2003 : WHAT ARE THE PRESSING SCIENTIFIC ISSUES FOR THE NATION AND THE WORLD, AND WHAT IS YOUR ADVICE ON HOW I CAN BEGIN TO DEAL WITH THEM? - GWB

Mr. President:

Education is a proven means for investing in our future. But while American schools are notoriously under-serving their students, kids are rushing home to learn how to succeed in alternative universes. Video games compel kids to spend dozens of hours a week exploring virtual worlds and learning their rules. Barring a massive overhaul of our school system, Nintendo and PlayStation will continue to be the most successful at captivating young minds.

Over 60% of Korean homes have broadband Internet access. Massively multiplayer online role-playing games are immensely popular there; increasing numbers of people spend hours each night fighting monsters together online. The largest Korean textbook distributor Daekyo and an independent software design firm JMCJ (Interesting & Creative Co., Ltd.) have joined forces to make a massively multiplayer online role-playing game in which children can study math, science and history: Demiurges. These people intend to make it possible for people to play in a virtual world saturated with real-world knowledge.

That game may not be successful—educational software has a famously difficult time competing with splashier commercial titles. In their paper "Serious Play," academics Jennifer Jensen and Suzanne de Castell mourn that "Non-commercial development of 'educational games'has been primarily in the hands of enthusiastic academics from a variety of disciplines who frequently lack funding, skills, and/or access to cutting edge technological resources." But while commercial games seize the most attention in the industry, efforts are still underway in the States to use games to teach specific skills.

With a budget of $7 million the U.S. Army built the first in a series of games to be made available as free download over the web, and to be distributed free on CDs with gaming magazines. Their first title, "America's Army" helps teenagers learn about tactics and waging war, as they rush through first-person shooter missions armed with guns and grenades. Except for the U.S. military trim, and some mission constraints, "America's Army" is indistinguishable from popular video games for sale in stores.

Unfortunately, there are few games intent on teaching more civilian skills. While televisions and slide shows play a large role in classrooms, video games are still appallingly underutilized as means for teaching. Throwing money at the problem is not the only answer; however the kind of advanced technology and game design talent that money could buy could well serve the project of developing engaging educational electronic entertainment.

Jensen and de Castell continue: "what researchers and educational game developers have so far been unable to do is to create an 'educational game' which offers its players an engaging, immersive play space, in which users want to stay, explore, and 'learn' as they consistently do in commercial games." Let's match the money and effort spent on "America's Army" to develop a freely-available game teaching kids about math and science, history and citizenship.

Justin Hall
Web Pioneer
Video gaming consultant
Founder and author of Justin's Links

Mr President,

I am pleased to learn that I am being considered as your next Science Advisor. Unfortunately, as a mathematician, I do not feel sufficiently well qualified for that position. I do, however, feel there is a clear and demonstrated need for someone on your team to offer advice on interpreting quantitative data, particularly when it comes to risk assessment. I would like to suggest that you create such a position, and I would be pleased to be considered for it.

For well understood evolutionary reasons, we humans are notoriously poor at assessing risks in a modern society. A single dramatic incident or one frightening picture in a newspaper can create a totally unrealistic impression. Let me give you one example I know to be dear to your heart. The tragic criminal acts of September 11, 2001, have left none of us unchanged. We are, I am sure, all agreed that we should do all we can to prevent a repetition.

Strengthening cockpit doors so that no one can force an entrance, as you have done, will surely prevent any more planes being flown into buildings. (El Al has had such doors for many years, and no unauthorized person has ever gained access to the cockpit.)

Thus, the remaining risk is of a plane being blown up either by suicide terrorists on board, by a bomb smuggled into luggage, or by sabotage prior to take-off. In any such case, the likelihood of significant loss of life to people on the ground is extremely low. So low that we can ignore it. The pilot of a plane that has been damaged while in the air will almost certainly be able to direct the plane away from any urban areas, and the odds that any wreckage from a plane that explodes catastrophically in mid-air are overwhelmingly that it will not land on a populated region.

I know that what I say might sound cavalier or foolhardy or uncaring. The hard facts the numbers present often fly in the face of our emotional responses and our fears. But the fact is, we have limited resources, and we need to decide where best to deploy them. This is why you need someone to help you assess risk.

That leaves the threat to the plane and the people on board. Let me try to put that risk into some perspective. For a single individual faced with a choice of driving a car or flying, how do the dangers of the two kinds of transport compare in the post September 11 world? We know the answer, thanks to a calculation carried out recently at the University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. In order for commercial air travel to be as risky (in terms of loss of life) as driving a car on a major road, there would have to be a September 11 style incident roughly once every month, throughout the year.

Let me stress that this figure is not based on comparing apples and oranges, as some previous airline safety studies have done. By being based on the lengths of journeys, those previous studies made airline travel appear safer than it really is. The figure I have given you is based on the computed risk to a single individual. It compares the risks we face, for the journey we are about to take, when any one of us decides whether to board a plane or step into our car. In other words, "How likely am I to die on this trip?"

The answer, as the figures show, is that it would take a September 11 attack once every month before air travel offers the same kind of risk as car travel.

In short, most of the current effort being put into increasing airline safety is a waste of valuable resources. In a world where fanatical individuals are willing to give their own lives to achieve their goals, we can never be 100% safe. What we should do, is direct our resources in the most efficient manner possible.

In that connection, if you have not already done so, I recommend you see the movie The Sum of All Fears, where terrorists smuggle an atomic bomb into the United States in a shipping crate and detonate it in downtown Baltimore. Leaving aside the details of the plot, the risk portrayed in that film is real, and one where we would be advised (and I would so advise you) to put the resources we are currently squandering on airline security.

That is why you need expert assistance when it comes to interpreting the masses of numerical data that surround us, and putting those numbers into simple forms that ordinary human beings, including Presidents, can appreciate.

