Science Cheerleader

Excerpted from a piece I just posted on DiscoverMagazine.com:

Prizes: This old idea is making a sweeping comeback and it is changing the way government, industry and foundations help revolutionize future discovery. It’s high time we offer prizes to motivate and galvanize the public to come up with creative, real-time solutions to major disasters, such as the BP oil spill.

Approximately one-and-a-half weeks ago, I received an email from Andrew Revkin (who writes the DotEarth blog at The New York Times) in which he challenged researchers and others to think creatively about substantive approaches to stanching the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

“There’s a lot of talk about sweeping Grand Engineering Challenges this year. But one is unfolding in real-time in the Gulf. Waiting months for a relief well seems pretty in the box,” he wrote in the email (reprinted with Revkin’s permission), and reiterated in this blog post.

While it’s true that BP is accepting public suggestions about ideas to mitigate the oil spill, the process needs some tweaking. From the Deepwater Horizon Response website: “Once a formal suggestion has been filed, BP technical personnel will carefully evaluate each and every one for technical feasibility and proof of application. If the engineering group finds the suggestion feasible, the person submitting the suggestion will be contacted if and when their support is needed.”

BP technical personnel will evaluate the suggestions? Seems a little too cozy to me.

For the same reasons President Obama wants to divide the Minerals Management Service into two agencies–one charged with inspecting oil rigs, investigating oil companies and enforcing safety regulations, and another to oversee leases for drilling and collection of billions of dollars in royalties–perhaps we should consider a third-party administrator to solicit and evaluate proposed solutions from the public.

I suspect the White House would agree. Earlier this week, Beth Noveck, U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer and Director of the White House Open Government Initiative, summarized on the White House blog the highlights of a  recent Prize Summit organized by the Office of Science and Technology Policy and some of the major players in the world of big prizes. “Leaders from over thirty Federal agencies have come to learn about how to incorporate prizes and incentive-backed challenges into their work of addressing complex policy problems,” Noveck reported.  The summit helped agencies learn more about the benefits of prizes while setting forth guidelines, like this one from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB): “A prize should not be an end in itself, but one means within a broader strategy for spurring private innovation and change.”

Hold the phone. What if one IS looking for an end in itself, such as an immediate solution to the oil spill? Read full post.

On the heels of this announcement about a new effort to involve citizens in technology assessment, comes this word from David Sittenfeld at the Boston Museum of Science, one of the five founding partners of this initiative known as ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. The core group  includes: Richard Sclove (LOKA Institute), Dave Rejeski (Woodrow Wilson Intl Center for Scholars in DC), Dave Guston and Mahmud Farooque (Arizona State Univ), Larry Bell, David Rabkin and David Sittenfeld from the Boston Museum of Science, and me (Science Cheerleader):

Yesterday, Iannis Miaoulis, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As part of his written testimony, he included the following paragraph about our ECAST efforts:

“Finally, the Museum is also concerned with public education concerning new technologies and in public engagement with science and technology policy. The Museum has joined forces with the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, the Consortium of Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science Cheerleader, and the Loka Institute to create a nationwide network to conduct Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST). The ECAST network will combine the skills of nonpartisan policy research organizations with
the research strengths of universities and the public outreach and education capabilities of science museums. By educating and engaging laypeople, participatory technology assessment enables decision-makers to learn of their constituents‘ informed views regarding emerging developments in science and technology. We urge Congress to support OSTP and GAO in efforts to support ECAST and engage the public in discourse about STEM-related policy issues.”

(PS: it’s ok to chuckle at the sight of “Science Cheerleader” in that mix…I did!)

A very thoughtful person from Switzerland, Joanie, sent this newspaper article (about moi) to me this morning. It’s written in French so she translated it to English. (Thanks, Joanie!)

Hello Darlene,

I read this article in the newspaper yesterday. The paper is called “Le Matin Bleu”, it is published in the Western (French) part of Switzerland. As I found it interesting, I thought you’d like to have it so I have attached it to this email. I also made a translation for you, you’ll find it below. Go on with your ecology projects, I like them. Sincerely,  Joanie.

That takes the cake (idiom equivalent)
In Obama’s country a former cheerleader makes everyone go green.

COMMITMENT. In 1991, Darlene Cavalier hung up her pompoms; after many years in the spotlights with the Philadelphia Sixers, the young woman decides to go green (before its time). Logically, she starts biology studies, gets small jobs here and there, then creates a website, “The Science Cheerleader”, that aims at winning common people over to her passion: the environment. Score! In a country were only 7% of the people says being interested in science, the initiative is a straight success.

Today, the ex-cheerleader is the head of an army of green guys. Her website is getting more and more popular and lists a mass of ideas and projects useful for the earth and easy to apply!

Why hasn’t Obama nominated her as the Head of Energy? If she hasn’t obtained the Nobel Prize yet, you’ll certainly agree, she gives a sexier image to it!”
www.sciencecheerleader.com

From the White House:
“Look for a blog post on participation beginning on June 10th and get involved! We improve citizen participation by demonstrating its effectiveness in practice.”

SC Note: Of course this came from the White House.  Will we live to see the day when Congress utters those words? I say, YES! (For new subscribers, that was my attempt to bait Congress into a deeper discussion on how and why they should reopen a 21st Century Office of Technology Assessment with an emphasis on public participation.)

