At issue is a chapter of the 1977 textbook Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, for which Holdren was the third author with environmental activists Paul and Anne Ehrlich. First of all, FoxNews gets the name of the man in question wrong in the opening line of the story, claiming the President’s science adviser is “Paul Holdren,” and referring to him as a “science czar,” a title suggesting that he was appointed without Congressional oversight. But after he testified before the Commerce, Science and Transportation committee, the Senate voted unanimously to confirm John Holdren as director of OSTP.

Mooney also pointed out that FoxNews commentator Sean Hannity is confused about how Holdren came to his post, claiming on air that “[Obama has] skirted the Senate confirmation process and has empowered individuals to see major offices now within the federal government, many of whom operate only under the supervision of the White House itself.” Again, for the benefit of the Fox researchers, here’s the video of the Senate testimony.

In Ecoscience, Holdren and the Ehrlichs explain that their section on overpopulation offers an overview of population control measures suggested by other writers, and some of these are extreme and coercive, including forced abortions and sterilization. But the text makes clear that Holdren does not support these measures, referring to the “obvious moral objections” on page 787 of the book. (Helpfully, Fox provides a .pdf of this very section.)

More importantly, Holdren stated during the Senate hearing that he does not support or endorse these ideas. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) asked him: “You think determining optimal population is a proper role of government?” to which Holdren replied: “No, Senator, I do not.” The exchange begins at 122:30 here; transcript here. As well, three months passed between the President’s announcement that he intended to nominate Holdren and the hearing itself—ample time to investigate his past and raise any salient concerns.

Mooney goes on in refuting the current criticism:

But wait, you may be wondering: How do I know that the Ehrlichs are right about the their 1977 text, and not the conservatives? Well, because I walked over to the Engineering Library on the Princeton University campus, where I’m located, and got the book. And I can see how one could misread a text this old—from such a different time. But nevertheless, the criticism of Holdren today on this basis is exceedingly thin and stretched. The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either. Couldn’t we talk about something that’s actually important and contemporary?

Here’s one suggestion for an important and contemporary science policy issue in OSTP’s portfolio: the recently released administration report on how climate change is already threatening the health and livelihoods of Americans across the country. Maybe Fox could consider 1300 words on the implications of that text.

Image: flickr.com/nationalacademyofsciences

On Fox News on Monday, Sean Hannity inaugurated a series looking at Obama’s policy “czars,” describing them as “a select group of unvetted, unconfirmed individuals who are now at the helm of a shadow government right here in the U.S.” His first example was Holdren—a very poor choice, as it happens, as Holdren was indeed confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.  “[Obama has] skirted the Senate confirmation process and has empowered individuals to see major offices now within the federal government, many of whom operate only under the supervision of the White House itself,” bleated Hannity. Who does his research?

Hannity then went on to describe Holdren as a “radical” and intone that he’s anti-American, wants to shut down our economy, and so on. But that’s really nothing compared to the other attacks that have surfaced online of late—and that have now made their way into the right wing Washington Times.

In 1977, more than thirty years ago, Holdren was the third author (with Paul and Anne Ehrlich) of a textbook entitled Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. It was a gigantic tome, fully 1,051 pages in length. In one vast 66 page chapter devoted to “Population Policies,” the authors surveyed a gamut of measures that had been undertaken or considered to control human population growth—including the most extreme. Those included coercive or “involuntary fertility control” measures, such as forced abortions and sterilizations.

However, to describe these measures is different from advocating them. And in fact, the Ehrlichs and Holdren concluded by arguing that noncoercive measures were what they suppported: “A far better choice, in our view, is to expand the use of milder methods of influencing family size preferences”—such as birth control and access to abortions. In fairness, their text does read as dated today, ripe for quote mining. They were writing in very different times thirty years ago; but even if they were defending these positions then (and they weren’t), that hardly means that they do today.

But you may as well forget about context—historical or textual—when dealing with attack dogs. A website called Zombietime scanned passages of the textbook online, and intoned, “Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A ‘Planetary Regime’ with the power of life and death over American citizens. The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States?” The information zinged around, and eventually made its way to the Washington Times, which wrote of Ecoscience: “Several selections from the book have been highlighted at blogs critical of Mr. Holdren, particularly passages that appear to advocate sterilization, forced abortions and consideration of an ‘armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force’ for population enforcement capabilities.”

Only at the end of an article insinuating that these were Holdren’s positions did the Times actually quote the staff of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, which then refuted all the claims.

Paul and Anne Ehrlich have also refuted the charges—they sent out an email observing that “We were not then, never have been, and are not now ‘advocates’ of the Draconian measures for population limitation described—but not recommended—in the book’s 60-plus small-type pages cataloging the full spectrum of population policies that, at the time, had either been tried in some country or analyzed by some commentator.” In his Senate confirmation hearing—yes, Fox, there was one—Holdren also rejected the idea that he supports government-mandated efforts at population control.

