Predictions on Copenhagen via Modelling

I’m not going to make any predictions about the upcoming climate change meetings at Copenhagen.  I will point out the predictions made by political scientist Bruce Bueno de Mesquita in Foreign Policy magazine.  What’s different about de Mesquita’s predictions is his method.  As noted in his appearance on The Daily Show a few weeks ago, Dr. de Mesquita has developed computer models to make predictions in the arena of international affairs.

He explains his background in the Foreign Policy article, but if you’re just interested in his modeling for climate change agreements (not climate change), skip to the third ‘page’ of the online article.  I hope the charts he describes online are in the dead tree edition, because I think they would help with his points.  I don’t think his claims – that any agreements coming out of Copenhagen are likely to fail to achieve stated outcomes – are terribly novel, and certainly don’t require a computer model to justify the prediction.  The work of the computer models stands out more when it predicts something not expected, and it really hasn’t here.  Combine that with de Mesquita’s glib techno-optimism for how to deal with the problem, and I suggest he stick with other international relations problems, ones where his models might better challenge conventional thinking.

Setback for USDA Research?

ScienceInsider reports that the Obama Administration will nominate as the head of the U.S. Agency for International Development Dr. Rajiv Shah, formerly with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, has international development experience and would likely make a good administrator for USAID.

The problem is that Dr. Shah has served since this summer as the Under Secretary for Research, Education and Economics and Chief Scientist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  I find it unlikely that he will serve in both departments, though he might wear all three hats until a replacement for his current position will be found and confirmed.  While the National Institute of Food and Agriculture has been launched since Dr. Shah was confirmed, I was hoping that this would be the first of many steps he would take in making agricultural research a more significant component of U.S. science and technology policy.

Missing in Action: The Scientific Integrity Memo

In March the President issued a Memorandum directing the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to develop “recommendations for Presidential action designed to guarantee scientific integrity throughout the executive branch.”  The action was drowned out by the attention given to the stem cell memorandum issued that same day.  Dr. Holdren was confirmed shortly after this, and in April OSTP issued a request for comment that would help shape the recommendations provided to the President.  Those comments had to be submitted by May 13.  The last OSTP comment on the subject appears to be its blog post of May 18 thanking everyone for those comments.

The 120 days for providing recommendations to the President expired on June 7.  Even if you counted from the May 13 deadline, the time has passed for OSTP to provide its recommendations to the President.  I have seen no indication that this has happened, nor any indication that the administration has decided on particular actions to take to better ensure scientific integrity in the executive branch.

Now there was no deadline set for those actions to be decided.  But for at least two reports that the administration has requested (the Augustine Committee’s review of human space flight programs and the national cybersecurity review), the passage of the deadlines was noted in the press and by administration officials.  Additionally, there were assurances made that the reports were under review and there would be official statements coming.  Those statements eventually came, though related decisions may have not (no decision as yet about the future of NASA’s human exploration programs or about who will be the cybersecurity head in the White House).  I don’t claim omniscience, but I have yet to find any indication of similar treatment around this issue.

Has the Office of Science and Technology Policy forwarded recommendations to the President?  Why no update on the progress of this policy process?  Why hasn’t anybody else asked these questions?

After the Sack

While the news spike following the sacking of Professor Nutt appears to be waning, there are going to be several things going on in Britain around this action over the next few weeks and months.  Besides the news value in what happens when Home Secretary Johnson, chief science adviser Beddington, and Professor Nutt appear before a Parliamentary committee, there is the ongoing discussion of drug policies in Britain, and the concern over what this sacking should change (and will change) with respect to science advisers in the U.K. government.  Anyone thinking this will bring down the government, or the Home Secretary that fired Nutt, is probably thinking wishfully.  As far as I can tell, the only government official to speak against the sacking is science minister Drayson, not his boss Peter Mandelson, not science adviser Beddington, nor anyone from the opposition parties.  The intergovernmental squabble is likely to be between the Parliamentary committee and the Home Secretary.

I’ll speak at more length about this in subsequent posts over the next few days (though my comments on Roger Pielke’s blog posts on this topic outline some of my thinking), but there are some things likely to be lost in the aftermath of the sacking.

