Braggin' on the Original Science Cheerleader

It's been awhile since I've done this, but I have to share Darlene's latest exploit: she won an Emmy. Okay, it's a Sports Emmy, but so the heck what?!? In this case, for those of you who don't automatically click on links, I'll just note that the "Science of the NFL" series, a concept Dar sold to the National Science Foundation and NBC Sports, appeared both on TV and the web (as introduced by the Science Cheerleaders). The series was honored for Outstanding New Approaches Sports Programming.

Goooooo Dar!

Potpourri CLV

It's been awhile since I've done one of these, but I thought I'd take a few free minutes to clear out the blog pile, as Sunday Night Football isn't wowing me this evening.

First off: the 50 fattiest foods in America. And for dessert, cupcakes.

On the more serious side, Lin sent the following speech on the state of free speech in Europe.

With the tools of CGI becoming more and more widespread, it is possible for amateurs to create some pretty decent Star Trek movies. I can't vouch for all of the acting.

I need to investigate/discuss this further, but here's a blog in defense of a liberal arts education. This is worth considering, even when everyone in my circle of fellow bloggers is spun up about the state of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education. There IS still a place for English majors, after all...

From Stefanie, a little programming humor(?): Prolog haiku.

This is old (2002), but still worth reading: Penn Gillette on getting groped by the TSA. Along the same lines, here's a worthwhile editorial by Salon Magazine on airport security.

I never get tired of these: random moments of opera staged in public areas. This one is in Palermo, Italy.

Economic news so disheartening you'll want to be sitting down to read it.

Randy Olson, our fearless filmmaker, holds forth on the Science Cheerleaders.

Nothing against the U-2, it's a marvelous airplane. But really, if we retired the SR-71, shouldn't we be moving forward with the next generation of spy plane, not going back to stuff our grandparents built?

Video talk by the Air Force One pilot who was flying on September 11.

My buddy Erika appeared recently on the "Faces of Marshall" feature on NASA.gov. When she starts talking about a certain friend who was very passionate about space, that'd be Your Humble Narrator.

From the Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE), a collection of peer-reviewed papers on anthropomorphic global warming.

From Doc: a recommended "not stupid" site on football analysis.

Interesting article on why the Singularity won't happen.

I just loved this blog by Allie Brosh. Her humor is wickedly funny and her drawing manages to convey emotion if not exactly Michelangelo.

A guide on how to taste wine.

The MaybeLogic Academy...

I still like this: a force field for IDF tanks. Now we need one!

And I guess that'll do for now. I'm rather busy, so if I'm not posting as often, please know that it's for a good cause: promoting Science Cheerleader.com or the International Space Development Conference.

Salud.

Potpourri CLIII

Diving in...

I will do a more detailed analysis of these two articles at some point, but it is interesting to contrast the views of Kim Stanley Robinson, who believes that scientists should assert themselves as some sort of scientific leftist elite while Anthony Gottlieb believes that scientists need to be more humble about forcing their conclusions on people.

From Hu, the latest proposed outrage from the airline industry: even less leg room.

The only thing more arrogant than asserting that human beings alone are capable of "destroying the planet" might be human beings asserting that we can fix the planet. Makes for interesting science fiction, but we're a ways off at this point from doing either.

Here's an editorial from The Space Review on the Space Shuttle's imminent demise and the programmatic mistakes made along the way.

Feeling snarky? Sarcastic? Pessimistic about the state of humanity or the world in general? This site might be for you.

From Twila: an editorial on bringing back the manned space program. Caveat visor: I haven't read this one yet.

This amuses me greatly: a terrorist made the mistake of asking one of his captives to help him set up his smart phone. This is a truly Ayn Randian moment--or at least a teachable moment, to use the current political lexicon. The assumption on the part of the terrorist is that the civilized person will comply with his wish to keep the machinery of civilization working at the point of a gun. This stuff needs to stop.

Melissa forwarded me this site of videos about the Periodic Table of the Elements after I explained that I was learning about them via another class-on-CD from The Teaching Company, "The Joy of Science." You know: because I don't have anything else to dod with my free time.

From the MSN Lifestyle section, a little helpful primer for women on rejecting men who ask them out.