But wait, you may be wondering: How do I know that the Ehrlichs are right about the their 1977 text, and not the conservatives? Well, because I walked over to the Engineering Library on the Princeton University campus, where I’m located, and got the book. And I can see how one could misread a text this old—from such a different time. But nevertheless, the criticism of Holdren today on this basis is exceedingly thin and stretched. The book is three decades old; Holdren isn’t its first author; it takes a stance against such policies; and neither Holdren nor the Ehrlichs support these policies today, either. Couldn’t we talk about something that’s actually important and contemporary?

Holdren was just inducted as a foreign member of the British Royal Society—a huge honor. Oh, and he and other top Obama policymakers just released a critically important report on the impacts of climate change on the United States. Don’t expect Fox News segments on the importance of the latter.

Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”

ScienceInsider
Holdren discusses the tension between stimulus reporting and the need for productive research, and says he is in dialogue with OMB about how to get this right. The director also reported that he has direct access to the president and has met with him on several occasions. He also talks nukes, NOAA, NASA, and collaboration across agencies.

Nature
In the first response here, Holdren articulates the importance of science for addressing issues in economic recovery, climate and energy, health, and security—key pillars of progressive policy. He also explains that he attends senior staff meetings every morning. Again, he emphasizes access to the president, saying of Obama: “He is deeply interested in the science itself. This guy is extraordinary in his capacity to absorb and integrate and synthesize complicated information. His questions are extraordinary.” Holdren also explains the need to go to the Copenhagen climate change talks with a clear plan. Also covers NASA and nukes.

He says he needs help from scientists everywhere on all the matters OSTP touches: “I also think the wider community has a huge role to play in the education of the public and policymakers about the role of science and technology. I can’t do that by myself.”

Washington Post
The focus here is on cap-and-trade, leading with the question of whether an initial climate plan plan would auction all carbon credits or provide some to industries to ease the transition to a clean-energy economy. The matter is still under discussion.

Associated Press
Here Holdren’s comments regarding geoengineering are front and center. The issue, he says, has at least been raised in administration meetings. But as OSTP later made clear to ScienceInsider, the administration is focusing on the trasition to a clean energy economy the creates jobs and improves competativeness. Andrew Maynard looks at the ethics of geoengineering; Chris Mooney is surprised it came up at all; and The Guardian emphasized this is not a priority matter.

QED: In only nine months Rick has had a tremendous impact on SP and throughout the organization. Considering his tough-minded reputation, Rick immediately took the public impression of Science Progress‘s serious intent to the next level. He has, as expected, written smart and insightful columns on topics like stem cell policy and biodiversity. Over the next few weeks our SP-based anthology, Science Next, will appear in bookstores. He has also had a less visible but equally important influence on the ongoing dialogue at CAP about science and public policy. From my point of view, Rick has lent his stature to the argument we have made when the very idea of Science Progress was germinating at CAP, that progressivism and science are deeply related and that that relationship will help to write the American future, as it has our past.

Rick now takes his leave for a position in the Obama administration, in the Office of Science and Technology Policy. There is simply no one in the country more qualified to convey the president’s science policy to the American people, nor to help the president craft policy in light of the best evidence. It is hard to lose a colleague who is so smart, so generous with his time and ideas, and so much fun. But we are all damn lucky that he’s going to work for us. Rick, as they used to say in the wires…

-30-

Despite several previous holds on the nominations, the LA Times reports that the vote was unanimous. Lubchenco also spoke to the restoration of evidence to the policymaking process:

“There will be no muzzling or muffling or distortion of science, or delays in science in this administration,” Lubchenco said. The best available science will guide policy decisions, she said, and discoveries or updates will be shared “whether they meet our preconceived ideas or meet our agenda.”

In a video address posted on the OSTP home page, Holdren talks about the current pressing national problems and says: “science and technology are crucial tools for dealing with theses challenges, and indeed for turning many of them into oppoutnites.”

It suffices to say that getting Holdren and Lubchenco into those posts would be good for the health of the planet.

Although the President’s cabinet formally consists of 15 department heads, President Obama has the authority to elevate other executives to that level for the duration of his administration. The last time the director of OSTP was a cabinet-level official was in the Clinton White House. [Clarification: Under Clinton, the science adviser was not an official cabinet post, but did have access to cabinet meetings and information. -Asst. Ed.].  A myriad of organizations have called for this elevation.

Last year, for example, the American Association for the Advancement of Science published an open letter to then-Senator Obama calling for a reinvigorated, cabinet-level science adviser, with 178 scientific societies, associations, universities, companies, and R&D centers signing the letter. The Woodrow Wilson Center’s Foresight and Governance Project also published specific recommendations on how OSTP and the director’s role should be strengthened through the elevation of the OSTP director to a cabinet position.