Numerically yours,

Keith Devlin
Mathematician
Executive Director of Stanford University's Center for the Study of Language and Information
Author of The Math Gene and The Millennium Problems.

Dear President Bush,

It was somewhat surprising, but still most welcome, to receive your request for advice on the pressing scientific issues of our time. Brief general advice won't be very useful, with two possible exceptions. First, support for superb science education will pay off so handsomely that I have no idea why you have not done it already. Probably you are distracted, but this is one of those "not urgent but important" things that should not be put off further. Second, because the big advances usually come from basic science, you would do well to invest more there, instead of assigning resources mainly to solve problems.

I suspect, however, that what you really want is advice on how to use our scientific advantage to gain economic and military advantages. We dominate the world in science, and this science helps us to dominate the world. But, the price is high. Many in other countries see the United States not as the leading light, but as a bully that uses its scientific powers only to advance its own interests. Yes, I know we do much that benefits other countries, and it must be frustrating to you that these efforts get so little notice. Nonetheless, many people hate us and see our science as an instrument of imperialism.

You can change this, and science can help. We are coming to new explanations of how relationships work. Trading favors is only the beginning; a reputation for fulfilling commitments is equally important. Your current policies demonstrate that you understand the importance of convincing others that we will fulfill military commitments even when they are not in our direct interests. There is also power in fulfilling commitments to help others even when no benefit is expected.

Just a few generous actions based on values, not interests, would change how the world sees us. Here is one way to proceed. You could create a new organization, call it The World Science Collaboration, to tackle problems that other countries find urgent. Provide them with resources to deal with these problems, and with whatever help they request from US scientists, many of whom will be eager to contribute to such an effort. To work, this must not be aid with strings attached, but a gift without any expectation of paybacks, financial or political. Once it is clear that we are serious, the world will quickly realize that we do not always use our science for ourselves.

Furthermore, the initiative will spread scientific expertise that will foster development and fight superstition. If we invested 4.5 billion dollars, the cost of one aircraft carrier, into finding cures for malaria and sleeping sickness, the whole world would see us differently, and the health of the world would soon be improved. If we set up a dozen such projects, the changed outcomes in arguments about the USA late at night in dirt-floored huts across the world might well enhance our security more than all the technology we can muster.

This opportunity is rare in its appeal to people across the political spectrum from the helping left, to the pragmatic center and, one would hope, the truly religious on the right. People here will see this as a small but feasible and tangible antidote to perceptions that the United States is the enemy of the rest of the world. People elsewhere will see that the United States can act on principle instead of cynical self-interest. This could be the most important accomplishment of your presidency.

I would be curious to hear your perspectives on this, and glad, if you would like, to discussion specific plans for implementation.

Sincerely Yours,

Randolph M. Nesse, M.D.
Professor of Psychiatry, Professor of Psychology
Senior Research Scientist, RCGD, Institute for Social Research
The University of Michigan
Author of Why We Get Sick, The New Science of Darwinian Medicine; Editor of Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment

Dear President Bush:

A new branch of science is emerging that will have a far-reaching impact on the economy of the United States, with applications to medicine, agriculture and defense that will be revolutionary.

The discovery that DNA carries the genetic code for cells opened a new era in biology that focused on the organization of information in cells. Soon we will know all the genes in cells from humans and many other species and high throughput methods are available to identify proteins and to analyze their three dimensional structures. However, the sequence of a genome only provides the equivalent of nature's white pages, a useful index of genes but far less than we need in order to know how cells work.

At present researchers are creating a list functions for those genes in different cell, which is equivalent to nature's yellow pages. But even this is not enough to know how organisms are built since the genes encode a program that is used during development to create a wide range of different cells and organs.

We need a new approach to these problems that uses all of the tools in molecular genetics and in addition brings to bear powerful computational tools from computer science. Although we have the tools and techniques to make major discoveries, we do not have enough scientists, trained at the interface between biology and computer science, to make them.

A bold new initiative is needed to train a new generation of computational biologists who are equally at home in wet bench science and the world of computational science. A new national institute should be initiated at the National Institutes of Health devoted to the goal of discovering broad general theoretical principles for how biological systems become self organized into functional systems.

For example, we can anticipate that general principles will emerge from the study of how various proteins and macromolecular complexes in cells interact with each other and control gene expression. The potential payoff for establishing these general principles is enormous. The Institute for Computational Biology and Medicine will be a resource for the entire nation, focusing existing talent and creating the computational infrastructure needed to make major advances.

Sincerely,

Terrence Sejnowski
Computational Neuroscientist
Professor, Salk Institute; Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute;
Professor of Biology and Neurosciences, University of California, San Diego;
Coauthor of The Computational Brain and most recently (with Steven Quartz) Liars, Lovers, and Heroes: What the New Brain Science Reveals About How We Become Who We Are.

Dear Mr. President,

I hope that some of my colleagues will offer you a shopping list of specific goals. I want, however, to address a broader question that requires fitting together the findings of many researchers and that resonates with popular culture and the political process. For simplicity, let me put it in terms of a single question: Can human beings learn?

Most people would answer, of course. I am sure that you yourself remember learning things from time to time, at Yale for instance, and perhaps since. But I write to point out that we are steadily reducing our estimate of what and how much humans can learn, except at a relatively trivial level. And we are making policy on that basis.

We live at a time of impressive progress in biology (especially genetics and neuroscience), which has replaced physics as the most glamorous of the sciences. Certainly you have had to take positions on applications of this new science to human beings, but you may be unaware of the indirect influence of popularized scientific ideas on our systems of child care, education, health, and criminal justice. In all of these areas we are drifting toward biological determinism, but the situation is complicated by the popular belief that, whereas what human individuals can learn is limited, scientists can learn to tinker. Thus we regard more and more problems of individual behavior as biologically determined, but we are increasingly ready to treat them biochemically, and looking forward to treating them genetically. Our fatalism about the individual capacity to learn and heal is matched only by our technological hubris.