Science and Technology Guests on Late Night, Week of November 9

First, I want to note that the Intel Young Scientist Challenge winner that I said would be on last Friday’s edition of The Tonight Show didn’t actually happen.  Schedules do change between Monday and the time of the show(s) in question.  Always check those local listings (or online) for up-to-date information.

On to this week.  Letterman will host another set of kid scientists Thursday on CBS.  Dr. Jane Goodall will visit with Stewart on The Daily Show that same night.  That’s pretty much it.  Check those local listings for times and channels in your area.

There are two new late night shows entering the field.  Wanda Sykes’ show is a weekly affair on many Fox affiliates, and George Lopez will make a run of it on the TBS cable network.  Should they have guests that fit the bill of this series of posts, I’ll include them as well.

More Large Hadron Collider Funny Business

I’m behind in my Comedy Central Hour of Power watching, and just finished seeing Stephen Colbert tangle with astrophysicist Brian Cox.  Stephen spent a segment making fun of the continued troubles at the Large Hadron Collider, ending with the assertion that the problems result from sabotage from the future.  (I’d missed the business with the computer networks.)  Then, in what is arguably out-of-character for the show, Stephen proceeded to have a discussion with Professor Cox that managed to make sense of advanced particle physics.  The good professor even noticed.  It was nice to see him literally call bollocks on some Large Hadron Collider theories.  But dismissing food science as not real science was not so cool.

The thing of it is, Stephen managed all of this prior to the bird messing up the works, so he may well revisit the topic this week.  Whether he does or not, science makes up a good chunk of the October 28 episode, so why not watch the whole thing?

Congress and U.K. Parliament Will Examine Geoengineering

From ScienceInsider there’s word that the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology will hold joint hearings with its counterpart in the U.K. House of Commons on geoengineering.  This was announced on Thursday by both committees.  The U.S. committee was holding a hearing on geoengineering, and the U.K. committee (and its predecessor) had started inquiries on the subject in 2008.

Granted, it’s two minor committees, but at least someone will be looking, and trying to set guidelines before the fact.  While the following will be the questions guiding the U.K. part of the process, I suspect the U.S. committee will be thinking about similar questions.

• Is there a need for international regulation of geoengineering and geoengineering research and if so, what international regulatory mechanisms need to be developed?

• How should international regulations be developed collaboratively?

• What UK regulatory mechanisms apply to geoengineering and geoengineering research and what changes will need to be made for purpose of regulating geoengineering?

The Senate Actually Did Something

Nothing of national import, but they confirmed the nominees for Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, current Acting Director Patrick Gallagher; and head of the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security, Tara O’Toole.  Dr. Gallagher was nominated in September and Dr O’Toole in May.  Each person had a confirmation hearing the following month.

In other rare Senate action, the amendment to defund National Science Foundation political science research came up and was defeated, as expected.  Should you wish to praise or criticize your Senator for his vote, here’s the roll call (UPDATE: now actually linked).  It was not a strictly partisan vote.  Of the 36 Senators who supported the defunding, 5 are Democrats.  Of the 62 that opposed it, 9 are Republicans.  (2 Senators did not vote on this amendment.)

More From the Physicist Who Wants to Be a Pundit

Burton Richter, 1976 Nobel laureate in Physics, is aiming to be The Washington Post’s (sorry, not America’s, though that’s part of the competition title) Next Great Pundit.  His first round entry in the competition ran on Friday, focusing on various things that could be done to save energy and reduce emissions.  I suspect he is doomed because the piece reads very reasoned, logical, and kind of dull.  But there are additional rounds, and Richter needs only to be in the top five (of ten) to advance.  The judges advance one to the next round (not Richter) and online readers vote for the other four.  Want to have a say?  Go vote.

The Large Hadron Collider Can’t Catch a Break; Just a Baguette

As a noted engineer once said, “the trickier the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain.”  The Large Hadron Collider, a huge particle accelerator facility in Europe, recently had trouble due to a magnet problem that was traced to a bad electrical connection.  The resulting problem led to a months-long shutdown.

Now we go from the embarrassing to the bizarre.  The Guardian and other news sources report that the Collider once again had power trouble, causing a shutdown.  The cause?  A bird eating bread on a junction where power enters the facility.  The bread apparently gummed up the junction causing it to overheat.  This makes ordinary power failures look perfectly reasonable.  No word yet on how long this delay will be.