These recommendations stem, in part, from the role the science adviser has played over the past eight years. OSTP under the Bush administration was widely seen as a weakened entity, allowing the implementation of policies that directly contradicted the views of the vast majority of the scientific community, which watched with dismay as important research and policy in areas such as climate change, embryonic stem cells, and renewable energy were stymied by the conservative policymakers. John Marburger, Bush’s director of OSTP, was complicit in these matters, backing up the White House positions with claims that he could only present advice to the President when all questions about the science have been resolved—yet he ignored overwhelming evidence by world-class scientists on these matters.

As a cabinet-level official, Holdren would have the ability to sit in on and comment at the weekly cabinet meetings, giving voice to science issues at the highest levels of government. The increased access should ease Holdren’s ability to coordinate science policy throughout the executive branch. Yet even with cabinet-level access, science’s role in the Obama White House will depend on three things.

First, Holdren must be savvy in understanding the unique power and processes of the White House in order to get his ideas moved forward and his advice heard. He will need to take a strong stance to advocate for science and be able to pull from his relationships in academia and the private sector as well as his relationships with those closest to the President to pull in the political support for his ideas.

Second, coordinating policy among all of the myriad science agencies in the Executive branch will be no easy task. He must quickly get the lay of the land, and balance OSTP’s leadership on interagency initiatives with regard for agency autonomy and pet projects.

Third, how Holdren structures OSTP will determine its success. Marburger, Holdren’s predecessor, greatly reduced the scope and staff of the office. Multiple science policy experts have called for the re-expansion of the office to four associate directors that sit in close proximity with other White House officials. In the Fall issue of Issues in Science and Technology Policy, one Clinton-era OSTP Assistant Director, Gerald Hane, called for an even bolder move in creating a position of deputy assistant to the president for science, technology, and global affairs.

Holdren’s success will give a strong voice for science in the White House, but he will have his work cut out for him defending governmental research and development funding and U.S. leadership in innovation. After the promising early nomination of Holdren for science adviser, the science community is waiting for further bold action on science, such as lifting the federal ban on embryonic stem cell research. The elevation of OSTP director to a cabinet level would go a long way toward realizing Obama’s inaugural declaration to “restore science to its rightful place.”

Amy Hoang-Wrona is a Senior Policy Analyst at Strategic Analysis, Inc.

Read the full press release from NAS here.

See highlights from Lane’s the keynote at the launch of our first print issue last June:

Read Lane and George Abbey’s recommendations for NASA policy priorities under the new administration: “How to Save the U.S. Space Program”

I’m totally down with that, but first, I’d like to indulge in one final Bush-era diatribe against the longest-ever serving White House science adviser: John Marburger, who has been a poor advocate indeed for the science world.

Seed magazine (my former employer) got an “exit interview” with Marburger just after President Obama’s election, but it was not published until last week. And it’s stunning stuff. Marburger doesn’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with how the Bush administration treated science, in large part because he appears fixated on what one Canadian politician amusingly called the “milk cow–milking machine relationship” between politicians and scientists: So long as scientists get their federal research money, everything’s fine. What a narrow way of conceiving of the relationship between science, politics, and society.

Perhaps Marburger has such an easy time focusing narrowly on science funding levels under Bush (which, incidentally, have failed to keep pace with inflation for four years running) because of his willingness to dismiss other charges against the president without even answering what Bush critics actually say. Let’s go through some examples from the interview:

“His position on stem cells was attacked as a scientific position, when in fact it’s an ethical position…He made federal money available for embryonic stem cell research for the first time.”

Wow. I and many, many others have pointed out that the 2001 Bush stem cell policy was based on scientifically refutable misinformation. The president was wrong about the extent to which his policy would advance (rather than strangle) biomedical research, because he was wrong about the number of embryonic stem cell lines available for federally funded research, and their biomedical potential. This is a matter of fact, not of ethics. But while we’re at it, let’s note that on the question of ethics, the Bush administration was also wrong, and the 2001 policy in fact unethical, because it designated several cell lines as eligible for research that did not meet basic ethics guidelines for informed consent, as Science Progress‘s Rick Weiss has pointed out.

“He was attacked for his position on the Kyoto protocol, despite its serious flaws, and the fact that the Senate had already refused to ratify it…The president has not said that we have to wait until the certainties are resolved before we do something about climate change. He has actually said just the opposite. It is not easy for me to understand how the public discourse can get so off track as to hold that the president says, “Oh, let’s do more research, so we don’t have to take any action.”

Allow me to quote George W. Bush on climate change, circa 2006: “There is a debate over whether it’s manmade or naturally caused.” The problem with this statement is that there isn’t such a debate; and there wasn’t then, either. Bush was wrong about a major point of science, and misleading the country about it. And that’s far from the only example of such misinformation from Bush or his administration on climate. But again, Marburger doesn’t even dignify the real criticism of the administration on this point. He completely ducks it, once again hiding behind the insulting idea that Bush critics don’t know the difference between “is” and “ought,” between what science tells us and what we should therefore do about it.

