Thursday, March 26, 2009

NIH Information

The National Institutes of Health received far more money than the NSF from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  Again, it's not entirely clear where that money will go.

The NIH will likely fund projects that are already in house, but previously were not supported because resources were unavailable.  At the same time, purport to prioritize an investment in education, and training teachers.  This sounds like a good goal for the "reinvestment" portion of "recovery and reinvestment" - given that so much money has so far gone to recovery, and not reinvestment, this is could be a good thing if the money is spent wisely.

More Bills Introduced

More bills relevant to science policy have been introduced; their significance and potential to ultimately get out of comittee, put to vote, and ultimately made into law is highly questionable, but nonetheless important in shaping the rhetoric of the science policy debate in congress.

H.R. 1622, introduced by Oklahoma's Republican John Sullivan.  

The bill generally calls for the Secretary of Energy to direct a 5 year investigation into the natural gas vehicles.  Sullivan is one of the most conservative members of congress, and voted with the Bush administration 100% of the time.  While it is unlikely that this bill will go anywhere in congress, it is a testament further bipartisan initiative to explore energy alternatives - whether or not environmental concerns are part of the language used in defining relevant problems.  On the one hand, natural gas vehicles could permit Americans to reduce their overall emissions, and cut dependence on foreign oil (the United States is relatively well endowed in natural gas, compared to oil).  

On the other hand, this may represent a problem for environmentalists as a whole.  As Shellenberger and Nordhaus famously argued in their piece the Death of Environmentalism, environmental concerns will only be addressed through federal legislation if the issues are framed as everyone's problem, rather than the special interest of a fringe group.  The economics of oil have made this a reality to some extent: oil is becoming increasingly scarce, so people want alternatives - regardless of whether they care about climate change or not.  Sullivan's bill is indicative of this phemonemon (though by no means is it the first or even a particularly early indication of it).  However, the precedent it sets could be problematic for environmentalists because bipartisan support for economical alternatives to foreign oil could open the door to less environmentally friendly alternatives, such as oil shale.

Oil shale, a form of oil mixed with rock, is extremely abundant in the Rocky Mountains, but it is currently very expensive to extract.  Environmental groups should perhaps be weary of how broad the scope of scientific inquiry into viable energy sources becomes.


H.R. 1689, introduced by Virginia Democrat Rick Boucher.  

This bill calls for increased development and deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS)  technologies for existing fossil fuel electrical generation plants (in other words an exploration of "clean coal").  It is interesting to note that, although existing CCS technologies are widely decried as imperfect, incomplete and indeed imaginary, the bill does not call for additional scientific research.  Rather, it calls for deployment of technologies which already "exist."  

Looking at Boucher's voting history, he has been among the Democrats opposed to any restrictions on greenhouse gas emissions.  This bill is clearly an attempt to promote coal, and to resist its replacement by natural gas.  Interestingly, rather than outright opposing restrictions on GHG emissions, Boucher is attempting to make coal more competitive with natural gas in an environment (no pun intended) of taxed emissions.  Does he see such a state of affairs as inevitable, then?  Maybe so - he has been rather explicit in his intentions.  

Boucher's house website contains (select) statements from various legislators on the issue.  This statement summarizes the position of Boucher's office: 

Today 58% of U.S. homes are heated with natural gas, and numerous industries are heavily reliant on it. If large scale switching by utilities from coal to natural gas occurs, tens of millions of Americans would experience deep economic pain, and many domestic industries would be dislocated. The early arrival of CCS is essential to prevent this economic disruption in a carbon constrained economy

The argument against fuel switching is on economic grounds - but does CCS really solve this?  If we fiat that a cap and trade bill with some regulatory teeth is enacted in the near future, then coal would have to actually demonstrate significantly reduced emissions in order to be competitive with natural gas.  Given that technology is currently inadequate to make this happen, why didn't Boucher call for research, rather than deployment?  It's hard to believe that his staffers simply failed to do their homework and crunch the numbers properly.  Much more likely, Boucher (along with many others) is attempting to distort the debate by presenting this technology as more viable than it is, keeping coal firmly entrenched in the landscape of America's energy future.



NSF Information

The NSF issued a not-so-informative statement about where some of their $3 billion from the stimulus package is going to go.  