Let me give you a glimpse of each area:

• Learning begins at birth. But in child care there is now a substantial community that says early childhood does not have the importance it was believed to have. Even though there is some continuing support for child health insurance, for daycare that allows mothers to work, and for Headstart, the programs that are actually funded are increasingly custodial and mechanistic.

• The K-12 years are critical in learning to think, feel, and interact with others. But in education we are reducing our goals to testable skills and information, diverting attention from more subtle intellectual and social potentials. In poorer areas, we are miseducating large numbers of children, and we are allowing them to grow up in impoverished and violent environments—as if we believed that an improvement in conditions would have no positive effect.

• Psychotherapy developed to promote reflection on experience and to facilitate learning new ways to cope, physically and mentally. But in mental health we are letting medication replace, rather than support, psychotherapy. We are drugging or segregating problem children and ignoring the experiential basis of many conditions.

• Learning does take place in prisons. But increasingly they are training centers for crime and alienation, because we use them as if those we incarcerate were already irreversible career criminals. Thus, we increasingly assume that rehabilitation is impossible.

• Let me add foreign policy. If we believed that terrorism, for instance, was learned rather than innate, would we not question the policies that have kept three generations of Palestinian children growing up in refugee camps? Would we not focus AID money on education and social conditions rather than armaments? How many future terrorists will emerge from today's traumas?

I can see a lightbulb flashing over your head. "She's not talking science," you say, "she's talking the liberal agenda." That's true, Mr. President: liberals are not people who spend money on government programs per se, liberals are people who put money into improving social conditions because they affirm that humans can learn—from parents, peers, teachers, and what they see and hear around them. How come? Because human biology evolved for adaptation by learning. Can all humans learn equally well? Of course not, but they can learn better. We have seen that in the case of the learning disabled over the last generation. Are humans perfectible? Of course not. But liberals tend to use government to improve social conditions (which is to say, to support the learning environment in the widest sense) rather than on coercion, incarceration, warfare—and rewarding those who have already had the benefits of privileged environments. Have you ever noticed, Mr. President, how so much of the twins research that is used to argue the determining importance of genetics depends on controlling for socioeconomic status? That little phrase is the basis of the liberal agenda: give everyone an equal chance and, yes, the genes will play a large role. Inequality blocks genetic potential.

But is this science, you ask? Indeed. Anthropologists have spent the last century assembling evidence of how differently humans behave when reared in different cultural settings—and how those differences disappear when the settings change, sometimes overnight, sometimes over a couple of generations.

Mr. President, do continue to support research in neuroscience. We need to know more about the effects of love or trauma, of intellectual stimulation or monotony on the brain itself. Brain structure may increasingly be seen as a result rather than a cause. Keep the work going in human genetics and biochemistry. Doing science is after all derived from the evolved human capacity to adapt by learning and we can hope that some of the hubris will settle down with time. But put your money into research and policy for the great long term experiment of building a world in which everyone can learn to be the best they can be.

Respectfully submitted.

Mary Catherine Bateson
Anthropologist
Visiting Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Education  
Author of With a Daughter's Eye (on her parents Margaret Mead and Gregory Bateson); Composing a Life; Peripheral Visions, and Full Circles, Overlapping Lives: Culture and Generation in Transition.

Dear Mr. President,

I think there may have been a terrible mistake. I'm not a scientist.

Worse than that, I'm an actor. So, I don't know how I got recommended to you as a candidate for science advisor. Possibly, someone felt that if we could let an actor be president without major damage beyond a trillion or two, why not science advisor? But, I'm also a writer who has a lifelong interest in science, and I host the PBS program Scientific American Frontiers, and I have played Richard Feynman on the stage, so I can see where the confusion might have arisen.

If you choose to name me as your advisor on scientific matters, I would consider it my duty not to turn you down, but I think it only fair to let you know the kind of advice I'm liable to give you.

First, I really do value science. I get the impression from some previous appointments in your administration that the mission of the appointees is to dismantle the agencies they were put in charge of. I might do some damage through ignorance, which may be why I'm on your short list, but I could not bring myself to put an end to science in the United States; so if that's what you had in mind, please count me out.

As for my actual advice, it breaks down into two major categories: Deep and Deeper.

Deep:

The world is going to come to an end in about 5 billion years no matter what we do. So, in the long run, you're off the hook. It's true that things like Global Warming, plus the increasing loss of clean water and bio diversity, can hasten The End Of Everything As We Know It, but even so, it will all end eventually. Nobody gets blamed for continuing a disastrous policy, so there will be no harm to your reputation if you do nothing. People simply do not say, "Caesar did nothing to halt the Roman practice of putting lead in the air and water, probably resulting in the eventual weakening and fall of the empire." But they're absolutely fascinated with the way he could divide Gaul into thirds.

Recognizing this, I will not advise you to do anything related to the environment. I will simply ask permission to put a glass of water on your desk every day with little things swimming in it. Sooner or later, you'll slip and drink from it, and while you're in the hospital, we can talk about the billion or so people who have nothing else to drink.

I will also arrange for the local gas station to charge your mom and dad what a gallon of gas costs after the actual costs of the gas have been added. This would include the cost of subsidies to oil producers, health care for skin cancers and lung conditions, and a couple of wars, but we'll skip the wars. I don't think this comes to more than a thousand dollars a gallon, but if your folks write you about the awful price of gas these days, then maybe we could have another talk.

