While the focus of most people in the U.S. is the Presidential
primaries, a number of science bloggers had already chimed in on their
"candidates" for the position of Presidential Science Adviser.
The frenzy was started by Chris Mooney’s insightful article on Seed Magazine, The Science Adviser.
"The top science post in the White House needs to be pulled from the
shadows of the Cold War and reestablished as a cornerstone of crucial,
rational advice for the US presidency. [read more]"
In the article, Mooney made a couple of important points: 1)
reinstatement (or redefining) of the role of the science adviser to its rightful place
(e.g. report directly to the President and be involved with policy
decision-making), and 2) who would be the best choice for the position.
Out of all the presidential candidates, only Hillary Clinton pledged to put the role of science adviser in its rightful place.
"The top democratic presidential contender, Hillary Clinton, has
officially pledged to right the wrongs against Marburger—or at least,
against his office. If elected, Hillary says, her science adviser will
be named early, get the "Assistant to the President" title back, and
report directly to her."
As Mike Dunford
had observed, the first point (i.e. reinstatement) is probably the more
important, but the second point (i.e. choice for the position) is "more
fun to argue about." I think he’s right 
Yesterday, I jumped in on this topic and threw in my recommendation. My pick was E.O. Wilson. Then Bora Zivkovic (aka Coturnix) linked to my post and to other science bloggers who had voiced their opinion. Here’s what he wrote:
"Following his (excellent) article in Seed on the topic, my SciBling Chris Mooney blogs about the future of the position of the Science Advisor to the President, suggesting some potential names, and Matt Nisbet, RPM, Blake Stacey, Brian Switek, Scott Hatfield, Lila Guterman, Larry Moran, Mike Dunford, Flavin, c4chaos, Gordon Watts and PZ Myers chime in with their own opinions on the potential candidates.
"For some reason, all the bloggers are focusing on popularizers of
science and charismatic figures. But the job of a Science Advisor to
the President is not really that public (unless the next President
completely changes this role)."
Coturnix made an excellent point. He then went on to lament the
current state of science in the present (GW Bush) administration:
"GW Bush waited almost a year – during which he did a LOT of assaults on
science – before appointing poor Dr.Marburger for the role. Then, he
demoted the role – the Science Advisor no longer has the ear of the
President, but is relegated to some backroom to play rummy with the
Origami Advisor, Interior Decorating Advisor and Dog-Grooming Advisor."
He then voiced his frustration with the Republicans:
"In the unlikely event that a Republican wins the elections in November,
it is highly unlikely that the role of Science Advisor will get
reinstated to the former level, not even by the least insane candidate,
the only one who concedes that global warming is real and may be a bad
thing and perhaps, just perhaps, humans may have something to do with
it (McCain). When everything you stand for is against the empirical
reality, why have some scientist keep reminding you that you are basing
your policy decisions on fairy-tales, wishful thinking and gut-feeling?"
And finally, Coturnix offered his personal pick:
"All of the people mentioned by bloggers are completely unprepared
for such a job. What is needed is someone who is well versed in science
policy and politics and has a track record in administration of science
and in dealing with the Congress. It does not even matter if the person
is famous or a complete unknown to the general public, a highly
controversial figure or someone universally liked, a theist or an
atheist – none of those things are likely to ever affect the job (or
the initial nomination) at any time.
"So, my personal pick for the job is Harold Varmus, who won the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine for his discovery of oncogenes and is a prolific researcher."
Very well said. I like his argument. I’m also grateful to him for
bringing up the name of Harold Varmus. I’m not very familiar with
Varmus but I’m a big fan of what PLoS (Public Library of Science) stands for, which is founded by Varmus. So I give Varmus extra points for that
That said, I’d like to go back to why I picked E.O. Wilson. One of the
reasons I picked Wilson is that I’m more familiar with his work than
with the other scientists. Also, I limited my choice based on the names
that came up in Mooney’s article. According the article the
qualification of a science adviser is this:
"To be sure, whatever the adviser’s area of expertise or disciplinary
background, it’s most critical that he or she be a "quick study," as
Rice University physicist Neal Lane—who served as President Clinton’s
second science adviser—told me recently. "If they’re a physicist,
they’re going to have to learn a lot of biology, medicine, engineering,
climate science, and so forth pretty fast," explained Lane. "But if
they’re a biologist, they’re also going to have to learn a lot in the
physical sciences." Moreover, science advisers must excel as much in
administration—in working with Congress, in cooperating with other
parts of the executive branch, in not setting off political
landmines—as they do in pure science based consultation."
I’m not sure how "quick study" Wilson is, but his cross-disciplinary
approach and synthesis of science (including the humanities) in his
opus Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge, his humble attempt to appeal to the Religious Right to take environmental issues seriously (via his book, The Creation), and his efforts on creating The Encyclopedia of Life, all scored major points for me. In my opinion, a broad (and should I say, integral)
thinker like Wilson is an excellent candidate for the role of science adviser. Then
again, whether Wilson is good in administration and politics is another
matter. But so far, some of the objections (by bloggers) to Wilson has something to
do with him being an environmentalist, the controversy of his Sociobiology, and his age. In short, the objections are more political rather than Wilson’s scientific qualifications or his religious views.
Anyway, here are some more scientists who were recommended by bloggers.
I linked to their respective Wikipedia entries so getting to know them
would be just a click away.
Francis Collins, Neil deGrasse Tyson, E.O. Wilson, Harold Varmus, Steven Pinker, James Hansen, Frank Sherwood Rowland, Mario Molina, John Holdren, Ken Miller, Glenn Seaborg, Daniel Goldin, France Cordova, George Blumenthal, Lawrence Krauss, Donald Kennedy, Timothy Ferris, Shirley Ann Jackson, Phil Plait
In the meantime, Hillary Clinton is celebrating her victory in the New Hampshire primary. The future of a properly reinstated Presidential Science Adviser had just gotten a little brighter.