Chopra joined the Obama Administration in May 2009, and was one of three individuals (including the Chief Information Officer and Chief Performance Officer) starting in new government positions focused on improving the function and performance of government.  The Chief Technology Officer position is not required by law, despite efforts to codify the position.  All three who started in the new positions have either left government or moved to other positions within government.

The Chief Technology Officer is officially an “Assistant to the President” and Chopra also holds the position of Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).  (OSTP Director Holdren didn’t mention this in his post on Chopra’s departure.)  I do not know if Chopra’s eventual successor will continue this relationship, as it seems that Chopra’s focus was more on the use of technology in the functions of governments rather than on the more traditional OSTP focus on supporting and encouraging the development of technology.  The Technology Division at OSTP did have staff focused on digital and open government initiatives, but they have left.

Personally, I think the different missions of the Technology Division and the Chief Technology Officer could be held within OSTP, and encourage its Science and Technology Divisions to focus as much on function as the Environmental and Energy, and National Security and International Affairs Divisions.  But that will take time, and a commitment from both Dr. Holdren and whomever succeeds Mr. Chopra to make it happen.

Some have tried to assess where the Republican candidates (usually just those still in the race since Iowa) stand on science and technology (mostly the latter), and you can dig through those laundry lists.  In my eyes, the candidates with the most egregious ‘science’ statements I’m particularly annoyed by a recent utterance from former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (quote at roughly 0:32).

“By the end of my second term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon, and it will be American.”

So, by January 2021, a scant nine years from now, the U.S. will have managed to:

• develop the base plan
• obtain Congressional approval
• find the money – either for NASA or for the still-nascent private space sector
• develop (or in some cases, redevelop) the launch and living technologies needed to establish a permanent settlement.

In constant dollars, the NASA budget from 1963 to 1969 was larger than the current NASA budget.  Sometimes the budget was nearly twice as much.  However, the budget in the 1960s was also a much larger share of the federal budget (between 2 and 4 percent, comparable to toal R&D spending today).

How does Mr. Gingrich think this will be financed?  Per The Washington Post:

“Gingrich proposed doing this without increasing NASA’s budget. Instead, he’d transform the agency’s culture, rely heavily on private industry and leverage American ingenuity. He said he’d use 10 percent of the NASA budget — which would amount to nearly $2 billion a year — to create prizes, incentives for entrepreneurs to achieve spaceflight milestones.”

The ridicule sent Mr. Gingrich’s way by his fellow candidates at tonight’s debate and the late night programs is well deserved.  If he is actually sincere with his plan, it stands a much better chance to land with the failures of both Bush Administrations to develop grand exploration plans and fail to effectively fund them (the jury is still out for the current Administration).  This self-proclaimed ideas man seems to have no thought for execution.

This is, arguably, an attempt to accelerate the gradual shifting of space exploration from public to private sectors.  As Congress resisted the Obama Administration’s effort in part because it felt that the private sector wasn’t quite ready (whether they are really just protecting local jobs is another matter), I would expect the same resistance to a President Gingrich.

There does not appear to be a Doney-specific reason for the hold placed on his nomination by Senator Vitter.  He’s still incensed by what he sees as a de facto drilling moratorium in the Gulf due to backlogs in permit issuance.  I would expect the position to go unfilled, as Vitter seems likely to place a hold on whomever would be nominated to the position next.  As for the Senator’s listing of scientific integrity concerns as a reason for placing a hold on a Chief Scientist’s confirmation, make of that what you will.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been working on a 100 Year Starship project along with NASA.  DARPA is supposed to be thinking about cutting edge projects, and long-term space travel (plus the needed skills and technologies) qualifies.  During 2011 the project solicited proposals and held a symposium.  There is a $500,000 grant for continued study of the requirements for long-term space travel.  According to reporting from Alan Boyle, the winning application has been chosen, but some details need to be finalized for it to be official, and officially announced.

One of the three groups that would receive the grant is the Dorothy Jemison Foundation for Excellence, led by Dr. Mae Jemison, a former astronaut and medical doctor who became the first black woman in space in 1992.  If that wasn’t enough of a PR hook, it should be noted that Dr. Jemison is also tightly linked to Star Trek.  She appeared in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1993, and Nichelle Nichols, who portrayed Lt. Uhura in the first Star Trek series, helped recruit Jemison for NASA.  Jemison has also worked on technology and science education companies and projects throughout her post-NASA work.