And while we're on the subject of gas, I believe it is our duty as patriotic citizens to end our reliance on foreign oil. It is also our duty as rational people to end our reliance on any oil. Both of these duties are satisfied by pouring a huge amount of money into the development of hydrogen cells, as well as thermal, wind, solar and several other forms of energy. But it will take a huge amount of money—possibly what it will cost to pay for 3 or 4 days of the next war.

As you can see, the Deep stuff isn't all that deep, and it's pretty much what you would expect from your average limousine liberal. The Deeper stuff gets, as you might suspect, deeper. It will also, I'm afraid, get more earnest.

Deeper:

What your science advisor really needs to do is help you re-fashion the thinking of the country. Too many people think cloning cells for the fight against disease is the same thing as creating Frankenstein's monster. Too many people think evolution is the idea that people are descended from apes. And too many people think that genetic modification of plants is a dangerous new idea, instead of something that's been going on for ten thousand years.

If our people don't learn to make distinctions and challenge their own thinking, as well as that of others, then they will be at a disadvantage when facing the technologies, insights and strategies of those who do. Rationality has a special importance for us now.

The commencement speaker at Caltech this past year said,

"We live in a time when massive means of destruction are right here in our hands. We're probably the first species capable of doing this much damage to our planet. We can make the birds stop singing; we can still the fish and make the insects fall from the trees like black rain. And ironically we've been brought here by reason, by rationality. We cannot afford to live in a culture that doesn't use the power in its hands with the kind of rationality that produced it in the first place."

Actually, I was the commencement speaker who said that, but I thought you'd pay more attention if I put the Caltech part first.

The problem is that, although we're all entitled to our beliefs, our culture increasingly holds that science is just another belief. Maybe this is because it's easier to believe something—anything—than not to know.

We don't like uncertainty—so we gravitate back to the last comfortable solution we had, and in this way we elevate belief to the status of fact.

But scientists are comfortable with not knowing. They thrive on it. They don't assume that just because they had an idea it must be right. They attack it as vigorously as they can because they don't want to lie to themselves. As Richard Feynman said, "Not knowing is much more interesting than believing an answer which might be wrong."

Above, all, Mr. President, I think your science advisor needs to help you help our country learn to be comfortable with uncertainty, and—as hard as this might be to believe—to put reason ahead of belief.

Alan Alda
Actor, Director, Writer
Host of PBS program "Scientific American Frontiers"

Dear Mr. President,

The most pressing science-related issue for the nation and the world concerns how best to make the existential choices that bring science, a value-free process, into a social arena where values are central.

This is not, strictly speaking, a scientific issue. Your science advisor is really a social advisor, providing an expert's view on how the state can best assist in and benefit from the advancement of science.

Therefore I urge you to appoint a social scientist, preferably a sociologist who has studied the impact of science on society, as your science advisor. More specifically, since a global networked economy and global political issues (such as terrorism) are affecting the entire planet, I suggest that you choose someone who has investigated the new social forms that are developing to cope with the global communications network.

This will not guarantee wise choices but it will at least meet scientists half way in dealing with scientific issues.

Cliff Barney
Technology journalist, designer of online news systems
Publisher of Tales of the Network Frontier (www.netfront.to)

A modest super-fund to explore alternative, non-resource-based energy sources could solve a great majority of the world's problems. But it would need to be accompanied by an equally serious look at our commodities-based economic model. Our chief obstacle to sustainable energy technology might not be scientific at all, but economic. What would happen to the oil industry if we no longer needed oil?

The same could be asked about our chemically and genetically addicted agriculture. It's not that high-yield, top-soil enriching farming practices are out of reach; it's simply that our agribusiness industry doesn't know how to profit off a paradigm that doesn't rely on synthetic fertilizers and gene modification.

America's great problems lie in our inability to change the models we are using to understand the challenges before us. And this is where a genuine science education—both in schools and through good use of media—would prove extraordinarily useful.

The scientific model acknowledges that it is just a model of our reality. It is not the way things are, but rather a way of explaining the way the way things are. Those of us who use the scientific model have great practice in reminding ourselves that our understandings must constantly be revised, evolved, even improvised.

To push a science agenda, we would have to promote the underlying premise of science: that none of the systems we use to understand this reality are pre-existing or true. They were simply the most useful at a particular moment—very often to a particular group. When they stop being useful, we must be prepared to discard them.

Douglas Rushkoff
Author, Lecturer, and Social Theorist
Professor of Media Culture at New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program
Author of Media Virus!; Coercion; and Nothing Sacred: The Truth About Judaism.

Mr President,

I spent my Christmas on sick leave from my university, suffering from a stress-related illness. OK, so I'm a periodic depressive of a particular sort. A lot of scientists and thinkers are, alternating between great activity and deep lassitude. Why am I telling you? Well, because in Britain at least, the creeping managerial culture of universities makes it very difficult for people like this to flourish. In a misguided attempt to put accountancy procedures in place to obtain value for money out of science, civil servants are in danger of driving out the creativity and innovation that lie at the heart of the story of western science.

It is natural for governments to expect results from science, but they cannot be guaranteed. However, there are two positive things you can do, each of which makes more sense in relation to the other than either does alone. The first is to acknowledge the precedence of observation over experiment. The second is to take the 'interpretive dilemma' to heart.

When bureaucrats try to manage science they want experiments done. That is what they think good science does. It is a convenient belief because research-grant monies can be easily justified when measurable results are produced to a pre-agreed schedule. But much (perhaps most) great science has been based predominantly on observation and has no timetable. Newton and Darwin did very few significant experiments, but both exercised immense observational acumen on a daily basis. Both also took so long to publish their insights that they would undoubtedly both have been fired from modern universities for failing to produce. But the mentality that finds it so hard to thrive in a regularized accountancy culture is the one most suited to long and profound contemplation of the meaning of phenomena. It is the one most likely to crack through the interpretive dilemma.

