Temporary Stay of Stem Cell Injunction Now Less Temporary; Both Sides Seek Summary Judgment

The dance between the injunction halting federal support for human embryonic stem cell research and the stay of that injunction continues.  On Tuesday the Court of Appeals issued a new stay of the injunction, which will last as long as necessary for that Court to decide whether or not to overturn the injunction.

I cautioned earlier about attempting to guess future decisions from questions in court hearings, so this next bit of speculation should be taken with a little bit of judicial salt.

By granting this medium-term stay, it would seem that the Court anticipates taking a bit of time with its decision.  Alternatively, the Court seems to recognize the interests of those affected by the injunction and was trying to give them as much certainty as possible about the current state of federal dollars in this area.  I’m more inclined to go with the former explanation, but I am neither a lawyer nor a dedicated court analyst.

Meanwhile, back at the District Court where the lawsuit is being adjudicated, there have been some interesting developments.  As Nature notes, the government has filed a motion for summary judgment – asking the judge to decide the case without further courtroom proceedings.  The plaintiffs did the same thing earlier this month.

Conan Helps You With Your Astronomy Homework

In about six weeks I’ll be tracking an additional show for my Science and Technology Guests on Late Night series.  At that point Conan O’Brien will be back from his contractually obligated hiatus and airing his new show on the TBS cable channel.  He’s been taken to the Internet to remind folks that he’s still around and coming back to TV.  Part of the effort has included answering fan questions.  The latest question he answers has to do with the solar spectrum.

In case you were wondering, Dr. Kirby is the real deal.  And he got the question right (I did minor in astronomy and remember most of it).

Those who followed O’Brien’s previous shows may remember he has engaged with science content before (anything that aired on The Tonight Show appears to have been deleted, perhaps out of spite).  I’d love to see him resume his partnership with Intel.

Until November 8, Copernicus!</ConanNerd>

Yesterday’s Stem Cell Injunction Hearing Scrutinized Both Sides

Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals held a hearing on the injunction preventing the National Institutes of Health from supporting embryonic stem cell research.  That injunction is on hold while the Court of Appeals decides whether or not such research should be stayed while a lawsuit over the nation’s embryonic stem cell funding policies works its way through the courts.

In other words, the arguments yesterday, and the judges’ decision (expected later this week) are not on the merits of the lawsuit, but on the merits of stopping the government funding during the course of the lawsuit.

So the discussion of harms related to the injunction was an important part of the hearing, as both Nature and Science have described in their online coverage.  Nature‘s coverage does have a partial transcript, but with court hearings, predicting decisions from lines of questioning is at best an inexact process.  Even dealing with the backgrounds of the judges (two were appointed by President George W. Bush, one by President Clinton) doesn’t necessarily allow for good predictions of how things will be decided.  Some court observers believe the Republican-appointed judges favored the plaintiffs (who are seeking the ban) and the Democratic-appointed judge favored the government’s case.  Others believe that the judges were more even-handed in their questioning.

The decision about the injunction should be decided within the next week or so.  Even if the injunction is dropped, there is still the matter of the underlying court case.  The government could prevail this week and lose a few months down the road in front of the District Court.  And then there’s the possibility of the losing side in the lawsuit appealing the decision.  This could take years.

Science and Technology Guests on Late Night, Week of September 27

Absolute dregs this week.  While I’m loath to include animal handler guests, as there’s typically little science content in these presentations (in favor of making the host uncomfortable for laughs), that’s what I’m left with this week.

Julie Scardina of SeaWorld visits Jay Leno on Wednesday, and the animal hijinks continue on Jimmy Fallon’s show that night with the appearance of animal expert Jeff Musial.

Alternative recommendations?  Kari Byron from Mythbusters is hosting a weekday show on The Science Channel, Head Rush.  I think it’s geared toward middle school aged viewers, but that may not be a problem for you.  However, many cable systems don’t carry The Science Channel.  Speaking of Mythbusters, Discovery will run blocks of episodes on Wednesday evening and Saturday afternoon.  New episodes start October 6.  And if you don’t mind radio, you can catch up on Radiolab’s latest season via podcast.