Childish things, indeed.

“We’ve seen some increased visibility of the science community during the Bush administration. I think that was part of a political strategy of the Democratic Party, which was somewhat successful, to undermine the credibility of the Bush administration by fixing on these issues.”

This, too, is false. I’m happy to say that I watched the entire politics and science issue evolve over the course of the Bush administration. It wasn’t that the Democrats stirred up the scientists; rather, the scientists stirred up the Democrats and other progressive advocates. The true coming-out moment for the scientific community with respect to Bush occurred in early 2004, when the Union of Concerned Scientists organized a group of luminaries to denounce the administration’s many distortions and abuses. Since then, I would certainly agree that progressives (including Democrats and some Republicans) more than conservatives have taken up the scientists’ cause; but scientists first laid it out there.

With this, let’s move on to the final, whopping quotation from the “exit interview”:

“I believe that history will show that under this administration, science and technology have thrived as well as they could, given the constraints that we work under. Those constraints are very great. Not least of which is having a very unpopular president, very difficult foreign policy, wars, and unpopular policies of various kinds. Those notwithstanding, I’m satisfied that I’ve done everything that I could to make science work for the nation. I think that future presidents will find it difficult to compile a record as long as this one. In retrospect, it will be seen that this was a tough act to follow.”

Marburger is certainly right about that last point—but not in the way he intends.

Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”

Taken together, the seven science advisers he has so far appointed are surely the most distinguished group of scientists at the highest levels of government in decades. They would make the founders of our republic—the most technology-oriented pantheon of revolutionaries in history—proud.

Steven Chu is the first Nobel laureate in science nominated for a cabinet position, Secretary of Energy. Chu has the ability to recognize good science and, just as important, sees our energy and environmental problems within a larger framework of the innovation economy. To coordinate energy and climate policy in the White House Obama has selected former Environmental Protection Agency head Carol Browner. Former New Jersey environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson will run EPA. And L.A. deputy mayor Nancy Sutley will direct the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

All these impressive credentials are a beginning, not an end. But at the very least they say to the American people that respect for evidence will once again have a central role in government science policy.

As the Passover ritual says, if this is all the president-elect had done for science and our country that would have been sufficient. But he is also expected to name the highly respected Harvard University physicist and climate expert John Holdren as his White House science adviser. Holdren, a former board chairman of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, is a vigorous supporter of efforts to put innovation back on our national agenda, as it is crucial to all aspects of our national security and prosperity.

Obama will apparently also name Oregon State University marine biologist Jane Lubchenco as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Lubchenco, also much admired in the scientific community, is a member of both the National Academy of Science and the British Royal Academy.

Again, all these impressive credentials are a beginning, not an end. But at the very least they say to the American people that respect for evidence will once again have a central role in government science policy. The role of regulatory agencies—to create a level playing field of safety and opportunity—will be restored to its proper place in government, in the context of a public policy that builds the cleaner, green economy that must be the foundation of the new American prosperity.

Especially striking is the turn away from the tiresome, divisive and dispiriting culture wars that so politicized science—a sorry trademark of the past eight years. Americans can now look forward with pleasure to further smart appointments, including new leadership for the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

At Science Progress we are committed to the proposition that sound public policy requires taking evidence seriously. If democracy is to thrive, we must find new and better ways to integrate the spirit of open inquiry into our policy process. That’s why we cover the latest research and discussions shaping science policy and develop pragmatic proposals that promote science and innovation that ensures greater freedom, justice, and quality of life for all people. We celebrate the new appreciation for the contributions of science to policy and to shaping a better world.

Yet the outgoing Bush administration has left us with a parting shot: a midnight regulation that could clear the way for new coal-fired plants not restrained by greenhouse-gas rules. Just one week ago today I experienced the “sunniest” day of a stay in Beijing. That was a bright, noxious haze in which I could roughly make out the rim of the sun. The seven for science named so far can’t alone protect us from the future we can read in the Beijing sky, but they can help show us the way.

Jonathan D. Moreno, Ph.D., is the David and Lyn Silfen University Professor of Ethics and Professor of Medical Ethics and of the History and Sociology of Science at the University of Pennsylvania, and the Editor-in-Chief of Science Progress.

Holdren had been planning to attend a staff meeting this morning with colleagues at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, where he heads the technology and science program. But instead, he flew today to Chicago to meet with the transition team and prepare for the announcement; initial plans are to release the official news of the appointment on a weekly radio program that Obama records and will be broadcast on Saturday. The transition office declined to comment.

Holdren is well known for his work on energy, climate change, and nuclear proliferation. Trained in fluid dynamics and plasma physics, Holdren branched out into policy early in his career. He has led the Woods Hole Research Center for the past 3 years and served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (which publishes ScienceInsider) in 2006.