The interpretive dilemma simply states that in order to interpret something, one must have decided that there is something to interpret and, in focussing on that something, one has already formed a strong idea of what it is.

For example, as an archaeologist, I am used to interpreting burials. But when I am trying to uncover the meaning of a particular burial, I hardly stop to think that I have already decided the most important thing about it when I called it a 'burial'. In casually naming it, prior to conducting certain measurable experiments (dating and technological analyses) I have already dramatically lessened the possibility of understanding anything new and surprising.

By rethinking the nature of apparent 'burials'—a process that involved absolutely no experimentation or new excavation at all, but which nevertheless took up several years thinking time—I have recently suggested that what early humans were up to was very different to what we hitherto thought, and that the birth of religion and the emergence of social cohesion was rooted in atavistic practices of human sacrifice and ceremonial cannibalism. The ostensible 'burials' that archaeologists have dated to the period of the last Ice Age are in fact the remains of elaborate, communally-approved ritual murders.

Mr President, space to rethink the apparently familiar is essential to all good science. It means that you need to trust scientists to follow their instincts, and not make them accountable every year for a string of tangible results. Look after your science contemplatives and they will look after you.

Timothy Taylor
Archeologist, FSA Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries, and a member of CIFA (Centre for International Forensic Assistance)
University of Bradford, UK
Author of The Prehistory of Sex: Four Million Years of Human Sexual Culture, and The Buried Soul.

Dear Mr. President,

In my opinion, in the future, what will be of major importance is how, in principle, we carry out scientific inquiries—not in which fields we conduct that research.

Let me use a simile to illustrate my point of view. The question as to which fields to concentrate future research on reminds me a bit of the question "What shall we have for lunch?" Everybody must eat—just as every industrial nation needs a research plan. So, why not pick something from the menu: Missions to Mars, the human genome, larger accelerators—there are countless options.

However, when considering what to eat, the customer employs a certain perspective, looking down the aisles past the waiter to the delights behind the kitchen door—the latter being the equivalent of the chest holding the nation's research funds. Let us now reverse the perspective. Looking from the kitchen door down the aisles past the waiter, we see the guest—and it turns out something has become fundamentally wrong with him. The customer is an immensely huge freak, almost immovable due to the large amounts of fat he has already accumulated. The last thing this person needs is yet another meal. Instead, a complete change in attitude towards eating seems imperative, including a new perspective of life and its numerous opportunities, more physical exercise and much less but smarter food intake.

How did the customer grow so fat and cumbersome?

Over the past few decades, research focus was determined by big science projects, beginning with the "Manhattan Project" and continuing with the mission to the moon and the peaceful exploitation of nuclear energy. As a consequence of the apparent success of these big science projects, politicians consider focused research to be the best way to achieve clearly defined scientific goals. To continue the restaurant metaphor, uniting a few thousand scientists to strive for a common goal to be reached at a certain time is like asking several outstanding chefs to produce one certain dish—it is almost guaranteed that they will be able to deliver a decent meal. But this is precisely the reason why our patient has become so fat.

For politicians, big science projects can lead to immortality. John F. Kennedy promised a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s and consequently, on July 10, 1969, the nation got what the president had asked for. Administrators also prefer big science projects, because instead of having to split budgets amongst thousands of candidates, they only have to pass the money on to a few large governmental institutions.

Even scientists themselves prefer big science projects. Such projects may bring tremendous power and fame to their leaders; at the same time, they yield a structure that reduces insecurity among followers. For taxpayers, however, big science is often useless at best, and potentially harmful at worst. The "Manhattan Project" led to the biggest single incident of manslaughter in human history, the production of nuclear energy including the disposal of waste and obsolete plants is economically futile, and the moon landing is regarded by many as a cold war propaganda mission with questionable scientific merit. Considering recent big science projects such as super colliders, space stations and Mars missions, the effort and costs to launch them appear to be inversely related to the significance of potential results for the general public. Once again, big science projects made our customer fat and immovable.

What is needed now to get scientific research back on a fast and efficient track again can be termed "lean science". Lean science is slender, quick, efficient and inexpensive. It has the potential of leading to numerous unexpected insights and discoveries. Yet, lean science also holds a number of potential weaknesses. It is more difficult to administrate, the outcome cannot be determined beforehand, and it requires education, patience and tolerance.

Lean science is built upon the concept that all scientific achievements sprang up in the minds of individual people. Thus, providing individual scientists with a hospitable environment in which they can flourish and excel is bound to lead to new discoveries. Some private universities in the United States have already realized this and improved the environment in terms of academic freedom, qualification of staff and quality of physical surroundings.

In the past, great thinkers and artists appear to have come in groups. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were not only contemporaries, they also lived in the same city—Athens in Greece. The coincidence of great thinkers continued in history—artists such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo were contemporaries just like painters such as Edgar Degas, Claude Monet, Auguste Renoir, Edouard Manet and Paul Cezanne or poets like Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller and Heinrich von Kleist.

How come there was such an abundance of great thinkers in certain places at certain times, while there seems to be little if any of such excellence around today? I, for one, am utterly convinced that such great minds are indeed around today—they always have been—but those periods in Greece, France and Germany were rare times when the environmental conditions were right for great thinkers to emerge and become visible, speak up and meet each other, exchange ideas and then take them further.

Thus, in my opinion, the first thing to consider when thinking about pressing scientific issues would be to provide the right environmental conditions for scientists to flourish in. That does not mean loads of money. On the contrary, it means respect, freedom of thought, a platform for the exchange of ideas, and a path forward even for the non conformist—since by definition, all great thinkers were non-conformists.

How can we obtain such an environment? We would probably have to overhaul the medieval university system, in particular the obsolete idea of uniting research and teaching, and the mad concept of peer review, in which established authorities judge the merit of competing ideas.