I was feeling pretty good about my salami and provolone sandwich I was eating the other day, then I ran across this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310805/TV-chef-Martin-Blunos-creates-cheese-sandwich-costs-incredible-110.html

From Lin:

• An editorial pointing out that private property rights in the U.S. are deteriorating. How badly? Well, when China and Ghana(?) are ahead of us on that score, you've got to wonder.
• An editorial on the fact that the U.S. is now getting cozier with Vietnam, a place where we once had quite a nasty war. This isn't terribly surprising. I see it as part of an ongoing effort to surround China with U.S.-friendly nations on the Asian mainland: Vietnam, Thailand, India, and some of the Central Asian republics. The Spanish Hapsburgs tried to rein in France in the 16th-18th centuries in a similar fashion, much as we tried to hem in Germany after World Wars I and II and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and Iran today. The enemy of my enemy is my friend...at least for the moment. Or so the thinking goes. This is how we ended up giving arms to Saddam Hussein, then turning on him when he started messing with our interests in Saudi Arabia. Lin quoted Lord Palmerston aptly on this: "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests."

I have more, but that will do for now. I simply must get caught up on my sleep at some point.

Myers-Briggs, Culture Wars, and the Avant-Garde

In the process of reading The Introvert Advantage, a few facts converged in my mind:

• Extroverts outnumber introverts 3 to 1 in the general populace.
• The science, space, and engineering communities that I support (as a semi-extroverted introvert, I'll note) are dominated by introverts.
• My extroverted friend Darlene the Science Cheerleader has been fighting against stereotypes and for broader public participation in science- and technology-related debates.
• Awhile back, I wrote an article about the arrival of professionals (i.e., extroverted marketing types) into the space advocacy business.

It has since occurred to me that the "two cultures" identified by C. P. Snow in the early 1960s were misidentified. The war might not be between cultures but between temperaments: between the introverts and the extroverts.

Consider a few side effects of being introverted:

• Natural quietude and deep (internalized) thinking.
• A tendency to focus deeply on topics of personal interest, often in compensation for social awkwardness.
• A tendency to believe, often rightly, that others don't understand you or your interests.

The result of these introverted tendencies is a long-running snobbery by introverted and technically minded individuals against generally socially minded extroverts. This snobbery is not limited to the science or engineering worlds, however; introverted artists often exhibit pessimistic or depressive outlooks and tend to look down on optimistic extroverts (e.g. cheerleaders).

What, then, is the "culture war" or "temperament war" about? I think it has to do with influence, power, and money. There are many, many more extroverts than introverts, yet introverts often monopolize the cultures of high technology and the arts, which generate much of the wealth in this country. The majority wants a piece of the action.

That is why "geek" is now more chic.

That is why fantasy, science fiction, and comic book-based movies are now the big money makers in Hollywood.

That is why the shape of space exploration is shifting toward a more participatory activity.

That might be why we have our first nerd President.


"Geek" might be chic, but the extroverts are taking over, and they now want their say on issues which, up to now, were controlled by introverts because they were the only ones with enough interest to pay attention to them.

So what will be the end result of this invasion of the introverts' domain by extroverts? Speaking as a moderately extroverted introvert, if I had to guess I'd say that as "geek space" becomes more mainstream, the introverts will move on to other, even more esoteric interests, ideas, art forms, and technologies.

Introverts might not say much, but they do keep the avant-garde moving steadily onward, continually pushing the boundaries of the human experience. So the "war" won't be won or lost. Instead, the introverts will simply move the battle lines somewhere they can get a little peace and quiet. As with anything avant-garde, by the time the avant-garde has become mainstream, the frontier has already moved on, simply because introverts hate crowds.

Interview: Meg Tuma, Scientist and Mentor


In the course of doing my job, I frequently get to work with a lot of very smart people, among them Margaret L. (Meg) Tuma, Ph.D., one of the engineers ("rocket scientists") at Marshall Space Flight Center.


What do you do at Marshall Space Flight Center?
I’m the project lead for the Ares I Integrated Vehicle Ground Vibration Test. That’s a mouthful – and means I’m responsible for the modal test on the new Ares rocket. We need to understand the natural frequencies and damping of the Ares V vehicle in order to adequately control the vehicle during ascent and flight. My responsibilities include getting the test rocket hardware from each of the rocket component elements (First Stage, Upper Stage, Upper Stage Engine, and Orion), coordinating transportation to MSFC and the Test Stand, getting the Test Stand (4550) ready for testing, the hydrodynamic stands (ie big shock absorbers), stacking the hardware, conducting the test, and disassembling the vehicle.