Not Coming To The Clubs Near You: a Science Comedian

I’ve noted before that efforts – at least in the U.S. – to combine science and comedy have focused much more on bringing the funny than incorporating science.  Hopping across the Atlantic, we can see in the U.K. more of an effort to include more science content into humor (or rather, humour).  As the Guardian notes, neuroscientist and stand-up comedian Dean Burnett gets work doing comedy sets for scientific conferences.

Now, if there is someone able to do the same thing in the U.S. or in other countries, I’d love to hear about it.  But the only thing I’ve seen at a conference that comes close is a presentation by the Annals of Improbable Research (AIR) about Ig-Nobel winning research.  It’s a far cry from some of Burnett’s jokes from the Guardian piece, as Burnett is creating the funny, while AIR is acknowledging the found humor in some research.

Of course, humor is subjective, so your mileage may vary.

2010 National Book Festival Hits the Science and Technology Topics Hard

Earlier today I visited the National Book Festival in Washington.  Currently in its 10th year, I had never been before, but this year’s schedule was of particular interest.  In the span of two and one-half hours (in the same tent, even) I was able to listen to the following scientists, or in one case, technology historian:

• Edward O. Wilson, biologist
• Henry Petroski, engineer and failure researcher
• Richard Rhodes, nuclear weapons historian
• Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate for his work in cancer research, and Director of the National Cancer Institute.

Their presentations, along with the question and answer sessions, will be available shortly at the Festival’s website.  As you might expect, each author focused on their most recent work in their remarks, but the question and answer sessions could (and usually did) address other aspects of their work.  Wilson has written his first fiction work, Anthill, but ecosystem protection and his fascination with the natural world appear to pervade this work as much as in his nonfiction.  Rhodes is touring to promote the fourth volume in his series on the creation and spread of nuclear weapons.  It focuses on the period of the end of the Cold War to the present day.  I’d recommend diving into any of these volumes to expand your understanding of the subject, as his brief anecdotes suggest the books have been extensively researched and deserve the accolades.  Varmus spoke about the material covered in his recent memoir, The Art and Politics of Science (now out in paperback).  Discussions of goings-on in biomedical and cancer research had to wait for the question and answer session.

While all three authors were entertaining and informative, the best reason for me to spend the afternoon on the Mall in the heat was to hear Henry Petroski.

Senate Actually Does Something, Confirms Three Science and Technology Officials

Sadly, I’ve been sufficiently beaten down by the unwillingness and inability of Congress to pass budgets on time to get that frustrated about the backlog of pending confirmations.  It was nice to see, however, three science and technology positions confirmed over the last week or so.

Nobel Laureate Carl Wieman is now the Assistant Director for Science at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), six months after his nomination was announced.  In addition to his award-winning research in physics, Wieman is a noted expert in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education, which raises the possibility that his service at OSTP will be as much, if not more, about science education than science.  I think that would be a good thing, given the significant attention placed on STEM education and the need to find jobs for all these Ph.Ds we’re overproducing.  The OSTP finally has all four assistant director positions filled, something that has not happened in over a decade.

Elisabeth Hagen was also confirmed this week as Undersecretary of Agriculture for Food Safety.  It’s a bit odd, as she was given a recess appointment to the position just last month.  That appointment is valid through the next session of Congress (sometime in the last quarter of 2011).  Hagen gave a speech yesterday which outlined her priorities for food safety during her tenure.  Her thoughts are not easily summarized or bulleted, so I recommend you take the time to read the whole thing.

The Agriculture Department also has a replacement for Dr. Rajiv Shah, who left as Undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics in November 2009.  Catherine Woteki, who was nominated in April, has a background in nutrition, and previous government experience at the Department of Agriculture, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Department of Health and Human Services.

So, better late than never, I suppose.  But there’s just no way we have much, if any, of a budget, but the end of the fiscal year next Thursday.  People may complain about how Congress has done its job lately, but they’ve been a failure at the budget part for years.