Getting rid of the old-fashioned universities would make room for a new system that could operate similar to Montesquieu's scheme of divided powers in politics (Executive, Legislative, Judicial) to prevent misuse of power. A tri-partite control of powers in academia could consist of research in think tank-equivalent institutions, education in colleges, and administration of quality, funds, jobs, permits, awards and the like in separate institutions. Scientists would only work in one of these units at a time. Early on in their careers, they would be researchers, then teachers and finally administrators—instead of being all at the same time, as it is often the case today. Funding would be provided individually, mainly on the basis of track record and persuasiveness of ideas.

Hence, a long-term strategy is required—much like what is needed to get a fat person thin and healthy. Your country was among the first to fully adopt Montesquieu's scheme of a separation of powers, and today it is the closest working model to the academic system I have introduced here. Thus, you are in an ideal position to make a fat system slender, beautiful, athletic and primed for success!

Eberhard Zangger
Geoarchaeologist
Discoverer of the lost continent of Atlantis
Author of The Future of the Past

Dear Mr. President:

A great president is measured in several ways. One is his response to crisis. Another is his vision of the future.

Many of issues most critical to our future as a society, and indeed as the human species, have a large scientific component. These include:

• Uncontrolled population growth, that is beginning to surpass the level at which our world resources can sustain it. Another example of an exponential growth curve in a finite system is cancer: by the time you realize you have it, it's just a few more tumor-doubling times to death.

• The related problem of global environmental crises: global warming, species extinctions unparalleled since the end of the age of the dinosaurs, large-scale loss of habitat of all kinds, from forest to sea, global-scale pollution, and others.

• Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction: as North Korea is demonstrating, this is not just a problem with Iraq, and soon this problem will spread. Ultimately, our survival as a species is probably at stake.

• Bioterrorism: I needn't explain its relevance to you.

There are many others, and that means there are some very tough decisions that we, as a nation, have to make in confronting these problems. We are in it for the long haul: they won't go away soon. It is essential that we, as a people, be fully informed to make these choices. Yet many among our population have a woefully inadequate background in scientific matters, which lie at the very foundation of these and other problems.

For this reason, the most important scientific matter facing the nation is that of scientific education, literacy, and appreciation. It is imperative that our populace, as well as our decision makers, have a solid grounding in basic scientific principles, appreciation for what science can (and cannot) do, and understanding of how science is carried out.

I've referred to crisis, let's turn to vision. Not only would a scientifically literate populace be better equipped to handle our problems, but it would be better able to work towards a greatly improved future. The fruits of past scientific innovation are all around us: computers, TVs, the World Wide Web (invented by high energy physicists!), medical diagnostics, advancing cures for many diseases, new sources of power, and many more. Our modern society as we know it would not exist without the discoveries of science—we'd still be huddled around our wood stoves and lanterns and riding horses. And there is so much more we can do, as we advance our fundamental understanding of our Universe, our world, and our biology. Science is a path of bold exploration, and it may someday even be a path to the stars.

For this reason I would urge you to follow the vision of a scientifically literate populace, able to intelligently confront our crises and lead humanity to a better future.

There are many things that could be done, and we can discuss details later. But here are some ideas:

• Advocate revamping of school curricula, at both the K-12 and University levels, to place adequate focus on mathematics and physical and biological sciences as an integral part of core curricula. The US was reminded of the importance of science in the Sputnik era, and responded well. Let's not wait for another dramatic signal that we are falling behind. If you prefer to think of it this way, this is, in the end, a matter of our national security.

• Improve science funding through the NSF, DOE, NIH, and other national funding organizations. Much of this funding ultimately goes into the training of new leaders in science.

• Initiate programs to foster better communication between scientists and the press. It is essential that the American people, through their press, gain an understanding of what science is, what is good (and bad) science, and appreciate the importance and great promise that science holds for their future.

• Initiate programs to bring more scientific knowledge to our decision makers: Congress and other administration officials. We should have annual meetings in which leading scientists are invited to brief our leaders on the implications, perils, and promises of scientific discoveries. Congress, and all of your administration, should, on an ongoing basis, actively seek the advice of scientists, both in confronting crises, and in planning for a better future for the American people.

Science is the only way we have of truly understanding how our increasingly complex world works. The scientific view is the long view—it is not short term thinking; it seeks the big picture. The choice is clear: a future of ignorance, or a far better future of enlightenment.

Steve Giddings
Professor of Physics
University of California, Santa Barbara

Dear Mr. President,

You may recall that we met at the White House during your reception for U.S Nobel Laureates. My award was in Physics (1988) and we had a brief discussion of neutrinos and our ever more incisive story of the creation and evolution of the Universe and how the deep connections of the outer space of cosmology and the inner space of particle physics are joined to illuminate the history and structure of the physical universe.

I was impressed by the questions you asked, with a line of Laureates waiting to meet you. When you remarked that the nation owes me (i.e. its scientists) a great debt, I could not refrain from asking, "Sir, could you possibly estimate approximately how much that would be?" the crowd broke up and I missed my chance. Now I would like to bring up a new topic which I believe is as crucial to the future of the nation as any that my illustrious colleagues have raised. This is the education of our children and especially the prep to 12 schooling they are receiving. I have spent the best part of the past decade in a growing fascination with the problem and with growing despair.

I know you are aware of the problem and your "Leave no child behind" rhetoric and legislation are bold steps to face the issue. But I am afraid the problem is much more desperate than one imagines. My vantage point as a scientist enables me to realize that out scientific and technological successes are now at risk. Alan Greenspan has testified before the Goodling Congressional Committee hearings that we have maintained a robust science by means of fortuitous immigration which is slowing down as nations begin to realize how crucial their scientific and technological manpower are to their own development. And our industries plead for more visas to supply the human resources that our own schools are failing to do. Our founding fathers, in their almost infinite wisdom, left education to states and localities, failing perhaps to anticipate the national peril that would arise if our (now) 16,000 separate school systems failed to educate the populations we need, not only the future scientists and engineers but also the voting citizens with a sense of science that a democratic society must have in order to support difficult decisions that 21st century society must make.