What degrees do you have? B.S. Physics, M.S. Physics, Ph.D. Electrical Engineering
Did you pursue these degrees with space in mind? Always in the back of my mind, but not my ultimate goal. I really didn’t think I had a chance to work at NASA, so when I got the opportunity, I jumped on it!


When did you know you wanted to work in a scientific or technical field?
In high school. I always liked math and science and in high school was challenged in physics and calculus and realized that’s what I wanted to pursue in college.


How did you make the switch from research to management?
I was in the NASA Professional Development program in 2000-2001. During that year, I worked at JPL, a University, and HQ. These experiences broadened my horizons and made me realize my talents would be put to better use if I shifted from research into project management. It was a fairly smooth transition. Although, I miss research from time to time. I still work on one of my inventions in my “spare” time. It’s a miniature light bulb (aka a “light bulb on a chip”) that can be used as a calibration source for spectrometers on satellites or remote terrestrial applications.



What's the biggest difference between science and engineering?
Engineering is much more applied. Science is a broader field trying to understand nature at its core (forces, electricity, etc.) Engineering takes science and applies it to make things work.



What advice would you give to young women interested in pursuing STEM careers?
Study study study! In groups if you can find a good study group. Take an internship or summer job in the field you are pursuing to “test drive” it. It’s much easier to change a major to match the career you’re interested in. Get a mentor. This is really important. There are several mentoring programs. One is MentorNet – an online mentoring program.



You participate in a mentoring program through the University of Akron. What can you tell me about that experience?
It’s wonderful! Each year I’m paired with one or more students and meet with them in person monthly usually at a social event (bowling, touring a museum, etc) and via email on a weekly basis. In fact, I’m still in contact with students I mentored 10 years ago! I was able to help them with class choices, provide career advice, and just listen to their problems when they needed to talk. I like helping others so I find it very fulfilling. I’m also a charter member of MentorNet – an online mentoring program where I’m paired with a graduate student in the US and we communicate via email a few times a month. My current mentee is in California and had a side project working on research for microwave popcorn. It was very interesting. I’m also involved in the “Adopt-A-Physicist” program. Twice a year I get paired with 2 or more high school classes from across the US and communicate via email. They ask lots of questions! Like, what made me decide to go into my current career, my favorite class, most interesting work experience, toughest work experience, etc. I was mentoring 3 classes during the Ares I-X launch, and they were tracking the progress and stopped their school work to watch the launch. It was neat to share that excitement with so many young students.



In addition to technical knowledge, what skills have you found the most valuable in your career?
People skills! It is so important to understand how to manage a team and understand your team’s personal dynamics.



What's been the coolest moment in your career so far?
Ares I-X launch. Followed by aero flight tests. And riding in the vomit comet.


Where do you go from here?
The moon! Still trying to be an astronaut. Hopefully we’ll have a replacement vehicle for the shuttle to take us there.

Potpourri CX

From Tracy, a site that tracks trends in scientific research and how many times particular papers are cited.

For those of you accessing NASA TV via direct satellite link, the satellite is changing.

Just to give myself an idea of what Dr. OZMG has decided to put herself through, I did a little reading on what it takes to train for a marathon. I think I'll stick with aerobics, walking, and weight lifting for my exercise. I've had the popping knees and ankles of an 80-year-old man since I was about 10. I can be an energetic cheering section, though...

Yikes! The U.S. has exceeded the congressionally approved ceiling for the national debt--over $12 trillion!

Roy Disney, nephew of the late Walt Disney, has died. A shame. Roy was a decent guy, from all I heard.

A book that's right up Dar's alley: Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making.

Another book of interest: Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering.

Hat tip to Dar for pointing this one out to me: From NASWatch/SpaceRef: A rumored/leaked breakthrough in learning what President Obama's NASA policy is going to be. The original story can be found here.

Thoughts on Dachau

The following is an edit of some of my thoughts after my visit to the Dachau concentration camp in Germany, outside Munich.

Cruelty sanctioned by the state is that much more horrific because there's no one to appeal to short of another state (assuming they care) or God. And what if Hitler had won the war, and the evil had gone on and on?

