<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Science and Technology Is the Answer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/science-and-technology-is-the-answer/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/science-and-technology-is-the-answer/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Oleson</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/science-and-technology-is-the-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-37</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Oleson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Oct 2007 06:50:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/science-and-technology-is-the-answer/#comment-37</guid>
		<description>By interesting coincidence, on the same day that Science Progress was announced, the National Security Space Office released a report on the economic feasibility of space-based solar power. Space-based solar power offers the possibility of providing large amounts of clean and inexhaustible baseload electric power with even less environmental impact than ground-based solar power. Documents are available here:

http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SBSPreport.html

This idea has been kicking around for over three decades. It was technically feasible from the beginning, but only recently have a variety of technologies developed to the point where we now may have economic feasibility in sight. As we are squeezed between humanity’s growing need for energy and the threats of ecological disaster and wars over oil, we need every new source of clean energy we can get.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By interesting coincidence, on the same day that Science Progress was announced, the National Security Space Office released a report on the economic feasibility of space-based solar power. Space-based solar power offers the possibility of providing large amounts of clean and inexhaustible baseload electric power with even less environmental impact than ground-based solar power. Documents are available here:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SBSPreport.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.space-frontier.org/Presentations/SBSPreport.html</a></p>
<p>This idea has been kicking around for over three decades. It was technically feasible from the beginning, but only recently have a variety of technologies developed to the point where we now may have economic feasibility in sight. As we are squeezed between humanity’s growing need for energy and the threats of ecological disaster and wars over oil, we need every new source of clean energy we can get.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Asa</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2007/10/science-and-technology-is-the-answer/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>Asa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:09:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/2007/10/science-and-technology-is-the-answer/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>&quot;To do that, we need to make science and technology the fourth leg of government policy, supplementing the other three legs of tax, fiscal, and regulatory policy.&quot;

This sounds great, but then the examples given can all be assigned to one of the existing three legs -- a carbon tax, increased targeted investment, changed immigration regulations, etc.  While I agree wholeheartedly with the policy proposals in the piece, and wish a bright future for policy aimed at science and technology, I&#039;d love to see a cohesive argument that this is different from adding a (well-planned and coordinated!) S&amp;T direction to each of the existing three legs.  

As a potential future science &amp; technology policy wonk, I&#039;d be very excited to build this fourth leg, if I could figure out what is new about it and that it&#039;s worth building.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;To do that, we need to make science and technology the fourth leg of government policy, supplementing the other three legs of tax, fiscal, and regulatory policy.&#8221;</p>
<p>This sounds great, but then the examples given can all be assigned to one of the existing three legs &#8212; a carbon tax, increased targeted investment, changed immigration regulations, etc.  While I agree wholeheartedly with the policy proposals in the piece, and wish a bright future for policy aimed at science and technology, I&#8217;d love to see a cohesive argument that this is different from adding a (well-planned and coordinated!) S&amp;T direction to each of the existing three legs.  </p>
<p>As a potential future science &amp; technology policy wonk, I&#8217;d be very excited to build this fourth leg, if I could figure out what is new about it and that it&#8217;s worth building.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