Of the $2 billion that's been allotted to Research and Related Activities, most if it will be going towards funding projects that are already in house, but haven't been supported due to insufficient funds.  This could be good news for recent applicants - it doesn't offer any guidance as to which academic projects in particular will receive attention, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing.  Ultimately, an ostensible purpose of the NSF is to fund basic research.  It was not founded with any explicit obligation to report upon the "usefulness" of the projects it selects to support.  

The NSF will issue solicitations for the Major Research instrumentation program (MRI), which was given $300 million by the stimulus package at some point this spring - good news for institutions who could benefit from more equipment.  Hopefully the NSF will have good oversight into where this money goes.   While the notion that "basic research" deserves funding - for reasons ranging the intrinsic value of the search for truth to the likelihood of useful serendipidous findings - isn't a bad one, there are certain problems that are especially pressing right now.  Energy comes to mind most obviously, and the people in charge of prioritizing research funding will inevitably "pick winners" to some extent.  It's above the pay grade of this blog to advise decision makers on what winners to pick, and beyond its ability to suggest how such a practice could be avoided, but it would be in everybody's interest if the system for allocating funding was reassessed in the context of our energy crisis.



Sunday, March 15, 2009

House Commends NASA

The House also passed a resolution commending NASA scientists' work on the Mars rover.  

Pi Day!

The House passed a resolution recognizing PI-day, the role of the NSF in science and math education, and encouraging teachers to celebrate PI-day with appropriate activities.

Direction

There has been some activity on relevant legislation so far in March, and it deserves attention.

However, a couple noteworthy changes in the direction of this blog.  Most of the "science" relevant legislation that has been tracked thus far has come out of the House Science & Technology Committee; some of it will make it out of the committee, less of it will be debated, and much less of it will ultimately become law.

Speaking with Science Policy experts, there is a strong sense that hearings and other work by the House S&T committee may well be irrelevant until proven otherwise.  Over the course of the last ten years or so, funding for particular projects has been authorized through a variety of legislation, some of which came from the S&T Committee.  The America COMPETES act of 2007 set out further priorities for increasing and targeting funding for science.  The stimulus bill this year (American Recovery and Reinvestment Actof 2009)  provided $20 billion to go towards science & technology research & development, and this will be by far the most significant director of science and technology policy this year.  

At this point, much of the heavy lifting lies in the hands of the congressional appropriations committees, and this blog will continue to watch them.

Two other important things to be aware of.  First, there was an omnibus appropriations bill signed into law by President Obama on March 11.  This $410 billion bill includes appropriations for a huge number of agencies, including ones relevant to science & technology policy.  In the relevant section of the bill, billions of dollars are allocated to the National Aeronautcis and Space Association.  The National Science Foundation similarly has billions allocated towards research and education.   The full text of the bill is here.

Second, there will probably be a very large omnibus appropriations bill put through congress - by either Henry Waxman or Edward Markey, in all likelihood.  The specifics of who will control the bill are uncertain, and it is going to be met with red-hot Republican opposition.  This WSJ op-ed summarizes much of the opposition.  Whether the bill will be opposed is not the question; rather, it will be interesting to see whether or not the bill is emasculated, in terms of regulatory teeth, prior to its passage.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

The Committee's Agenda

According to the House Science & Technology Committee's "aggressive agenda" for the 111th congress, their agenda includes:

"Energy: Developing Clean Technologies
Our dependence on foreign sources of energy, increasing greenhouse gas emissions, the need for a more balanced energy portfolio, and rising energy costs will be solved by science, technology, and innovation. The Committee plans to:
• Work with the new Administration to implement the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E) –based on the  successful DARPA model, ARPA-E is tasked with undertaking high-risk, high-reward energy technology development, especially research that is too cross-cutting or multi-disciplinary to fit into the current system, and partnering with the best talent in the private sector, universities, and the national labs
• Conduct oversight on the implementation of energy technology programs authorized in EISA 2007 (solar, geothermal, hydrokinetic, cellulosic biofuels, carbon capture and sequestration, energy storage, smart grid, and energy efficiency programs) and recommend any necessary changes
• Review programs at the DOE Office of Science, including ways to strengthen the linkages between basic energy research, applied energy research, and technology transfer and ways to make DOE lab management more effective
• Address new energy technology challenges, including nuclear reactors and reprocessing, vehicles including heavy trucks, and pipelines for new fuels and CO2