I suggest that the President convene a very powerful National Commission on Education. It would consist of University Presidents, CEO's of major technology industries, High ranking officers in the military, scientists and educators. The Chair must be a person of immense public recognition and respect, e.g. Colin Powell, should he retire from your Government The charge would be to create an action plan for a far reaching national consensus program to bring the U.S. into the 21st century educationally. Whereas this would clearly not be a Federally mandated program, the influential composition of the Commission must have a profound effect on the States and localities.

We have a large number of successful schools and skilled teachers. We have very strong elements of new curricula. The revolution we need is to add the new elements of cognition science, to collect the new information from the neurosciences that are useful in the classroom, to create a new ethic of teacher education and continuous professional development. Salaries for teachers and a creative effort at raising the social status of teachers must be blended to make teaching a primary objective of the best students.

It is not difficult to imagine that the Commission will suggest a program of matching Federal and State resources to pay for the increments that this program will require. There is probably a ten year program of implementation before the payoffs begin to appear. Special programs will be needed for the inner cities but solid experience in Chicago and other cities indicate that, given the resources, these can achieve spectacular success.

There are many holes in this proposal but that is why we need this high level Commission. The Bush Education Commission will create a heritage that few Presidents can claim, rivalling the creation of free public education, the G.I. Bill , Social Security etc.

Generations of Americans will remember and honor you for finally addressing the issue of our failed school system and of matching resources with rhetoric to create a new age of education, a new meaning of superpower.

With best wishes for the remainder of your term,

Leon M. Lederman
Director Emeritus of Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
Nobel Laureate in Physics (1988)
Coauthor (with David Schramm) of From Quarks to the Cosmos : Tools of Discovery, and (with Dick Teresi) of The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

Dear President Bush:

The country suffers from a crisis in scientific literacy. Indeed you yourself have often used the phrase "fuzzy math" as an insult even though your own home state of Texas funds fuzzy mathematics at research centers at Texas A&M and at the University of Texas at El Paso.

But there is a more focused and more urgent crisis of scientific literacy: There is widespread statistical illiteracy among scientists themselves. The signature of this illiteracy is not being able to tell a number from a curve.

Please allow me to explain. Almost all scientists and engineers work with and interpret statistical data. The very phrase "scientific study" tends to mean a study conducted in accord with standard principles of modern statistics. But few scientists or engineers can distinguish the key condition that gives rise to the beloved bell curve (remember those IQ and SAT tests?) from the condition that lets a pollster accept the averaged answers of a thousand or so subjects as a reliable estimate of the population at large (remember exit polls?). The first case gives a curve and the other case gives a number and it is crucial that at least the scientists who advise policy makers be able to distinguish the two. This goes to the heart of whether in a given case scientists should even apply the statistical framework and whether they should accept the results if they do apply it.

I know you are not a detail person. But this is one detail worth knowing: The whole distinction here turns on something as simple as the square root of the number of samples. That's right: everything turns on whether you use a number or its square root.

Here is how it turns out. The square-root case gives you something called the Central Limit Theorem or CLT for short. The CLT gives you the (thin tailed) bell curve that remains the most popular probability model in science and engineering—even though more accurate bell curves need thicker tails to account for the observed frequency of "rare" events such as stockmarket crashes or big flashes of lightning. Mathematicians even named this bell curve the Gaussian after the German mathematician Gauss although more and more scientists simply call it the "normal" bell curve because they find it so normal to apply to random phenomena. (Behind this is a deeper illiteracy that confuses data dispersion with an artificial and nonrobust contrivance called the "variance" but that is too much detail for this memo.) The other case works with the number of samples rather than the square root of that number. It gives you one of many so-called Laws of Large Numbers or LLNs for short. Those LLN theorems give you a single number or "poll result" that lesser politicians might use to measure public sentiment on a given yes-or-no question. This common confusion (that CLT = LLN) over a mere square root ranges from science and engineering to medicine and the war room.

See the problem? Social policy rests on empirical science or at least it should. And empirical science rests in turn on statistics and this is a subject far trickier than all too many scientists seem to think. So a little statistical incompetence can have dramatic social effects—think junk science in the courtroom.

What to do?

There isn't time to train or retrain our scientists and engineers and physicians (and lawyers) in probability and statistics. Nor would it be either cost effective or polite to require that at least once each grant applicant submit her answers from a proctored multiple-choice exam on basic statistics when she submits her grant proposal to a federal funding agency—even though state governments periodically do require just such test results to renew a driver's license.

Instead there is a simple rule of thumb you and your staff can use to quickly weed out the least competent: Fire or at least ignore any advisor or applicant who in good faith uses the phrase "law of averages." There is no such law.

Bart Kosko
Professor of Electrical Engineering
University of Southern California
Author of Fuzzy Thinking; Heaven in a Chip; and the novel Nanotime.

Dear Mr. President,

Unlike some of my colleagues, I am uncomfortable acting both as a media executive and as an advisor to the President, and so I must regrettably turn down your invitation to serve. But I will say this:

In times where the most important issues facing your administration, and indeed the nation, are science-centric—from the search for biological weapons in Iraq to human cloning, from global warming to smallpox vaccinations—the voice of the President's chief science advisor must be more pronounced; the public needs to see and hear a stronger scientific presence in the West Wing.

Mr. Blair has taken noteworthy steps to increase science advice within his government. It is critical that you have the necessary, direct science advice to guide your decision-making. Budget increases for research are commendable; informed policy can be revolutionary.