The science adviser usually also serves as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. Science Progress adviser Neal Lane held both of those positions for three years under the Clinton administration and authored the chapter on OSTP in the forthcoming Change for America.

UPDATE: Chris Mooney grabbed Holdren’s interview video endorsing the ScienceDebate2008 initiative:

Lane, an adviser to SP, worked under President Clinton during the last three years of the former administration and is the author of the chapter on OSTP in the forthcoming book Change for America: A Progressive Blueprint for the 44th President. The book is a joint project between CAP’s sister organization, the Center for American Progress Action Fund, and the New Democracy Project, and offers recommendations for the next president and administration on priorities for a broad swath of executive branch departments and offices.

His first recommendations are for making sure that the nomination for science adviser comes fast on the heels of the inauguration and that the appointee also sits on the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, and the newly-suggested National Energy Council. Other key advice from Lane includes:

Move OSTP Back Into the White House Fold

This is both terms of representation in the policymaking process—fill out all four of the associate director positions, as two have been vacant during the Bush administration—and physical proximity. The Office “should be returned to the Eisenhower Old Executive Office Building so [staffers] can interact in real time with other senior White House policy officials and integrate informed, science-based decision making into White House policy.”

Executive Orders: Coordination and Restoration of Scientific Integrity

Lane recommends two key moves here. First, reinstitute the National Science and Technology Council, which during the Clinton administration included heads or deputies from all departments in the executive branch involved with science and tech policy and coordinated science policy among them.

Second, to reverse some of the damage done by conservatives through political interference with science-based policy, he suggests an order detailing that: “all federal policy and information provided to the public by the federal government will be based on the best scientific evidence; membership on federal scientific advisory committees will be based on scientific qualifications; and scientists within the federal government or funded by federal agencies will be free to publish and speak openly about their results, unless restricted due to national security concerns.”

Advocate for the Repeal of the Data Quality Act

This is an obscure provision wedged into a 2001 appropriations bill providing industries that threaten public and environmental health (e.g. polluters and cigarette manufacturers) with the legal tools to launch underhanded challenges on regulatory science before the government can use it to implement official protections. (For lucid and harrowing info on how its used, see David Michaels’s book, Doubt Is Their Product.)

Ten Percent

Lane echoes other science policymakers in writing that OSTP should press for key R&D agencies to get a 10 percent annual bump in their budgets. His list: NSF, NIH, the DOE Office of Science, NIST, DOD research programs (including DARPA), and NASA, NOAA, and USGS science programs.

You can hear more about Lane’s vision for progressive science policy under the new administration in the keynote speech he offered at the Science Progress event earlier this year.

For full listing of chapters in the book, including several that are available for download now, in advance of the January 5 release, visit the CAPAF project page.

On October 23, 2001, Senate confirmation finally came for physicist John Marburger, former director of Brookhaven National Laboratory. It was a full ten months into the new administration, and the president had already set in stone his stances on the two most dominant science policy issues: embryonic stem cell research and climate change. Marburger did not bear the “assistant to the president” title; compared with his predecessors Gibbons and physicist Neal Lane, Clinton’s second science adviser, he had been demoted.

The difference here is between forethought and afterthought, between priority and inferiority. And now, hopefully very soon, we will get a third data point, allowing us to determine where Barack Obama falls on the spectrum.

Top science organizations have already asked the incoming president to name his science adviser prior to the inauguration, and at the same time, to restore the First Scientist’s rank and standing. Obama himself has pledged to move “quickly” on the appointment, but without making a specific promise as to timing. And so now we wait. But in the meantime, I’d like to indulge a bit and imagine how the rollout ought to occur.

The First Scientist ought to be part of this top tier of unfolding administration rollouts.

Thus far, President-elect Obama has mostly announced the members of his cabinet in thematic groups. First came the economic appointees and advisers, then came the foreign policy and national security team. At this point, we’re still waiting to learn about the heads of the energy and environmental agencies—EPA administrator, Interior secretary, Energy secretary—and related positions such as White House Council on Environmental Quality chair. We’re also waiting for the filling of prominent health posts: Health and Human Services secretary (though it seems clear Tom Daschle will take that job), the heads of the NIH, CDC, FDA, and so on. There are other important roles, too, that are yet to be filled. The question is where the science adviser fits into the picture.

First, let me state unequivocally my view, which is also presumably that of the nation’s science organizations: The First Scientist ought to be part of this top tier of unfolding administration rollouts. If this is a cabinet level adviser, then we’re talking about someone technically similar in stature to the national security adviser, who has already been named.

It’s true, and unfortunate, that the media and most observers don’t accord the science adviser such a status in their minds. The position has declined in visibility since its inception in the late 1950s. But it ought to have this measure of importance awarded to it, and let’s hope the Obama transition team agrees.