Workforce: Creating Jobs of the Future
When half of the world’s workers earn less than $2 a day, our country needs to compete at a higher level – with better skills and higher productivity. The Committee will continue seeking to ensure not only that our nation will produce the world’s leading scientists and engineers but also that all students will have a strong grounding in math and science and are prepared for technical jobs in every sector of the economy. The Committee plans to:
• Evaluate STEM education programs across the Federal government and determine how to better coordinate these efforts to make them more effective
• Assess efforts to promote diversity in the STEM workforce and gender equity at academic institutions
• Directing investments across the economy in technologies and entities – including small manufacturers and high-tech firms - to create “green jobs” that boost economic growth

Environment: Protecting Our Natural Resources
• Address the need for accurate and reliable technologies to monitor reporting and compliance with greenhouse gas emission limits in any climate change cap-and-trade scheme
• Direct more effective coordination of Federal research on water supply, quality, and conservation and set a roadmap for technologies, such as “produced water” technologies, needed to address water issues arising from the interdependency of water and energy resources
• Direct R&D programs to address the environmental and economic implications of electronic waste (e-waste) from computers, televisions, cell phones, and other consumer goods
• Conduct a wholesale review of weather and ocean research at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, including work on ocean acidification and harmful algal blooms"


The rhetoric of the agenda implies at least a redirection of federal funds in R&D; given that the stimulus bill allocated some $20 bn to scientific research, this blog will watch to see if this rhetoric plays out ultimately.

As the power to make these allocations shifts to particular federal agencies, this blog will attempt track their actions in an effort to see where funds go, from legislative agenda to research project.  It probably won't be easy.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Tracking the Committee

As we all know, the majority of bills and resolutions (including those that seem fairly sensible and non-controversial) do not make it out of committee.  According to their website, "the House Science and Technology Committee passed 82 bills in the House – 37 resolutions passed, 27 bills were enacted into law, and 18 additional bills passed the House. In order to spearhead as many science and technology priorities and issues, the Committee has set an aggressive agenda for the 111th Congress."  

There hasn't been very much activity on any of the bills introduced by the committee so far, but hopefully there will be.  In the event that the next couple months are slow with respect to science and policy, it's important to think about why, and nevertheless examine the agenda of the committee.  They do indeed have an interesting lineup of hearings.

On February 24, the committee held a hearing entitled "How Do We Know What We Are Emitting? Monitoring, Reporting and Verifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions."  The hearing charter describes its purpose: "The purpose of the hearing is to determine the federal role in supporting research and development of monitoring technologies, emissions factors, models, and other tools necessary to support reliable accounting of baseline greenhouse gas emissions and changes in emissions relative to the baseline under a regulatory program for greenhouse gases."  

The four witnesses included John Stephenson of the Government Accountability Office, Jill Gravender of the Climate Registry, Leslie Wong of Waste Management, Inc., and Rob Ellis of Advanced Waste Management Systems, Inc.  

Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA) surmised in a press release after the hearing:

  “In order to evaluate programs – either mandatory or voluntary – for controlling greenhouse gases, we must be able to track emissions accurately,” said Subcommittee Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA). “We need an accurate measurement of baseline emissions. We need to know the emissions levels we are starting from and we need a good baseline estimate as a benchmark to determine whether control programs are effective or not in reducing emissions.”

Will this be grounds for increased federal funding for greenhouse gas monitoring?  Maybe; ultimately, a lot of that is likely to be in the hands of particular federal agencies with funds.




Today, there was a hearing on water.  Committee chairman Bart Gordon (D-TN) introduced  HR 1145, The National Water Research and Development Initiative Act of 2009.  The bill calls for priorities to be set for water research.  One of the witnesses, Dr. Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute made the point, "...the Bill calls for the interagency committee to 'establish the priorities for Federal water research.'  I believe that such priorities are clearly, and comprehensively, laid out in the NRC, SWAQ, and OMB reports already available. We know what we need to do; what is needed is the funding and effort to do it."

The call from the hearing was clear: federal funding for research in water.  It will be interesting to see how this bill progresses, given the attention it's received so far in committee.