So while the unofficial word has filtered out, I would hope there could be some trumpeting of this project once all is official.  There is the risk of over-promising, especially with this project.  The 100 years is not just a fancy name – expect the planning, research and preparation to take years before any space vessel is built, much less launched.  But we certainly seem to have the right person helping things along.

In new programs this week, tonight is the night.  Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius will visit The Daily Show, and the recent decision to overrule the Food and Drug Administration on a contraception decision could be discussed (even if it’s just in an extended interview available online).  Naturalists are out in force.  Bear expert Casey Anderson visits with Conan tonight, and Peter Gros (former co-host of Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom) already visited Live with Kelly.

For comparison, here’s a clip ed in from one of Nye’s science programs. (Skip to about :30 if you’re not interested in anything else.)  Maybe I’m imagining things.

Is the #StarTrek transparent aluminum from The Voyage Home becoming a reality? StarTrek.com has the news. ow.ly/8Bp6n—
StarTrek.com (@StarTrek) January 21, 2012

The odds that I had scooped official Star Trek on a story they by rights should own seemed slim.  Turns out the ‘aluminum’ in question is not Gorilla Glass (which has just been upgraded to be stronger and thinner), but a transparent ceramic armor called ALON.  Surmet Corporation is emphasizing the armor angle with ALON, but that could well be a marketing choice rather than a particular characteristic of its product.  Corning is pushing optical glass with its product, but armor applications don’t seem far-fetched for Gorilla Glass.

Given my interests, the burning question is when will an aquarium take the marketing opportunity, build a nice whale tank out of this stuff and run with it?

I remain disinterested in watching these things, but I think visual aids do make it slightly more watchable for most.  If you want something more science-centered, you may enjoy RealClearScience‘s piece, part of a series of in-depth State of the Union addresses on various topics prepared by RealClearPolitics.  Regrettably the piece lacks even the rudimentary enhancement of the actual State of the Union, and falls into the same tired rhetoric of impressive-sounding numbers and laundry lists of objectives that makes me sleepy.

To watch the address online, go to White House Live on Tuesday evening (Eastern time) to catch the video.  It will end up on the White House YouTube page eventually.

And, for crying out loud, should you care to watch this online, disable the comments.  Reading that does nobody any good and likely angers up your blood.

The move of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to the Interior Department remains speculative, based on references the President has made about how President Nixon opted not to place the agency with Interior out of political spite.  But I’ve seen no details about whether the agency would be moved in total, or if it might be carved up like the Administration seeks to do with the Commerce Department.  There is a quote attributed to the current acting Office of Management and Budget chief that the ‘whole of NOAA’ would move to Interior, but I want to see it in writing.

The newest speculation is also not so new, but given new attention from the Commerce proposal.  Food Safety News is reporting (second-hand) that the second proposed reorganization would actually be consolidating the food safety activities in the Department of Agriculture with those at the Food and Drug Administration (H/T The Atlantic).  This idea has been floated before, as recently as this Government Accountability Office report from 2011.  As Marion Nestle notes, not everyone is keen on moving stuff out of the Department of Agriculture, even though it’s food promotion efforts give at least the appearance of a conflict with food safety responsibilities.

Not everyone is keen on the proposal to move NOAA to Interior, either.  The reasons cited demonstrate not only that it’s easier to create than destroy in Washington, but that what makes some administrative sense doesn’t account for resource concerns.

Science on Screen benefits from the support of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, as well as the Museum of Science.  The Sloan Foundation has partnered with Coolidge to bring Science on Screen to non-profit theaters across the country.  As the Foundation has sponsored plays and films that explore scientific themes, it’s not surprising to see them involved in this effort.

After a successful pilot program with eight theaters in 2011, the program expands to 20 theaters this year and another 20 in 2012.  The grants aren’t enormous ($7,000), so I would expect successful theaters will have to find other partners to make their Science on Screen programs sustainable.  Winning theaters will need to host three Science on Screen events each year, and one of those events must feature a film that received a Sloan Foundation film or screenplay award.

As the Boston Globe article notes, there could be more coming out of these efforts than a little mind expansion for the audience.  You can credit the future film version of The Zombie Autopsies to author Stephen Schlozman’s paper he wrote in preparation for a Science-to-Screen event with Night of the Living Dead.