation and direct more of the nation’s medical research budget into areas where it will do the most to help those who need help most, wherever in the world they may live.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

ANN DRUYAN
Author and co-founder and CEO of Cosmos Studios

Appoint a scientist of impeccable independence, inter-disciplinary expertise and vision who knows how to connect with the public as the President’s “Science Advisor.” Elevate the position to cabinet status and insure regular access to the President and to the public. (Is it too much to hope that a society completely dependent on science and high technology might have at least one person who really knows science at the highest decision-making level in the government?)

Add a couple of zeros to budgets for “pure” research. Even a glancing familiarity with the history of science will affirm that the most profound and fruitful discoveries are often an unanticipated result of scientific investigation.

Revolutionize the teaching of science by de-compartmentalizing it. Do away with the forty minutes of boring torture several days a week. Humans learn best through stories. Tell the dramatic tales of courage and integrity that comprise much of the history of science. These stories memorably convey the fundamental scientific insights that are at the heart of our civilization. Invite children in the earliest grades to join the generations of searchers.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

DAVID BRIN
Science fiction author and futurist

Restore the independent scientific panels that used to advise Congress on scientific and technological matters.

Going much further, let each member of Congress select one scientifically or technologically qualified person, to serve both as an adviser and as his or her representative on a “shadow scientific Congress” to thrash out complex matters of fact—so that Congress itself can concentrate on policy solutions.

While pushing for better science education and more research funding, don’t forget the rising trend of the twenty-first century—amateur science. More and more fields of professional research have found use for part-timers, who are sometimes knowledgeable, skilled and surprisingly well equipped. This trend will advance with or without encouragement from government or academe. Some investment should be given to endeavors like the Society of Amateur Scientists.

Develop trust building tools…methods for assessing risk and reducing unpleasant consequences, so that we again become a people willing to take on big and daring projects.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

BUZZ ALDRIN
Astronaut

Commit to an expansion of federal funding for all U.S. federal scientific research (at least a 50 percent increase).

Elevate the president’s science adviser to report directly to the president (not the chief of staff) and make the Office of Science Technology Policy a cabinet rank, overseen by the science adviser.

Commit to a long term and stable federally funded program of exploration of space including manned exploration and settlement of the solar system and robotic exploration of the universe.

What are the three most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to state their views. All past responses can be found here.

JAY KEASLING
Genetic engineering pioneer

Significantly increase funding for energy. As a nation, we spend far too little on energy research. If we spent on energy research at a level comparable to what we spend on health care research (relative to the size of the industries), we would be spending much more than we currently spend.

Invest heavily in basic research. Basic research fuels discoveries, which eventually fuel the economy.

Consider immigration policy for scientists and engineers. As a nation, we train far too few and make it very difficult for foreign trained scientists and engineers to work in this country. Furthermore, our immigration policy makes it difficult for foreign students to attend U.S. universities. [Education] is one of our strongest industries.

What are the most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to respond to the following question:

What are the three most important things the next president can do to positively impact scientific research in the United States?

In the November issue of DISCOVER, we compile and analyze the results. In the meantime, we will be posting each response in its entirety here on Reality Base. Feel free to offer your own ideas and analysis in the comments section. All past responses can be found here.

CRAIG BARRETT
Chairman of the Board of Intel Corp.

Get serious about fixing our K-12 education crises. Today, the average American high school graduate is weak in the basics of math and science when compared to his or her international peers. We need more well-trained math and science teachers, we need higher expectations for performance, and we need to put competition into the system to counter the vested interests of the educational establishment.

Basic R&D is the backbone of future economic growth. Dramatically increase NSF funding (double it within a few years). I would not try to pick between winners and losers re: technology investment, but would continue to support peer-based refereed research proposals. Leave the current system alone—just increase the funding level and let our bright researchers in the engineering and biotech areas explore new frontiers. There is nothing wrong with our universities—they are still the best in the world, we just need to fund them at a competitive level.

Structure an immigration policy to attract and retain the brightest researchers in the world. This means structuring investment and R&D tax credits to promote investments in innovation, it means a corporate tax policy that promotes investment in the U.S. and does not drive investment to other lower tax environments, and it means simplifying our intellectual property rules, streamlining our export rules, and continuing our free trade philosophy to promote growth of our local industries.

What are the most important things the next U.S. president needs to do for science? To cut through the jargon and find an answer, we bring you the DISCOVER Science Policy Project, in which we give a group of the country’s most celebrated scientists and thinkers the chance to respond to the following question:

What are the three most important things the next president can do to positively impact scientific research in the United States?

In the November issue of DISCOVER, we compile and analyze the results. In the meantime, we will be posting each response in its entirety here on Reality Base. Today’s entry is by C. Everett Koop, the former U.S. Surgeon General and founder of the C. Everett Koop Institute. Feel free to offer your own ideas and analysis in the comments section. All past responses can be found here.

C. EVERETT KOOP
Former U.S. Surgeon General

Appoint the next surgeon general with an eye to scientific and medical prowess, rather than make it a political appointment. There are 55 Assistant Surgeons General and these could be divided into task forces to serve the president in any way he wishes. These officers represent more than a dozen specialty fields in science and medicine.

Give the Surgeon General’s office and the office of the State and Territorial Health Officers a joint grant making it possible to set up under academic auspices in several state’s lecture programs to hear both sides of any argument such as the use of stem cells in the broadest sense.

Appoint an extraordinary individual who could serve as medical and scientific advisor to the president.