"Picture a boot, stamping on a human face, forever."
--George Orwell, 1984

The evil didn't stop with mere physical abuse. Humiliation and degradation go hand and hand with the operation. Bodies are meagerly clothed in institutional striped uniforms; heads are shaved, gold fillings removed; the people are underfed and then made to work as slaves. More beatings for poor work or slacking off or passing out from exhaustion. Survival is obtained through favors or kowtowing or luck or a raw, relentless will to live.

But all those qualities need not matter. Illness might come, or injury. Lacking a healthy immune system, positive attitude, or adequate medical care, one might go from the infirmary to the firing squad or the gas chamber. Naked, bewildered, disbelieving to the end that their own countrymen (or any men) would do such a thing, they nevertheless walked into rooms made to look like showers, and from those shower heads came a particularly nasty pesticide, Zyklon B. People would push and claw their way toward the door to escape. Those not crushed succumbed to the gas.

The horror didn't end for some. The chambers had to be emptied and cleaned, which meant some prisoners--tattooed on their arms, like the dead--were ordered to remove the bodies and then bury them or throw the bodies into industrial ovens.

Every day like this for six years or more. Some deny it happened, and some just wish it would. How dare they? How dare anyone?

*

The camps required a wicked mutation of science and engineering. Someone had to develop Zyklon B. Someone had to experiment to determine the right concentration of the gas to kill X number of people. Someone had to determine how long it would take to kill the occupants and how long it would take the gas to dissipate before reopening the chamber. Others had to make the poison. Others built the chambers. Others had to determine where they would be placed in the camps and how to handle the rounding up of prisoners. And someone had to write everything down--the orders and procedures.

Human minds did this, calmly, rationally, methodically. Every step of the way there were men who did the work, signed off on it, and moved the horrid mechanisms down the next step in the chain. So what if you loved your country? So what if you hated your enemies? Was engineering death at such a personal level worth it?

I make no claims to purity of intention, that I could somehow have been "the good German." That step in the process where I mention writing down the processes? That would've been the technical writers of the day. One of my grad school professors included a section in his book on technical communication ethics on procedures written for a mobile gas chamber the Nazis tried to develop. The person who had to write that stuff--what kind of nightmares did he have? But he did the work anyway.

*

And the question still comes back: how does a person or a party manage to twist a nation's conscience so? "Nazi" is thrown around as an epithet today as if every political enemy were automatically as evil as Hitler, probably because Hitler did not start with big things off the bat. He started small. And human nature is not that different across distances of time or nationality. It can start with not liking a particular already-unpopular group of people. You don't say anything because, while you don't exactly hate that group, you don't exactly like them, either. And if, say, the government started targeting that group for extra taxes, punishing fines, or hostile treatment, well, you're likely to shut up because you don't have a dog in that fight. The day might even come when you personally benefit from the government's campaign--they take property and possessions from the unpopular group and give it to you. You are now in the government's pocket, as they well know. You've accepted their moral premise, and you've profited from their (and your) moral lapse. How can you speak against the government now? And when your country goes to war with someone else, welll, you're all the more likely to volunteer to fight and fight hard, because you don't want to be on the losing side. After all, you know what you did. And if you get letters from your wife that the people in X group have disappeared and there are rumors of death camps, that's just wild speculation, enemy propaganda...but you can't help wondering how true it is. After all, you know what you did.

*

But all these attitudes still have to come from somewhere. A people's moral and ethical compass isn't lost all at once. That compass is directed by religion and philosophy. Drop religion, as so much of Western Civilization has done, and you're left only with philosophy, and the 20th century produced some of the nastiest schools of thought in human history. The beliefs of these schools include beliefs that:

• The state is more important than you.
• It's better to remain silent and keep your place than stand up for a fellow human being and be forced out of it.
• The use of force is okay as long as you're not on the receiving end of it.
• Everything the state tells you about a particular group is the truth and commands your obedience when that state orders you to kill.
• God does not exist, so you must get what you can out of this life; protect yourself, your family, and your possessions with every bit of strength you can muster...or entrust them all to the state or a leader for protection.
• Everything the state tells you is a lie, and only self-appointed demagogues can clear away the corruption and indecision of mere elected leaders.
• Your own security is worth protecting at any cost.
• The state's security is worth protecting at any cost.
• A powerful, charismatic leader is worth trusting to any end if you believe his cause is just.

