Rippling out

extremely optimistic about the future. There are two general categories for my enthusiasm: the tangible benefits that will be brought by financially invigorated research programs, and perhaps the more important intangible benefits to morale, image and outlook that will be brought by replacing political ideologues with responsible scientists. Even if I myself never see a single dollar in increased research funding, I am elated and strongly motivated by simply knowing that the new administration takes an intelligent, scholarly and rigorous approach to science policy.” Echoing this sentiment, Joshua Dubnau, a behavioural geneticist at Cold Spring Harbor remarked, “In general, I am much more optimistic now than I was with the Bush administration or with McCain. I think Obama is smart, thoughtful, and has certainly given some well-meaning statements regarding the importance of research...unlike Bush/Cheney/ McCain, Obama appears to live in the reality-based universe. So I do not think he will censor or subvert scientists when truths are inconvenient.” With regard to funding, Obama has certainly made some sweeping proposals. In specific terms, he plans to double the funding to both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation over the next 10 years and to pump 150 billion dollars into clean-energy technologies. To stimulate research and development in the private sector, Obama promises to reinstate the R&D tax credit. In addition to direct infusions of cash into research, the fledgling administration would place an emphasis on education by distributing 20,000 stipends to K–12 teachers in high-need areas and locations. At the postgraduate level, the number of NSF fellowships would increase from 1,000 per year to 3,000. Of course, these are all wellintentioned goals, and not many would, in principle at least, oppose such a plan. But, is it feasible? While scientists seem hopeful, skepticism does exist concerning where the money will come from, especially considering the uncertain length of America’s tenure in Iraq. For example, Dubnau says, “I worry about whether or not the Obama administration will be willing to expend the political capital necessary to change priorities. How will they find resources to properly fund the infrastructure of this country (which includes science, education, bridges, roads, electrical grid, alternative energy, conservation, etc.) unless they are willing to make major changes to the areas of spending that compete with these goals?” Position platforms aside, what about the man’s judgement? On the issue of climate change, it is clear that Obama’s views are in line with the scientific community in terms of the scope of the problem and the desire to re-engage international efforts to stem the crisis. But there are other hints that Obama is willing to listen, and base his policy decisions on, the advice of respected scientists that represent the consensus views of their fields. For one, he plans to elevate the presidential science advisor to a senior-level position with the title of Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In addition, Obama has promised to use a strict vetting process to appoint individuals to government bodies and advisory panels that is based on merit. Expressing her approval of this new climate, Elizabeth Blackburn, former member of the aforementioned Presidential Panel on Bioethics stated, “... I am thrilled to have an administration that recognizes the value of science and the importance of scientific input in the development of public policies.” If Obama’s rapid appointment of several key cabinet positions is any indication, we’ll soon see who he elevates to the top science positions in the US government and, as a result, gain some key insights into what the future holds for American science policy.