From so simple a beginning…

In the 1950s, Dwight Eisenhower brought scientists into the White House with the creation of the President’s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC). His aim was to dissolve barriers between the President and objective scientific advice so that responsible scientists could report directly to the President. In the succeeding years, these scientists provided invaluable advice to the president on the leading scientific issues of the time, mainly nuclear energy and defense.

PSAC admirably served scientists till the 1970s, when Richard Nixon predictably abolished it, in the face of overblown concerns that the scientists were being partisan. Since then, objective and honest science has been more and more unwelcome in the White House, especially with the rise of religious fundamentalism.

Little needs to be said about George W. Bush’s treatment of science, perhaps the worst of any president in the last century. Not only has his administration ignored important results and findings about climate change, the environment and stem cell research, but Bush also appointed favoured, conservative officials to administrative positions in key government agencies such as the FDA. These officials twisted, cherry-picked and even blocked scientific results to make them fall in line with conservative and religious views. Bush’s suport for religion is well known, and he encouraged schools to teach the “debate” between evolution and “intelligent” design. Fuelled by corporate lobbies, Bush also deceptively advocated unpromising scientific ventures like ethanol and the hydrogen economy, when research showed that at the very least, there is no reason to assume that they will contribute substantially to the future energy crisis. John Marburger, the current presidential scientific advisor became more or less only a formal figurehead, obeying the dictates of the administration’s standard blinkered policies. It only needs to be said that such kind of behaviour is business as usual for the Bush administration.

With change looming on the horizon and the dark political skies possibly clearing up for the first time in many years with what seems like a breath of fresh air, it is a good question to ask how the next administration will treat science. The January 4 issue of Science magazine ran an article about the favourite presidential candidates’ views about science. It is heartening to read that, apart from Huckabee and Romney, all three of the current frontrunners for both parties hold reasonably favourable and objective views about scientific research, to differing degrees of course. Especially Barack Obama seems to be very open to objective and transparent scientific advice, and that is one very good reason why he should be president.

With a hopefully science-friendly administration in the future, who should be chosen as the next presidential scientific advisor? This man or woman may likely have the most important public role of any scientist in the last twenty years or so. He or she needs to not only be a great scientist, but also a responsible, effective, and reasonable public official. He or she should be highly regarded by members of the scientific community and should be known as a fair individual. In addition, he or she would need to have a flair for communicating science to the public and reaching out to them, something that’s going to be crucial in the coming years. He or she should be absolutely clear about the concerned science, and should be able to give opinions based on the best and most comprehensive available evidence. Ability to clearly delineate scientific issues without ruffling the feathers of religious fundamentalists too much could be an unfortunately required but nonetheless required quality. As presidential science advisor, tact would as important as fair scientific judgement.

Here are my personal few picks for the next science advisor:

1. Freeman Dyson: I would have actually picked this distinguished physicist if it weren’t for two reasons- his age, and his curious skepticism about global warming. Dyson also has a peculiar set of opinions about reconciling science and religious or supernatural faith, although I have to say that if he had been offered the post, he would not have let these interfere with objective advice. He has already been on many advisory committees. But I doubt whether, given his austere disposition, he would have liked to be at the center of public affairs (I have written about him here)

2. Edward O. Wilson: Since Dyson may not be an apt candidate, here’s my top favourite. Edward Wilson of Harvard is the quintessential example of the scientist-humanitarian-man of letters. His writings are many times poetry exemplified, and his autobiography along with Dyson’s is the best socio-scientific memoir I have ever read. Not only has he made seminal contributions to ecology and evolutionary biology and won the National Medal of Science, the nation’s highest scientific honor, he has also won the Pulitzer Prize twice, an astounding and unique combination of achievements. He is a deeply sensitive man who has his pulse on the state of the environment. One of the earliest advocates of conservation, Wilson is a tireless and eloquent advocate of attaining ecological harmony. When it comes to religion, Wilson interestingly contends that it should not be rejected, but investigated with scientific methods. With the environment almost indisputably the essential issue of our time, Wilson would be the perfect person to give the president gentle, unbiased and prudent scientific advice.

3. James Hansen: James Hansen is probably the leading and most knowledgable climate scientist in the United States and perhaps in the world. He was one of the earliest, if not the earliest, to sound alarm bells about global warming based on realistic computer modeling in the 1980s. To this end, he was also one of the first to testify before Congress on climate change. He has been a relentless spokesman for fighting climate change since before the IPCC began publishing comprehensive reports. Over the years, his predictions more than most others’ have been borne true. Hansen is also known for having faced censorship at NASA. He had a hard time getting his conclusions into print during the Bush regime, but he has persevered and prevailed. Again, with climate change being the central issue of our time, Hansen more than anyone else is poised to give advice about this crucial theme to the president.

4. David Baltimore: Nobel Prize winner David Baltimore has spearheaded biological science in America for thirty years. Baltimore along with Howard Temin discovered reverse transcriptase, the essential enzyme of retroviruses including HIV. His leadership of American science and of Caltech has been impressive. The catch? He was involved in an infamous case of plagiarism. Although Baltimore was exonerated, he argued against the plagiarism contentions. Naturally, this single thing should not disqualify him, but I would generally be more skeptical about Baltimore’s objectivity than of the others.

5. Richard Garwin: Richard Garwin worked on the hydrogen bomb as a protégé of Enrico Fermi, and then spent his life fighting to outlaw it. He has always been an unflagging participant in arms disarmament. In the last forty years, he has repeatedly written incisive articles arguing against missile defense and nuclear weapons. Like Dyson, he has also served on scores of important committees. A doyen of the nuclear era, Garwin also might be a little old to hold the post, but would not be a bad choice.

6. Roald Hoffmann and Carl Djerassi: Since I am a chemist, I thought I should put in a plug for two chemists whom I like. Both these gentlemen have very distinguished careers in science and science writing. Hoffmann won the Nobel Prize in chemistry. Djerassi is the “father of the contraceptive pill” and unique for being awarded both the National Medals, for Science and for Technology. Both are also playwrights and better-than-amateur poets. Importantly, both of them are well aware of social issues and have insightful comments about them. I don’t know if they have a lot of government experience, but both of them seem to me like they would be good persons to take advice from.

So these are the few that come to my mind. Unfortunately there is no woman among them, but that’s only because I cannot really think of one. If there is one, I will be more than happy to include the name.

But since I have a list of people I like, it may be worth stating the name of someone I definitely would not be comfortable with as science advisor, but who curiously might get chosen.

That man is Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project. Collins has come under attack in the last few years for his belief in a Christian God. And this is not the kind of metaphysical God that Einstein believed in. Collins is a devout churchgoer who argues in strange ways for a scientific basis for believing in a personal God. Till date, I haven’t seen a single defense from him that would allow me to reconcile science and religion in my mind.

There is no doubt that Collins is a fine scientist who has made important contributions. I am not even saying that he would pander to religious fundamentalists. But with religious fundamentalists already having encroached in the White House, the last person we need is a man who would always see blurred boundaries between science and religion, who would not take a firm stand on science. Note that there is a difference between actually wanting to connect science and religion, and respecting people’s personal religion. The latter condition, whether we like it or not, seems to be a part of our time. But that is quite different from mingling science with religion. That is exactly the kind of approach that the advocates of intelligent design espouse, and Collins would only encourage them and scores of other religious people to bring religion even more into schools, universities and the halls of important public discourse, and cause confusion about what science is. Clearly I see Collins as the wrong person for the post.

© Ashutosh S. Jogalekar