Developments in science policy defied the continuing gloom for the economy, as federal science agencies finally received their appropriations for the fiscal year that is now nearly half gone. Following days of debate, Senate Democrats were able to cobble together enough Republican votes to pass a $410 billion omnibus appropriations bill that includes mostly non-national-security discretionary spending. Had the bill failed to pass, the agencies in all likelihood would have had to operate at last year's levels for the balance of the current year. The measure, which was quickly signed into law by President Obama, includes a 19% increase over 2008 for the basic research programs in the physical sciences at the Department of Energy, 7% more for NSF, and 8% more for NIST. Those numbers are in addition to the sizeable increases the three agencies had previously received in the economic stimulus bill.
On Monday, Obama fulfilled another campaign pledge, by signing an executive order that rescinds the tight restrictions placed by his predecessor in 2001 on federal funding for research that involves human embryonic stem cells. Obama used the opportunity to issue instructions to the heads of federal agencies to prevent politics from interfering with scientific research. With the exception of classified information and other material exempted from disclosure by the Freedom of Information Act, the presidential memorandum said, agencies should make available to the public the scientific or technological findings or conclusions considered or relied on in policy decisions.
In a speech at the signing ceremony, Obama said that supporting science "isn't just about providing resources--it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it's inconvenient--especially when it's inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda--and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology."
Prominent scientists who attended the signing were effusive in their praise for Obama. Alan Leshner, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was quoted by USA Today as saying that he had "never seen the scientific community so pleased by a presidential action," while Harold Varmus, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, told the newspaper that Bush's policy on stem cell research was "one (example) of the failure to think carefully about federal support of science and the use of science."
Obama gave the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy 120 days to recommend specific presidential actions that will guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch. As of 13 March, however, physicist John Holdren had yet to be confirmed by the Senate as OSTP director--his nomination, like that of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration administrator-designee Jane Lubchenko, held up by a single senator on a matter having nothing to do with science policy.
Energy Secretary Steven Chu continued to make the rounds on Capitol Hill, reassuring lawmakers that the Obama administration supports nuclear power even as it plans to abandon the Yucca Mountain repository for nuclear waste. Chu has maintained that spent fuel from the nation's commercial reactors can be stored safely at the reactor sites for decades while the government tries to figure out what to do with it for the long term. He added that he hopes to get input by year-end on how to proceed, from an advisory panel whose members he will be appointing soon.
Chu inched a little closer to reinstating FutureGen, a clean-coal demonstration plant equipped with carbon capture and storage technology. The project was canceled more than a year ago by former Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, who cited soaring cost estimates. But a report issued by the Government Accountability Office said that the decision to pull the plug appeared to have been based on faulty arithmetic: DOE had confused as-spent dollars with those that are adjusted for inflation, and had therefore compared apples to oranges. DOE should have compared the original 2003 $1 billion estimate for FutureGen to the 2007 figure of $1.3 billion in constant dollars, not the $1.8 billion with no adjustment for inflation that was cited when it was canceled. Chu has said that he is favorably inclined toward FutureGen, but only if unspecified changes are made to the project, which is to be cost-shared with a consortium of electric utilities.
David Kramer
