Starry, Starry Plight: Obama and the Space Program

Space enthusiasts are watching and listening carefully to find out how President Barack Obama will support NASA during his administration. Earlier this year he gave the space agency a glowing endorsement:

When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. We cannot cede our leadership in space. We need a real vision for space exploration. Let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy.

Before we dive into recent developments, a brief review of NASA under George W. Bush is in order. NASA achieved some laudable feats in the last eight years, notably:

• It greatly expanded the International Space Station (ISS) to add more solar panels, laboratories, and living space (with contributions from other nations, notably Russia and Canada).
• It successfully landed two Mars rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) that have been sending pictures back for 5 years, much longer than originally anticipated.
• It repaired and upgraded the Hubble Space Telescope, which has sent more than half a million images back to Earth.
• It developed the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will take astronauts to the Moon and Mars.
• It launched the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, which has produced sensational images of Mars.

In particular, the string of successful trips to Mars stands in stark contrast to previous missions. Historically most attempts to explore the Red Planet have failed, including one notorious disaster in 1999 caused by a mix-up of measurements made with the metric and English systems.

Yet since the achievements of the Apollo program that landed astronauts on the Moon, there hasn’t been a program that has evoked the same widespread level of interest here and abroad. Indeed in March President Obama made reference to this in an answer to a reporter’s question about the shuttle program

NASA has yielded — or the space shuttle program has yielded some extraordinary scientific discoveries. But I think it’s fair to say that there’s been a sense of drift to our space program over the last several years. We need to restore that sense of excitement and interest that existed around the space program. And shaping a mission for NASA that is appropriate for the 21st century is going to be one of the biggest tasks of my new NASA director.

Sadly as of this writing, The White House’s Technology Page does not include any mention of the space program. Obama has not yet appointed a new NASA administrator, though rumors have been circulating this year about the possible pick of astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson. Anyone who has seen Tyson on PBS’s NOVA scienceNOW cannot deny his charisma and enthusiasm for astronomy and space exploration. Tyson is currently the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York and is famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) for advocating the demotion of Pluto from a planet to a “dwarf planet.”

Financial support for NASA remains strong despite the severe worldwide recession. The fiscal year 2010 budget of $18.7 billion is $2.4 billion above the 2008 amount. The first priority listed in their budget summary is climate change monitoring and research. President Obama has repeatedly mentioned addressing global warming as a top issue, as noted in my last article.

NASA scientist James Hansen continues to be a fierce advocate for action to combat global warming. In 2006 he complained that the Bush Administration was trying to silence his dire warnings for political reasons. In December 2008, James Hansen and his wife Anniek Hansen sent an open letter to then President-Elect Obama (and his wife Michelle Obama) urging him to phase out traditional polluting coal plants, support an aggressive carbon tax plan, and encourage R&D of modern nuclear power plants.

Many people are sad to see the end of the successful space shuttle program, currently scheduled for 2010. If and when the shuttle program is canceled, Florida residents may bear the brunt of the employment fallout with 8,000 or more jobs on the line. However a congressman and congresswoman from Florida have introduced legislation to keep the shuttle program alive a bit longer.

The new Orion spacecraft and companion Ares Launch Vehicles are presently in the testing phase. NASA expects to fly the first missions in 2014 or 2015, leaving us with at least a four-year gap in the government’s space transportation system. (Private companies will carry supplies to the ISS, and the Russian Soyuz will be used to rotate crews.)

The James Web Space Telescope (JWST), often described as the successor to Hubble, is currently in development and expected to be deployed in 2013. NASA intends to keep Hubble in operation until at least that time, to avoid any interruption in data collection. JWST is substantially larger than Hubble, though lower in mass. Hubble detects light in the optical and ultraviolet ranges, and can be repaired in space, while JWST will collect data only from infrared light. Nevertheless, JWST will allow scientists to peer substantially further back into the distant past, closer to the origin of the universe.

There have been reports that Obama might combine some space programs from NASA and the Pentagon. The Pentagon’s space budget is significantly higher than NASA’s total budget, and some observers wonder whether the space vehicle gap might be filled in by the military. The merger discussions have been fueled by the fear that China has strong military intentions for its own space program.

While the U.S. must be mindful of threats to our security from other nations, a strong militarization of NASA would be an unfortunate turn of events. NASA was founded during the Eisenhower Administration to conduct non-military space activities. Obviously there is already significant overlap in personnel, and technology flows in both directions. But it would be very sad if NASA becomes distracted or subverted by security issues.