TUESDAY, JUNE 9TH, 2009 AT 9:45 PM
Wrap-Up of the Open Government Brainstorming: Participation
Posted by Beth Noveck
On May 21st through June 3rd, thousands of you shared your ideas in Phase I of this public consultation process, the Open Government Brainstorm.   June 3rd marked the beginning of Phase II, the Discussion Phase. We started with your ideas on Transparency.  Hundreds of comments flooded in from across the country.  Tomorrow we turn to Participation. This blog posting sets the stage for that conversation by summarizing the input we received on participation during the Brainstorm.

As the President noted in his January 21st Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government, participation is essential because: “Public engagement enhances the Government’s effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge.” In the Open Government Brainstorm, you suggested many ideas for how to create and improve opportunities for public participation in government. In the next four days, we will take the next step in translating those ideas into concrete, measurable and cost-effective solutions.

We’ve heard from so many of you just how important public participation in political life can be. Several groups sent us lofty participation principles, such as these from the International Association of Public Participation and these from the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation. We read and considered all the participation ideas you generated during the Open Government Brainstorm hosted by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA). We also reviewed ideas submitted by federal employees, who were particularly engaged and lively on this topic. NAPA did an analysis of the Brainstorm (pdf).

We grouped the participation-related suggestions you submitted into four topics that we want to discuss with you this week: (more…)

From Shawn Otto, CEO of ScienceDebate.org (an initiative near and dear to my heart):

Barack Obama pledged to Science Debate that he would “restore the science integrity of government and restore transparency of decision-making…”

He has referred to this pledge several times since, most recently in his speech to the National Academies of Science.  On March 9, the president formally asked the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to make recommendations on how the executive branch can meet this pledge.

The OSTP has opened a public comment period regarding this directive, giving you the opportunity to share your thoughts on what the next steps should be.  Comments are due by Wednesday, May 13.

The OSTP is looking for recommendations on the six issues President Obama identified in his memo:

1. hiring and keeping qualified scientists
2. defining new policies to ensure integrity
3. using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review
4. disclosing scientific findings
5. ensuring that principles of scientific integrity are being adhered to
6. adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections

The OSTP is accepting comments via email and through their blog, here.

Many organizations in Washington will be giving their opinions of what the OSTP plan should entail.  We believe it is important for scientists and other science supporters to be included in that process, and for you to indicate to the White House how science and scientific integrity affect your work, your families, and your communities.

If you’re interested in more background information, visit the scientific integrity site of our friends at the Union of Concerned Scientists here.

If you like our work, please contribute - we are all volunteer, and individually funded.

Thanks — and we hope to see you this weekend in New York!

-The team at ScienceDebate.Org

(Me again: Does anyone else wonder if/when Congress will thaw to the idea of public participation?)

Hot off the press, here’s Holt’s opinion piece on why Congress should restore the Office of Technology Assessment. In it, he wisely cites Obama’s plans to restore science to its rightful place by bringing scientists back into the fold as advisers to the Executive Branch.  However, Holt seems to neglect the other half of the President’s effort: provide opportunities for the public to participate in science policy discussions. After all, scientists are not value-neutral beings and they should not be held responsible for determining verdicts on policy matters affecting our lives….we should have a say in the outcome.  The Executive Branch understands this.  Based on Holt’s op-ed, it’s unclear whether he or the Legislative Branch “gets” this. Hmmm. He seemed to embrace the idea when we first discussed this.

Maybe it all comes down to word count (one hopes)?

Two steps forward, one step back. Stay tuned. I need to go rattle some more cages.

Obama and the executive branch move full-steam ahead with plans to restore science to its rightful place in America. Someone wake up Congress, please!

On April 27th 2009, during remarks at the National Academy of Sciences, President Barack Obama announced the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). PCAST is an advisory group of the nation’s leading scientists and engineers who will advise the President and Vice President and formulate policy in the many areas where understanding of science, technology, and innovation is key to strengthening our economy and forming policy that works for the American people. PCAST is part of the Executive Office of the President and is administered by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Watch the video

From the NAS website:

The president challenged NAS members to use their love and knowledge of science to inspire American students to pursue careers in science and engineering. In addition, he urged NAS members to “think about new and creative ways to engage young people in science and engineering, like science festivals, robotics competitions, and fairs that encourage young people to create, build, and invent — to be makers of things, not just consumers of things.”

Obama reiterated his commitment to education and announced a national initiative, “Race to the Top,” designed to improve student achievement in math and science and move U.S. students from the middle of the pack to the top on international benchmarks over the next decade.

By Andrew Noyes

Lawmakers should examine the role and responsibilities of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and question whether the 33-year-old office is effective, according to a Congressional Research Service report released Thursday.

Some in the science community, including a panel of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars last year, have called for the office director to be elevated to a Cabinet-level post.

A late December CRS report states that if the adviser has a close relationship with the president, certain science stakeholders may fear politicization. But an adviser who understands the sensitive relationship between the Oval Office and science community may be an administration asset, it said.

An alternative would be for Congress to make the office an independent agency. (more…)