Dachau is a stain on all of us, not just the Germans or Western Civilization, but upon all human beings. Philosophy led the way, science and technology merely cleared the path.

*

What got to me were the damned ovens. It's one thing to hear about them or read about them, or even just see a picture; it's another thing to be there in the room with them, or to walk through the gas chambers and realize that the things actually existed. In fact, what bothered me the most was how clean everything at Dachau was...almost as if they could open for business at any moment.

A couple on my tour had visited a village in France called Oradour-sur-Glane. There, in June 1944, four days after D-Day, soldiers of the 2nd Waffen-SS Division Das Reich rounded up over 600 French citizens and massacred them. General Charles de Gaulle, after visiting the site, ordered the bodies buried, but the town to be left as it was...as a reminder. Oradour-sur-Glane was not on my tour, but I'd be tempted to go there at some point. Seeing things as they were, even after 60+ years of time had worn things away, seems to bring home the point better than this spruced-up museum place at Dachau. It's just too clean to be believed or even, really, accepted.

Below are some other pictures I took during my brief time there. The compound is massive when walking it on your own, but small when you consider how many people they crammed in there at one time. The administration, prison buildings, walls, and guard towers are mostly intact--in fact, the U.S. Army kept prisoners in the prison building up through the mid 1950s. The barracks have been torn down, with two reconstructions built. There were 30 long shacks in all, the outline of each depicted by concrete perimeters (the original foundations?). A long row of poplar trees fills the aisle between the two rows of buildings...unlikely to be original. The prison building is now a museum, which includes maps, pictures, equipment from the camps, memorial stones and flowers sent by various cultural and military groups, and art inspired (if one can call it that) by the camps.

This piece is a little creepy, featuring as it does emaciated, burnt-looking corpses. In fact, corpses, barbed wire, and madness are prominent in all the visual representations found at the camp, including at some of the religious sites.

The uniform worn by prisoners.










One of the pictures from the museum. No apologies for the horrific nature of it. That is why we visit these places--so we don't forget.









Another image from the museum, this one drawn by one of the prisoners, shows the beating of one of the prisoners by several guards. Again, this was done by agents of the government, acting under the express command of the highest levels of leadership.










The camp has several religious buildings attached to it, including a Jewish shrine, a Catholic shrine, a "Reformed Christian" church, a Catholic nunnery, and an Eastern Orthodox chapel. There was a service occurring at the latter when I arrived, but out of respect I didn't take any pictures.

The gateway to the Jewish temple. Note the spikes.

Exterior of the Jewish temple/shrine. Visitors walk down a ramp to the interior, as if walking into the grave.

This is the Reformed Christian Church at Dachau. I don't understand the symbology, but there are half-crosses all around the building. Otherwise, the place seems to lack rational shape or symbol. Is that a message in itself?

Another terrifying piece of sculpture: distorted bodies pieces together in all directions like some barbed wire experiment gone horribly wrong.

One of several guard towers still in place.

"Arbeit macht frei," the motto at the gates of Dachau, Auschwitz, and all the other camps, I believe, means, "Work makes you free."

The smokestack from the damned ovens.

If those things were going as often as was estimated, there is no way the local people did not know. Expressions of denial were not sufficient for the American soldiers who saw these places, and rightly so. Everyone in Germany was--and is--required to visit one of the camps to rub their noses in it so they never forget. Good.

I confess, I came out of the camp wanting to bomb the country flat. But then I thought about it and realized that, no, living memory and constant reminders are absolutely necessary. How sick and unfortunate it is that human beings need such reminders. Not just the Germans, but all of us. But need them we do, to remind ourselves of what cruelty we are capable of...even bombing a country flat.

Potpourri CII

Working on clearing my inbox while I do laundry and pack for Europe. One week to go. HOO-wah!

This is important and disturbing, so it's moving to the top of the pile: aides to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) are drafting legislation that would give the president power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet during a "cybersecurity emergency," whatever the heck that is. An amazing amount of commerce is performed via internet. If this bill passed, a large segment of the population and the private sector might find itself unable to conduct busines or communicate electronically. How's that hope and change working out for ya?