Other controversies still brewing include:

• Arguments about whether robots or humans should be sent to the Moon, Mars, and elsewhere.
• Whether we should ever bother going back to the Moon.
• Calls for President Obama to fire NASA’s inspector general Robert Cobb — a recent New York Times editorial accused him of being unethical and ineffectual.
• How much we should cooperate with other nations’ space programs.
• An oldie but a goodie–whether NASA should even exist given all the problems we have to solve on Earth.

Despite the criticisms and controversies, the space program is a vital part of our national identity. It has inspired generations of students young and old, capturing their imagination like nothing else. The dream of human flight and exploration will not go away as long as birds take wing and stars and planets twinkle. NASA must survive and thrive during Obama’s time in office, so we may continue to watch over our pale blue dot from space and keep looking at the stars.

(Thanks to Michael Conway for suggesting the title of this article.)

The White House Science Agenda, So Far

A few minutes into President Obama’s inaugural speech, he highlighted the importance of science to our nation:

“For everywhere we look, there is work to be done. The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift. And we will act, not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We’ll restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do. All this we will do.”
(emphasis added)

Nevertheless, the first thing I noticed upon visiting the White House Web site was the absence of Science from the Agenda menu on the home page. They do however list a link to their Technology page on that menu, and thankfully some scientific issues are listed there.

Regardless of how the White House organizes their Web site, many of us are breathing a sigh of relief – and not just because President Obama presumably cares about the environment and will work to make the air cleaner. On a wide range of issues, citizens may now expect a return to sensible public discourse that places science and rational thought above political ideology and pseudo-science. No longer will we be held hostage by George W. Bush’s willful ignorance of life-threatening issues (recall that it took five years for the former president to acknowledge that “America is addicted to oil”). While we will have to rely on Congress to create substantive legislation, President  Obama has certainly set the right tone for better living through science.

In the three months since the inauguration, several important topics have gained attention. Global warming and stem cell research are two issues many people are concerned about, and we have already seen the new administration act decisively on these fronts.

President Obama recently announced an international summit, to be held at the end of this month, to coordinate action to address global warming. Representatives of 16 countries (each G20 members) are expected to attend the “Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate.” The forum is in advance of the United Nations’ Climate Change Convention, which will be held in Copenhagen in December.

Obama frequently mentions global warming as a top issue, including during the presidential campaign and in numerous public appearances and official statements. He signed a memorandum in January requiring the Transportation Department to work with the EPA to enforce the average fuel efficiency standard of 35 miles per gallon for all cars and light trucks (a category that includes SUVs). In February the president signed another memorandum that forces the Department of Energy to establish efficiency standards for consumer and commercial appliances according to previously passed federal laws. These are very important steps considering that increasing efficiency is the quickest and most cost-effective way for Americans to reduce energy usage and the related greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

These clear actions and statements from the president in the earliest days of his tenure are a very encouraging sign of his commitment to reducing the threat of undesired climate changes. It remains to be seen whether government agencies, manufacturers, and the public will work together to rise to the challenge of increasing energy efficiency.

Regarding stem cell research, in March Obama issued an Executive Order that permits scientists to finally work without fear of restrictions by the federal government. Specifically, the order revoked the rules created in 2001 by former President Bush, which prohibited federal funding for embryonic stem cell research and restricted the techniques available to researchers. While research was hampered in the U.S. for eight years, several other countries continued their work, threatening to undermine our progress and competitiveness in this field. Stem cell research is one of the most promising frontiers in biology, and many experts believe that there will be many potential tremendous benefits in curing a wide variety of ailments and genetic diseases.

Other items currently on the administration’s technology laundry list include:

• Ensuring open internet and media, including net neutrality;
• Creating a modern communications infrastructure, with broadband availability virtually everywhere in the country;
• Increasing America’s competitiveness through trade, tax credits, and direct investment in science;
• Fostering entrepreneurial ventures;
• Protecting intellectual property rights;
• Improving science and math education;
• Increasing the use of science and technology to solve national problems;
• Lowering health care costs and improving quality through improved information systems;
• Investing more in renewable energy research and development; and
• Advancing health through biomedical research.

As you can see, this is quite a long and ambitious list. President Obama has said that he expects us to work together with him on the many issues that he highlighted during the campaign and in his presidency so far. Given the country’s many significant challenges outside the realm of science and technology, hopefully we will be able to make meaningful progress in at least some of these areas.