So then where does the science adviser best fit? Here it gets tricky. There’s a serious argument that the science adviser ought to be thought of as part of the economic team. We know that scientific research and innovation, funded by government, fuels economic growth; one need look no farther than the Internet to see this. But then, the First Scientist should also play a key role in national security and international affairs: The day after Obama named his team, a panel of experts warned that we need to worry about a bioterror attack by the year 2013.

Moving on to environment and health, once again we can easily see the relevance of the science adviser’s expertise. It would be perfectly appropriate to name him or her when announcing the EPA and Interior heads, or when filling the top administration health jobs. No one grouping is obviously superior to any other.

What this exercise has clearly shown, however, is that science informs a vast array of issues that the government must manage. The trouble is that this fact is rarely acknowledged; science policy instead gets treated as a somewhat isolated issue area, centrally concerned with the setting of research budget priorities and little else. Just to break us out of this mould, I rather wish the First Scientist had been named as a part of the national security team; that would have been a delightful reframing of the role of science in policymaking on all levels.

But whatever happens, it’s critical that we see the science adviser rollout given a level of prominence on par with all these other nominations. Precisely how the Obama transition team accomplishes as much is up to them, but in our next government, science can’t just be an afterthought.

Chris Mooney is contributing editor to Science Progress and author of several books, including The Republican War on Science and the forthcoming Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future, co-authored by Sheril Kirshenbaum. He and Kirshenbaum blog at “The Intersection.”

Weiss’s Notebook

CAP Senior Fellow Rick Weiss covered science and medicine for The Washington Post for 15 years, and now he brings his investigative eye to science policy. From cloning and stem cells to agricultural biotechnology and nanotechnology, Weiss examines the issues at the intersection of cutting edge research and public policy.

The presidential transition, begun quietly before the party conventions, now barrels ahead at full speed. And as soon as the transition team has completed its immediate work on the two most pressing issues of the day—national security and the economy—there is good reason to believe that the nation’s science agencies and offices will get fast and close attention.

It is a truism by now that the solutions to many of the major problems facing the United States—climate change, energy, the environment, health care, and food security, among others—have major scientific or technological components. It is also widely recognized that the Bush administration’s almost allergic rejection of scientific evidence and government oversight has badly stalled the development of new approaches to these problems, as well as others in the life sciences and public health. Transition officials clearly plan to act quickly to select new heads for the agencies responsible for these interlinked issues, with an eye toward enabling coordinated efforts.

Already, the Washington rumor mill is buzzing with names of possible science appointees. I have no inside information, but to satisfy the innate human urge to give and receive gossip, I’m happy to highlight some of what I’ve heard from others. For secretary of Health and Human Services, there is talk of former Majority Leader (and CAP senior fellow) Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), who released a book in February on the nation’s healthcare crisis; Nobel laureate and former National Institutes of Health Director Harold Varmus, currently president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center; Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman and a family physician; and Kathleen Sebelius (D), the governor of Kansas, who made a name for herself when she successfully fought a major battle against BlueCross-BlueShield’s plan to become a for-profit company.

For FDA Commissioner, some have floated the names of Mike Taylor, a former deputy FDA commissioner with particular expertise in food safety; Mary Pendergast, who had a top post in the FDA under President Clinton and has also consulted for the pharmaceutical industry; and even Steven Nissen, the Cleveland Clinic maverick M.D. who has become a chronic thorn in the side of big pharma by repeatedly challenging the data that drug companies have used to back up their claims of safety and efficacy.

It’s been easy for scientists to gripe about their mistreatment during the past eight years. But now is not the time to demand payback.

The parlor game could go on, and it will. But what is more interesting, really, is just how many high-level science openings there are to fill. There are the cabinet-level positions overseeing such science-heavy departments as Agriculture, Energy, and Commerce. There is the surgeon general, the directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology; the administrators of NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the head of the United States Geological Survey, the all-important research arm of the Interior department.

Within the executive office of the president alone there is the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and science advisor to the president (a position that many in science hope will be elevated to a cabinet level “assistant to the president” post); four associate directors of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; a gaggle of presidentially appointed members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology; the chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality; the director and three associate directors of the Office of Management and Budget; and the administrator of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which has in recent years become an increasingly important venue for scientific review and regulation.

Now feel free to skip this paragraph—and to seek help if in fact you make it to the end—but I would be remiss not to mention as well that within the Agriculture Department alone the president needs to appoint three science-based under secretaries—for research, education, and economics; food safety; and food, nutrition, and consumer services. In Commerce he must choose an under secretary for oceans and atmosphere. In Defense he must find a director of defense research and engineering; an under secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics; a director for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency; an assistant secretary for health affairs; an assistant secretary for networks and information integration; a chief information officer; and an assistant to the secretary for nuclear and chemical and biological defense programs. In Education he must pick a director of that department’s Institute of Education Sciences. In Energy there are slots that must be filled for an under secretary of science; an under secretary for energy and environment; an assistant secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy; an assistant secretary for environmental management; an assistant secretary for fossil energy; an assistant secretary of nuclear energy; and an under secretary for nuclear security.