The first image of a complete molecule has been captured. Amazing!

Don't try this at home or on safari!

More from the animal kingdom...painting elephants. I can't help wondering if these elephant artists have started smoking and complaining about how the bourgeois tourists don't understand how they suffer...

Mahmoud Ahmadenijad wants to prosecute his political opponents in the recent Iranian election for stirring up trouble (e.g. daring to question him)...you know: kinda like prosecuting Bush administration officials after the last election.

From @skytland, a panel summary from "South by Southwest" (a.k.a. SXSW), one of the largest new media events in the country. The panel topic? "Moon 2.0," which is to say, participatory space exploration of the moon. My buddy Doc might be going to this event. I'll get my media fixes vicariously through him.

Someone else is looking to build a space hotel. I've got to confess: the more I think about the effects of weightlessness, the more I think staying the heck here sounds like a great idea. Is it heresy for a space advocate to say that? Probably, but there ya go. Happy to have the opportunity to go, but really, I've got laundry to do. Or something.

CNN is reporting that some sectors of the economy are reviving themselves without government assistance. You know: that whole "invisible hand" thing that some of my liberal friends don't trust or don't believe exists. My question is: if that's the case, can we stop with the bailouts already and not spend the rest of that trillion-dollar "stimulus?" As Father Dan puts it to me when I ask silly rhetorical questions, "Get a grip!" The stimulus isn't about stimulating the economy. We already had proof when Bush did it that government stimulus spending does not work, and that was $700 billion worth. Then Obama doubled down with over a trillion. So the answer to my question is, yes, we can stop with the bailouts, but we won't because President Obama has a different agenda in mind. So here's the game plan:

1. Jack up government spending to show that he's "doing something."
2. Admit after the fact that the deficit is too high.
3. Raise taxes to pay down the deficit, which is what Obama wanted to do in the first place because he's a strict redistributionist.

As usual with government-centered attempts to redistribute wealth in an economy, this plan will fail because rich people will either move out of the country, stop working, or eventually run out of money. Once that happens, he goes after the middle class and raises their taxes so that their money can be used to "make things more fair." And when there are no more rich people or middle class (except, of course, the government officials dispensing this "social justice"), well then we'll all be equal...in our misery. How's that hope and change working out for ya?

Michael Vick played his first game in Philadelphia and got a standing ovation from the fans. Which more or less proves what I was grousing about when he first got his gig with the Eagles: social stigma and bad publicity don't have any force anymore. Shame on them and shame on us when all that matters is victory without considering the character of those achieving it. If the fans in Philly don't have any shame about hiring this thug, will the fans of the teams playing against the Eagles reject Vick and not show up for the games? To repeat Father Dan's comment, "Get a grip!"

Laundry is still in progress, but I'm done clearing out the inbox. Never mind my grumpiness, have a great day!

Your Bartish Profundity for Today

The laws of nature don't change based on how you vote. However, how you vote can have a great impact on how you interpret or use the laws of nature.

Some Cool Stuff Over at ScienceCheerleader.com

Darlene the Science Cheerleader has some cool stuff on her site today, including:

• A list of technology-related bills pending legislation in Congress.
• A posting and video about participatory democracy.
• I've posted this before, but it's of a piece with the other two: the Office of Science & Technology Policy has a web site that encourages people to offer suggestions on how to make government more collaborative, like, for instance, reinstating the Office of Technology Assessment (a standard cause of Your Humble Narrator).

Additional Thoughts About Reviving the Office of Technology Assessment

Darlene the Science Cheerleader sent the following response to my suggested legislative language for reinstating the Office of Technology Assessment:

Bart,

Thanks for getting this going. I'm in full support of the language but I'd like to see more emphasis on opportunities for "public debate" and participation at the ground level as policies are crafted. See the Danish Board of Technology's legislative language:
http://www.itas.fzk.de/deu/TADN/TADN895/inst2.htm

Love to hear your thoughts...

What's interesting to me is that Denmark's Board of Technology language/reason for existing is quite similar to mine. Here's theirs:

According to the Act, the Danish Board of Technology has four main goals:
(1) to monitor the technological development;
(2) to carry out comprehensive Technology Assessments of the possibilities of technology and the consequences for society and the individual citicen;
(3) to initiate and perform technology assessment studies independently;
(4) to communicate the results of the work to Parliament and to the various decision-makers in society and to the Danish population to support and stimulate a public debate on technology.

