See Inside
The next U.S. president needs to elevate the role of the White House science adviser
Editor's Note: This story was originally printed with the title "Taking Heed"
See what we're tweeting about
sciammind #SciAmBlogs Wednesday - niche construction, cicadas, ageing, Moon, pirates' dodo, sick caecilians, hurricane f... http://t.co/sVtkJrmrg2
JenLucPiquant Packed house for @seanmcarroll's public lecture at UC Davis. And great Q's from engaged audience. #herocks
FlyingTrilobite .@pegspirate Please excuse me while I make some graven images, as is my trade. #popelovesatheists
Deadline: Jul 15 2013
Reward: $5,000 USD
SciBX: Science-Business eXchange, a joint publication from the makers
Deadline: Aug 31 2013
Reward: $100,000 USD
The Geoffrey Beene Foundation Alzheimer’s Initiative (GBFAI) is launching the 2013 Geoffrey Beene Global NeuroDiscovery Challenge whose
Powered By: 
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
11 Comments
Add CommentUm, duh.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat, a science advisor? What's next, an economics advisor?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI heard science was bad for the economy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOK, the editors have laid out why they did not like previous science advisers. They should have spent time outlining their vision of a "powerful" science adviser. This sounds like a bland call to give science more money, more status, and less oversight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInstead of a leading scientist, they could recommend someone who can connect science to policy issues Americans care about.,, maybe even someone independent from the scientific establishment who can fairly set priorities between competing disciplines?
Instead of griping about personalities, perhaps the editors should just admit that they don't happen to like the current policies. If the editors think that a "powerful science adviser" would just happen to agree with all their policies because he or she was a scientist, then they haven't talked to many scientists.
We had very good science advisers during the John F. Kennedy administration. Else wise we would be really behind the U.S.S.R./Russia by now. Our current President, President George W. Bush jr. and his administration is not intrested in science or space exploration because there is no cold war going on right now. The only thing the current administration wants from science is a weapon that can wipe out the terrorist I think.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think The President is concerned about a couple of degrees increase in global temperture over the next decade, or the riseing cost of oil and food and the loss of jobs right now. He's old, so he'll not be around in a few decades probably to see global warming make any impact on the world, and he's rich, so he don't need to worry about how he'll pay for food or gas, and he'll be retired after this term, so whats HE need a job for.
Science has never been considered an important subject to address in politics because the administrations in office has always believed one can run a nation fine with out it. The science community is only called apon in the event where the nation is faced with something that only scientists can possibly answer. Like, what if a N.E.O. was on a collision course with Earth right now and we only had a limited time to react to the threat? Or, what if a terrorist launched a bio-weapon at us?
The one I'm waiting to see happen, and it will, ....is the one where Japan or China or India or Iran makes it to the moon before we can with our new/old pencil rockets again. Especially if one of them puts a base (tuna can) on the moon before the U.S.does. Then you'll see the Military and the hole Government start geting antsy and start jumping up and down about science procuring a means for the U.S. to catch up. Real fast like too.
Suddenly, The Science adviser will become important once again in the oval office.
I first read this article in your magazine. The word "enlightenment" comes to mind. I'm older than this President, but I don't think my brain has turned to oatmeal yet! The "Present Occupant's" ideology gets in the way of any reasoning processes, thats why the office of Science Adviser is such a farce now. In an increasingly more technologically sophisticated world we need the scientific knowledge to make the right decisions regarding funding for projects that will keep us competitive; not only in new weapons, but most of all to keep the country commercially aggressive as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe do need a very strong Science Advisor to mitigate the damage done by the Bush administration. Maybe we need an economics advisor as well, since there are so many views from the economists. Somebody needs to make recomendations. Here's hoping.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI attended Marburger's train wreck of an apologetic for the administration at last fall's AGU meeting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMissing was any culpability or introspection on the part of the administration while blaming everyone else for our countrys failure on global warming. He blamed the media for dissemination of myth; he blamed scientists for over-simplifying; he blamed the public for not understanding the complexity of the science and social context. Yet no mention of this administration and its role in actively endorsing divisive claims. When pressed, he blamed congress for not passing a carbon cap, despite it being well known that such legislation waited a veto.
According to his talk, we could not join Kyoto, because of the 'polarizing' environment - and astounding claim given this administration's contributions to that polarization.
When Marburger was appointed, I thought there might actually be a voice for science in the Bush administration. Unfortunately, he has been worse than invisible.
--
Edited by James Conder at 05/07/2008 10:41 AM
The "Enlightenment" proceeded the French Revolution. Many "deep thinkers" amongst our Founding Fathers were profoundly influenced by it's principals. The movement was a reaction to the "Age of Absolution". Then there were then no shortage of "deciders", the "Sun King" of France and the "Little Father" of Russia as notable examples. The French Revolution was driven in large part by the famine resulting from the grain failure and the stubborn refusal of the population to accept potatoes as a food staple. King Louis XVI of France could have used a Science Adviser. Instead of the admonishment; "let them eat cake", had he instead got them to eat potatoes like the rest of Northern Europe, the course of history might have taken an entirely different direction. So as we can see, this also ties into economics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this--
Edited by Hugh Jones at 05/07/2008 11:07 AM
May 9, 2008
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are three approaching catastrophes headed our way:
(a) the developing world energy shortage, caused mostly by a diminishing supply of affordable liquid transportation fuels.
(b) the present economic shrinkage that is a being caused by that growing energy shortage with it's consequent rise in energy costs.
(c) a large acceleration in the dumping of CO2 as tar sands, oil shale, coal and gas use increase in an effort to fill in for the diminishing supplies of economically developable oil with the resultant increase in the rate of global warming and the problems it will cause.
The energy shortage and the resultant economic crisis are just now getting up a full head of steam, as we experience $4.00 a gallon gasoline and the slowing economy it is causing. They should both arrive at the station with full pressure in their boilers just about the same time the new administration enters office.
The problems caused by an acceleration in Global Warming will probably not come home to roost until after the next administration, eight years hence, but the time to act is now.
Facing what are arguably the most difficult problems any President has ever had to handle, the next President will need the very best scientific advice this nation can produce.
The question is, do the scientists in the United States have the moral fiber and courage to actually tell the President the truth about these problems and to persevere in their efforts to persuade the President to do the right (difficult) things that need to be done to avert these approaching catastrophes?
--
Edited by James Flaherty at 05/10/2008 6:13 PM
Education and more education is what is needed, both in the US and the world. This much is clear from some of the responses above. And global warming and its effects will prove to have been vastly underestimated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut man will aspire to knowing all the knowable, we will be able to do all the doable, we are 87% of the way there. So what do we aspire to? Godliness! Just a little more evolution despite all the ignorance.