And remember, we’re just talking about the most science-y presidential appointments here. We’ll ignore the nearly 500 others for now (but see below for a more exhaustive list).

Of these myriad positions, the most important will be the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. This is a position that has traditionally been held by a physicist, a holdover from the days when the most important thing to think about in science was the risk of a nuclear attack. Today, as the nation faces a far broader array of scientific threats, including climate change and biological warfare, it will be interesting to see if the new president breaks with tradition and appoints an earth scientist or biologist to that central scientific coordinating position.

The fruits of all these transitional decisions will take time to ripen, but here are a few questions worth asking today:

Will HHS lead a quick and effective charge to focus more on prevention, reduce the cost of healthcare and insurance, and expand coverage to the un- and underinsured?

Will FDA work together with Agriculture to revamp the nation’s food safety system? Will it demand more of pharmaceutical companies, and will it regulate tobacco?

Will EPA get back to the job of using science to calculate honestly the effects of pesticides and other chemicals on the environment and human health? Will it lead the way to dealing with climate change and stand up for endangered species?

Will DOE jump-start the transition to a low-carbon economy by aggressively funding work on alternative energy sources and promulgating strict energy efficiency standards for homes and office buildings? Will it tackle the problem of nuclear waste?

And will Interior manage, in an integrated way, the nation’s precious fresh water resources and protect public lands for we the taxpayers who together own them?

To answer these questions in the affirmative will require a government commitment to data instead of ideology, which alone would constitute a real break from the Bush legacy. But it will also require a huge corps of scientists willing to speak up, and to provide and interpret those much-needed data for the good of the country.

The National Academies put it well in their 2008 report, “Science and Technology For America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration”:

The nature of our current national challenges, whether domestic or abroad, demands the best of science, engineering and technology to solve. “More of the same” will not work in the 21st century. Innovative thinking will be needed to a degree unprecedented in American history. Fortunately, large numbers of scientists, engineers, and health professionals have experienced positive change throughout their careers and have been enormously successful as a result. They have much to give back. Government service is an excellent means by which to repay that debt.

It’s been easy for scientists to gripe about their mistreatment during the past eight years. But now is not the time to demand payback. Now is the time for science to put its best foot forward and show the country what it’s been missing.

Rick Weiss is a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Science Progress.

Key Science and Technology Positions

Adapted from the NAS report, “Science and Technology for America’s Progress: Ensuring the Best Presidential Appointments in the New Administration”

PAS = presidential appointment with Senate confirmation

PA = presidential appointment (without Senate confirmation)

NA = noncareer appointment

FT = fixed term appointment, with length of appointment indicated

Examples of Scientific and Technical Federal Advisory Commitees, by Origin and Purpose

Chris Mooney explained in this week’s column, “All the President’s Scientists,” that speed and effectiveness matter, and that’s part of why the tone of the NAS recommendations has changed over the years:

The Bush administration did not appoint an influential, cabinet-level science adviser, and certainly did not appoint its senior science adviser promptly. It was, in fact, the slowest administration ever to fill the top 500 positions in government, according to the Brookings Institution, and left many science-related agencies (such as the Food and Drug Administration) leaderless for significant periods of time.

The message from the AAU seems clear: Appointing an effective adviser as “First Scientist” right away won’t just make federal scientists happy—it will help support the country’s entire research infrastructure.

Science, Cultured

Science Progress contributing editor Chris Mooney surveys the interactions between science, politics, and culture from Los Angeles, California. He is author of two previous books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs at The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum. (Photo: flickr.com/sarahfelicity)

Every presidential election year going back to 2000—and before that, in 1992 as well—the U.S. National Academy of Sciences has released a report, addressed to the incoming administration, providing input on presidential appointments in the area of science and technology. In essence, these reports have underscored the indisputable importance of filling positions ranging from the White House science adviser to the head of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency in a timely manner, and with the best possible candidates. And in some sense, each report reiterates several core points: The overarching need for an influential, cabinet-level science adviser (call the position the “First Scientist”) who is appointed just after the election, for instance; and the need for streamlining the appointments process and cutting down on red tape. In addition, the 2004 and 2008 reports both stress the importance of nonpartisan, expertise-based assessments of which scientists will serve on the federal government’s many science-related advisory committees.

Sadly, such repetition may stem in part from the fact that of late, these valuable reports have been more or less ignored. The Bush administration did not appoint an influential, cabinet-level science adviser, and certainly did not appoint its senior science adviser promptly. It was, in fact, the slowest administration ever to fill the top 500 positions in government, according to the Brookings Institution, and left many science-related agencies (such as the Food and Drug Administration) leaderless for significant periods of time. (Given recent concerns about foodborne illnesses and contaminants, let’s hope that wouldn’t fly this time around.) The Bush administration also became notorious for politicizing the membership of scientific advisory committees—presumably the reason the 2004 and 2008 NAS reports both take up this issue (which in 2000 wasn’t on the radar).