Here's mine:

The Congress hereby reinstates the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to
identify:

• Scientific or technical issues of public interest, including their extent and primary and secondary impacts--positive and negative;
• Known and potential sources of those issues;
• Known and potential mitigations and solutions to problems;
• Study methodology, figures of merit, bases of estimates, relevant equations and experiments, and results;
• Known and potential impacts--positive and negative--of proposed solutions,
  including:
  --Technical impacts, including but not limited to maturity of the science involved, technology readiness level, and research & development needs;
  --Economic impacts, including but not limited to primary and secondary research and development costs, taxation or regluatory costs, equipment costs, and profits;
  --Legal, regulatory, and other governmental impacts, including including but not limited to new laws/regulations, reinstatement of defunct laws, stricter enforcement of existing laws, creating, restructuring, or closing government agencies, or striking down of existing legislation or regulations; and
  --Potential societal, moral, philosophical, and cultural impacts.

Upon researching and collecting the associated information of a given issue, the OTA shall then:

• Report results, including minority opinion(s), to Congress in plain English;
• Offer supporting testimony before Congress, if requested;
• Document and archive reports in the Library of Congress and publicly
  accessible outlets.

Nice to know I was in the ballpark, anyway.

The tricky part, which Dar noted was missing somewhat from my mission statement, is a specific statement or mechanism for including public participation in any OTA debate. Perhaps a good place to state would be in the "whereas" statement/introduction, which is usually where the philosophical rationale for a law is stated. Say, something like this:

"Whereas the Congress recognizes that the importance of science and technology to the future of this nation;

this body will be required to vote on issues relating to the legalization, regulation, or taxation of new science and technology;

the people of the United States should have the right to have their voices heard and concerns directly included in any decisions regarding science and technology policy;

and no other body currently advises the Congress on these issues to the level necessary for informed decision making, ...

That might work. However, public participation presents challenges. These include:

• A web site, while useful for 72 percent of American households, would still leave the 18 percent who do not have internet access--or, possibly, other electronic means of communication--without a voice. How do we reach them? Nationwide public "town hall" meetings? You won't catch everyone, but it's a start.
• How should OTA filter public responses? Obviously profanity and spam would have to be excluded. What about comments that are not germane? For example, they ask for inputs on global warming, and someone posts a comment about nanotechnology that, while interesting, has nothing to do with global warming policy. Delete it? What about comments that are off the radar? OTA seeks public input on nanotechnology, and the respondent wants to know when we're going to release the aliens we have held prisoner in Area 51. Delete? Ignore? Include?
• Another thing, which will drive my more science-minded friends nuts, but means a great deal to my churchgoing friends: if we're going to address moral issues, that will mean accepting comments from people who might not know a lot about the technical/scientific theory involved in X report, but who know enough to realize that it violates a fundamental tenet of their faith. This sort of thing means that religiously minded people will, indeed, have a voice in the political decisions affecting science and technology policy, which is necessary if we're going to continue to have a government that represents the interests of everyone.
  
  For example, one of the first things President Obama did right out of the gate (March 9, 2009) was reverse President Bush's policy on federal funding of stem cell research. Here's the exact language he used:

It is a difficult and delicate balance. Many thoughtful and decent people are conflicted about, or strongly oppose, this research. I understand their concerns, and we must respect their point of view.

But after much discussion, debate and reflection, the proper course has become clear. The majority of Americans – from across the political spectrum, and of all backgrounds and beliefs – have come to a consensus that we should pursue this research. That the potential it offers is great, and with proper guidelines and strict oversight, the perils can be avoided.

This might sound like calm, reasoned statesmanship, but when you get right down to it, the president said, "I hear what the other side is saying, but I'm overruling you." And that, as they say, was that. Where was the open debate there? This is one of the exact situations that should be addressed by OTA: to prevent arbitrary decisions from above without any form of public debate.