Rare Science and Technology Action in Congress Today

It’s a rare (and I’m not exaggerating here) day of science and technology activity in both houses of Congress.  I already mentioned the briefing today on the follow-up to Rising Above the Gathering Storm.  Copies of the new report are probably floating around right now.  There will be a hearing of the full House Science and Technology Committee next Wednesday dealing with the concerns raised in that report.

Today the Senate Health, Labor, Education and Pensions committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on stem cell legislation and some nominations.  The stem cell hearing follows last week’s hearing of the relevant Senate Appropriations subcommittee, and I’ll post about both hearings early next week.  But the more critical action is finally holding a confirmation hearing for Dr. Subra Suresh to be the next Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).  His nomination was made in June.

And in an unfortunate bit of cross-scheduling with the Rising Above the Gathering Storm follow-up briefing, the Research and Science Education Subcommittee of the House Science and Technology Committee will hold a hearing this afternoon on the Science of Science and Innovation Policy.  Witnesses include the director of the NSF program of the same name, two academics involved in science policy and innovation, and the director of Science and Policy Programs for the organization formerly known as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  Witness statements are not yet up, but I hope that Daniel Sarewitz will speak to a glaring omission in the current NSF program – a lack of connection between the research supported by the program and the desired outcomes of having a better understanding of the practices of science and innovation.

NASA Conflict of Interest Right at the Top

I’m obnoxious when it comes to conflicts of interest or appearances of same in science and technology research and policy.  Today’s source of disappointment is not one of my usual targets, but the NASA Administrator, Charles Bolden.  I’m actually a bit surprised this hasn’t come up in the turf war squabbling between Congress and the Administration over the future of the agency.

The basics, per Nature: The NASA Office of Inspector General has chided the Administrator for an inappropriate contact with Marathon Oil Corporation, a company he has a significant financial interest in.  The contact concerned an alternative fuel project, OMEGA, which is administered by a NASA scientist and has received some NASA funding.  The contact with Marathon was in connection with a possible agreement between NASA and the Navy .

Hopefully you see where this at least looks bad.  And where conflicts of interest are concerned, looking bad is pretty bad.  The contact took place in late April, and was reported in the press in late June.

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducted an investigation, and in its report concludes that neither Marathon nor Administrator Bolden received any financial benefit from the call.  Marathon was not a party to the potential agreement, and Bolden did nothing as a result of the call to stop OMEGA, withhold funding, or kill the potential agreement.  However, the OIG did find that Bolden violated the ‘Ethics Pledge’ he signed when taking office.   This pledge stipulates that anyone who signs it will not

“participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients”

Such matters include communications related to the performance of one’s duties.  Bolden called Marathon to gain additional knowledge about the specific kind of alternative fuel OMEGA is using.  Bolden agrees with the OIG finding that this violated the ‘Ethics Pledge,’ and has recused himself from any future activity involving OMEGA.

Rising Above the Storm that Continues to Gather

In what has stretched any meteorological comparisons past reason into Roland Emmerich territory, Rising Above the Gathering Storm continues to dust itself off and remind people it’s still around.

On Thursday a follow-up report to the 2005 edition will be released.  Many of the same people who contributed to the initial report worked on the follow-up, titled Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Rapidly Approaching Category 5.  The briefing will include Norm Augustine, Senators Alexander and Bingaman, Representative Bart Gordon, and the Presidents of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering.

I won’t get to see the report until 2 p.m. Thursday (unless somebody opts to break the embargo).  The title, with its hurricane reference, has me leaning toward some of the same kind of exaggeration the original report was criticized for.  While it’s accurate to say that American competitiveness is still very much a concern, there have been efforts to enact at least some of the recommendations of the initial Gathering Storm report.  Yes, the reauthorization of the America COMPETES Act has not yet happened, but the timing is such that it can’t realistically be the motivation behind this new report.

The briefing will take place at 2 p.m. at Room SC-6 in the Capitol Building.  If you’re inclined to go, leave way early to make sure you can clear security.