Marburger…will always be remembered as the science adviser who took Bush’s side when the nation’s scientists stood up and challenged the administration on the grounds of scientific integrity.

For indeed, while the core NAS recommendations haven’t changed much, it is indisputable that they read far differently now than they did eight years ago. Consider what has happened to the post of the presidential science adviser, arguably the most luminous gem in the science and technology appointments trove. Bush’s current adviser, physicist John Marburger, is the longest-lasting occupant of this role in American history, having served for a full two terms (although he was originally appointed very late in 2001). And yet at the same time, Marburger’s tenure probably represents the “nadir” for the position in terms of its influence, as University of California-Merced science historian Gregg Herken put it to me last year.

Marburger is, most emphatically, not what the NAS recommends; he lacks the title of “assistant to the president,” and thus does not serve in a cabinet-level role. And while it’s probably more important for a presidential science adviser to have a good relationship with the president than with the scientific community, it’s quite clear that Marburger’s position vis a vis the latter has been hopelessly undermined—he will always be remembered as the science adviser who took Bush’s side when the nation’s scientists stood up and challenged the administration on the grounds of scientific integrity. (There are good reasons to think that either Barack Obama or John McCain will restore prominence to the science adviser position.)

Over all, there is little to dispute about the body of the NAS recommendations; the problem here has always been political responsiveness to them on the part of the administration, rather than their substance. Still, there’s something new to the 2004 and especially the 2008 NAS reports that I think bears remarking upon.

In addition to demanding action from the president, both of the more recent reports also call upon the nation’s scientific community—and particularly its membership societies—to appoint its most promising young researchers to serve in government science and technology posts, and to create more fellowships, like the American Association for the Advancement of Sciences’ excellent program, to get younger scientists training in the workings government. In short, the idea is that while the president and his transition staff should grasp the importance of science and technology appointments, the science community, at the same time, must be ready to offer up its best and brightest.

Indeed, in the 2008 report one senses a stronger tone (stronger for the generally staid National Academies, anyway) about the need for scientists to embrace public service; as it concludes, researchers “have much to give back. Government service is an excellent means by which to repay that debt.” This is remarkable, because it’s fairly notorious that scientists have not always clamored to be involved in government. It takes away from their research work; it doesn’t necessarily lead to academic career advancement; it requires uprooting and can even pose political risks. Nevertheless, here is the NAS saying strongly that there must be much more of it. That’s critical, because to reconnect science and the political process, what we need to see most is bridge building from both sides.

And we need to see it urgently: The impending presidential transition is one in which the candidates cannot afford to dally on the issue of science appointments. Modern presidential transitions, each more complex than the last one, require an enormous amount of planning and effort, beginning even before the party’s nominating conventions. While the campaigns are certainly busy, they should heed the NAS advice and not loose a minute in restoring the integrity and prominence of federal scientific service.

Chris Mooney is a contributing editor to Science Progress and the author of two books, The Republican War on Science and Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming. He blogs on The Intersection with Sheril Kirshenbaum.

John Marburger has an impressive title: science adviser to the president and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. But his predecessors had a slightly different title: assistant to the president, the highest rank of staffers within the Executive Office of the President. Much has been made of President Bush’s decision to appoint a science adviser to a diminished post, but the move resonated with the administration’s repeated maneuvers to downplay, disregard, or launch all-out assaults on science over the course of the past eight years.

But on the eve of a new administration, it’s time to look forward and think about the scientists who will advise the next president. The National Academies have just weighed in with their take on the issue, offering a report detailing the most critical presidential science appointments in the executive branch and ways to streamline the process of getting new hires into their posts. Their first recommendation, however, is to hire the top science adviser at the level of assistant to the president:

White House leadership in science and technology requires three steps. Immediately after the election, the president-elect should identify his candidate for the position of Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST). This individual will provide advice, identify and recruit other science and technology presidential appointees. After inauguration, the President should promptly both appoint this person as APST and nominate him or her as the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The director position should be cabinet-level, with an office in the Old Executive Office Building.

Many of the most pressing matters of the new administration will require forthright scientific advice, and only through an assistant to the president who can participate in cabinet-level discussions and coordinate with other senior staffers in economic, domestic, national security, and energy policy will the next commander in chief get the advice that he needs. NAS is not the first group to argue that the science adviser post must be elevated back to the assistant level.

Moreover, NAS recommends that the president not dawdle on the matter of the thousands of other appointments across the administration. That means getting to work well in advance. Like today.

Who do readers think the next president should appoint as the top science adviser?