• Is there to be any minimum threshold of experience, education, or interest for citizens commenting on science and technology issues? Ideally, there shouldn't be. However, let's say the town hall meetings do take place, and an OTA panel hears from some folks who have no idea what the heck they're talking about? My more elitist colleagues might say, "No way!" I say, "You might as well let in everybody." After all, if we're not going to have any minimum standards for voters--like education, property, ability to speak English, or legal ID--except for being a warm body over the age of 18, then we're going to have to keep the standards for who speaks to the OTA at the same level. That, or go back and rescind the 26th Amendment and modify a couple others as well.
• Given the previous bullet, one might as well establish a "public notice" clause in the OTA legislation, which would say something like this:
  
  "As part of soliciting public comments on study topics, the OTA shall post a public notice on a publicly available government web site, which shall accept germane commentary from voting citizens on the designated up to 30 calendar days from the posting of the notice.
  "In addition, the OTA shall make available to the press public notices containing the exact language and deadline noted in the web site notice.
  "Furthermore, on topics of particular national interest, the OTA may convene public hearings at a minimum of 10 non-contiguous states to ensure that individuals without internet access are granted a forum for expressing their views."

How's that?

Space and Science in the New Era

"Forgive me. I was wrong to despair."
--Legolas, Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

A few days ago, I felt overwhelmed by, and decided to rant about, the larger forces threatening to erode our scientific and technical future (you know, because I have nothing better to do with my time). I was talking with a guy from my church this morning about these concerns when the answer just sort of fell out of my mouth:

"The only way this nation is going to be able to afford all of the things it's committed to doing (welfare, defense spending, etc.) is to be rich. Science and technology are what have made us rich. We need to continue spending on those things if we want to afford the future we want."

So, great. I have a theory. Now comes the hard part: what do I do with it?

Jerry Pournelle, in his 1976 book A Step Farther Out, calls this approach "survival with style." Survival is one thing--we can muddle along or conserve or reduce our lifestyles and survive, though the future won't be nearly as exciting--surviving with style means continuing to have progress, improving lifestyles, and ongoing advancement. There are plenty of technologies we haven't tried in earnest yet: ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC), tidal power, space solar power, safer nuclear plants, helium-3 fusion, etc. If we're serious about having a better future, some or all of these should at least be attempted.

The whole point of scientific progress is that it must progress. And that progress requires a few basic conditions to continue:

• Funding for research.
• Free and open communications for sharing findings.
• A stable political system capable of responding to changes.
• Private property and intellectual property rights, to allow inventors to profit from their work.
• A reasonably stable currency to ensure value.
• Respect for, and equality under, an impartially administered rule of law.
• Freedom of the press to ensure citizen audit of government actions.
• Civilian control of the military.
• Separation of the state from state-formed churches.
• Social mobility and equality of opportunity.
• Religious tolerance.
• Safety, security, and peace.
• Educated students capable of learning and advancing knowledge.
• Representative government.
• Non-confiscatory taxation.

The whole of these concepts represent some of the most important advances over 500 years of Western Civilization. How many of these basic concepts are now in serious danger? What can individuals do to maintain them? Whatever route one takes or what issue one chooses to support, there's plenty of work to go around.

Science Education Online

I sent the following science links to my buddy Darlene, the Science Cheerleader, and she suggested that I make a posting that included them. Far be it for me to argue with a nice lady who sends me free stuff. I have added a few references for reasons explained below.

http://www.teachspace.us/
http://www.knowledgeadventure.com/school/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/missmass.html
http://www.whizkidsfoundation.org/
http://wtp.mit.edu/eecs/
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/home.html
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/directory/Sciences.htm
http://homeschooling.about.com/od/science/Science_Resources.htm

The point of these links was to provide some alternative sites for interested folks to find science education information online. The internet is awash in such resources. Such resources might become increasingly necessary (here's where I get on my personal soapbox) if more people home school their kids. And why would they home school? Because of the state of mathematics and science education our taxpayer-funded schools.

The future, whether we like it or not, will become ever more dependent upon automated, computerized electronic technologies, biological technologies, and robotic and nanotechnologies. All of these will require students who are literate in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. We are doing children no favors by de-stressing grades and emphasizing self-esteem and "creative math." Consider the following quotations from "A Nation at Risk," a report on the state of the U.S. educational system in 1983 (waaaay back in the Reagan era, when I was still in the throes of junior high), and contemplate the fact that the situation has not greatly improved:

Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.

What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge.

• International comparisons of student achievement, completed a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven times.
• Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.
• About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
• Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
• Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
• The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980. Average verbal scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points.

*