The Fruit Fly Dilemma: Palin’s War on Science

It looks like Sarah Palin has a new enemy in her war on science: a fruit fly.

In Pittsburgh on Friday, Governor Palin, in trying to play the role of “super maverick earmark destroyer,” accidentally tapped into a few of my wedge issues. In a speech to a small crowd, she talked about her son, Trig, born with Down syndrome, discussing him in relation to private school vouchers and earmarks for research that she claims draw funding away from educating children with special needs.

Palin’s constant denial of scientific fact and her willingness to disregard the need for greater scientific inquiry are perhaps even scarier and even more confusing than the “VOTE!” scarf with the donkeys plastered all over it, worn at a rally last week. It’s one thing when she takes the party-line stance against embryonic stem cell research or the disregard that global warming really exists. It’s another thing when she makes the outrageous claim that funding research – particularly on fruit flies – draws money away from special needs education, an issue in which she actually has a direct stake.

For the unfamiliar, Drosophila melanogaster, more commonly known as the fruit fly, are commonly used as a tool to study genetics. They are an ideal tool for such research because they are easily cultured, reproduce prodigiously, have readily available mutants for study, and because much is known about their genome. We use them to study gene transmission patterns and disease processes, and last year, to build a link between a specific protein and autism. This protein, neurexin, is needed to create functioning neural connections; when defective in humans, it can be a genetic risk factor for autism.

This is a clear-cut example in which Palin’s anti-science rhetoric counteracts the causes she claims to fight for. It also emphasizes further her resistance toward policies that will provide solutions to problems that afflict Americans. We fund research in this country by grants. The process is slow, time-consuming, and often frustrating, but it also is often the only way to obtain funding without being forced to seek aid from the private sector.

Cutting earmark funding of research would be disastrous to the forces of scientific innovation and could prove devastating to an economy that desperately needs to locate “the next big industry.” How do we find the best solution for alternative fuel if the only scientists who can afford to do the research work for Exxon-Mobile and BP? In the mean time, who is going to work out better, cleaner ways of extracting materials that we need to use while we roll out green technology? Who will make sure that medical research is creating new solutions to problems we can’t answer yet? Who will make sure that scientists can perform research that, while not ultimately profitable, will benefit society more than another new pill that can provide relief against erectile dysfunction? Earmarks in research provide a way to ensure that funding is provided to study very specific questions that might otherwise not be addressed.

Just for fun, I downloaded the “Big Kahuna” list of 2008 Congressional earmarks. I read the whole thing – less fun. I won’t deny that some of our money is being used for some pretty strange and perhaps inappropriate things. More than a few items, though, have goals oriented at treating chronic conditions and serious problems. For example, finding ways to measure blood glucose without a needle stick could lead to greater compliance in millions of patients with poorly-controlled diabetes, which could save billions of dollars in health care costs. Aquaculture research helps us better understand how to achieve sustainable, safe seafood supplies. Plenty of the earmarks that Palin rallies so hard against – dear Drosophila notwithstanding – provide funding for projects that aim to help the disabled through the funding of educational initiatives and building renovations.

I won’t pretend to think that the system is perfect where it stands now. But I don’t think that the solution is as simple as Governor Palin would like for it to be, and I don’t think that science is the enemy in budget earmarks, when there are still so many Bridges to Nowhere that account for much greater percentages of earmark spending. And while I agree fundamentally with Palin that more needs to be done to ensure the well-being of disabled Americans, her anti-science sensibilities prevent her from understanding that funding science can be a tool to carry us forward, by allowing scientists to seek innovative answers to the problems we face.

McCain Takes on DMCA

The McCain campaign has appealed a decision by Google’s YouTube to remove political ads which it had been reported in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. YouTube has been at the center of a political firestorm regarding copyright standards and responded to the appeal in kind.

Based upon removal requests under the DMCA, YouTube has a policy of instantly removing the content in question, while allowing for a 10 day review or appeal time frame. What is unique about this case is that the material is particularly timely in the context of a rapidly winding down presidential campaign. While the campaign has run a number of ads featuring video clips from news organizations, which have been accepted as television ads, they were rejected on the YouTube platform.

While the McCain campaign might have been seeking to maximize the reach of their advertising, they have implicitly taken a policy position that puts them in a precarious position at the center of a heated debate. The bottom line is that our copyright laws were written for an era when digital distribution was considered “on the horizon” – well, the horizon is here and digital is mainstream, so it’s about time that we took a serious look at a new paradigm for content protection and distribution.