Sincerely,

Adam Bly
Founder and editor-in-Chief of SEED (Science has never looked so good)

Dear Mr. President,

Scientists are natural ambassadors.

I consider it a great opportunity to get your attention for what I believe is an important scientific and societal issue.

Who am I? A neuroscientist born in 1940 in an area of Germany which is now Poland. I belong to the group of people who lost everything after expatriation, and who had to start again at a new place owning only what they had and have in their head, i.e. their brain.

With my experiences I have come to the conclusion stated in the beginning: Scientists are natural ambassadors.

It is only scientists who bring people and nations together. Independent of history, religious faith, economic status, gender or color of skin, scientists work together and have worked together to pursue a common goal, i.e. a deeper understanding of nature and culture. As this is the case, I believe it is necessary to use the sciences building bridges between cultures.

Although your administration is presently deeply involved, and necessarily so, in fighting terrorism, I believe, Mr. President, that a long-term issue should also be tackled by your administration.

Let me use a picture from physics. Stability is only given if an object rests on three legs. This is also true in global politics. A longterm balance is given if three large blocks develop and maintain their identity. This is of course the US, but which is also East Asia (in particular China), and Europe (in spite of some present hesitations to see its identity and its global mission). In a world of three large areas of cultural identity, i.e. US, East Asia and Europe, each one of equal importance and expressing respect to the others, we can hope for longterm stability.

It is the scientists in all these countries to create the necessary atmosphere and provide the societal glue to reach that goal.

With all respect

Ernst Pöppel
Neuroscientist
Chair of the Board of Directors at the Center for Human Sciences
Director of the Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Munich.

Mr. President,

I would recommend the creation of a new institute—The National Institute for Humanism—that would fund research and programs that address pressing national problems in a radically new way, by ignoring traditional dividing lines and disciplines. The Institute would create a mechanism to bridge the worlds of the arts and sciences, worlds that have often acted unheeding of the other, or worse, mistrustful or hostile to one another and in competition for the intellectual center.

As John Brockman has written "Around the fifteenth century, the word 'humanism' was tied in with the idea of one intellectual whole. A Florentine nobleman knew that to read Dante but ignore science was ridiculous. Leonardo was a great artist, a great scientist, a great technologist."

Art and science both address the most profound issues of the day yet often face each other across a great divide. The new National Institute for Humanism would be a mechanism to formally foster and encourage collaborations across the arts, humanities, and sciences, create synergy and cross-fertilization of ideas, uniting thinkers from different viewpoints and disciplines in tackling important questions about who and what we are. Call it the intellectual equivalent of globalization.

Milan Kundera once wrote that every novel offers some answer to the question. "What is human existence and wherein does it poetry lie?" I would submit, so does every work of important science.

Nancy Etcoff PhD
Faculty, Harvard Medical School/Harvard Mind Brain Behavior Initiative
Clinical Associate in Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital
Author of Survival of the Prettiest: The Science of Beauty, and the forthcoming, Hooked on a Feeling: The Limits and Worth of Happiness

Dear President Bush,

I am delighted to hear that you are willing to consider my application as a science advisor to your administration. In the current climate, I can't think of a more important mission than to clarify how the different branches of science can contribute to the overall health of our nation. I would put it stronger: the health of our nation depends on science. In this spirit, I would like to sketch a proposal for how recent developments in the sciences of the mind directly impact on government policies concerning economics, law, and health care.

1. Human nature, universality, and the economics of fairness

Our economy is currently in a vulnerable state of affairs. The stock market oscillates unpredictably. Some portion of this oscillation is driven by foreign markets. To understand the nature of foreign markets, we must understand the psychology of foreign cultures. This entails a search for human universals and how these constrain cultural variation. To illustrate, consider the problem of cooperation, and in particular, how people judge fairness and respond to unfair play.

A standard test of resource distribution and maximization in experimental economics is the Ultimatum Game. The standard game entails one player making an offer to share some proportion of a pot of money to another player. The game is played only once and the identity of the other player is never revealed. Once the player making an offer does so, the other player has a choice: accept the offer or reject it. If the receiver accepts, then he or she keeps the proportion offered and the player making the offer keeps the remainder. If the offer is rejected, both players end the game with no money at all. The intuition from economics, an intuition driven by the view that people are generally selfish and wish to maximize personal resources, is that the player offering should propose the smallest amount acceptable to another player.

This makes good sense because from the receiver's perspective, some money is better than no money, so all offers should be accepted. When this game is played in developed nations such as the united States and the UK, results indicate that the economist's intuition is wrong. People typically make offers of about 50% of the pot and receivers reject offers of 20% or less. Both moves are highly irrational if resource maximization is the norm. It is clearly not the norm. In the developed world, fairness drives both the offer and the acceptance, and what appears to be fair is about a 50:50 split.

This was the standard textbook account until about 5 years ago. The tide changed when a small group of economists decided to look into cross cultural variation of resource maximization and distribution. When people in small scale, non-industrial societies, play the ultimatum game, there are two clear results. First, every human, independent of cultural heritage, has a powerful sense of fairness. Second, the local culture shifts what people consider fair and how they respond to an unfair trade. For example, when the ultimatum game is played in some cultures, there are modal offers of only 15% while in other cultures the offers are as high as 50% but the rejection rates are almost equally high. These results show that the human mind has evolved a powerful sense of fairness, a capacity that is part of the brain's unique endowment. What culture does, constrained by biology, is change what constitutes a fair exchange. Other studies in experimental economics have begun to reveal how public goods can be protected against cheaters. Once again, pure economics fails where an integration of economics, biology, and psychology pays off handsomely. Public goods are vulnerable to cheaters because the payoffs are higher if others contribute in your stead. To guard against defection, economists working in an evolutionary psychology framework have shown that two factors maintain public goods: information on reputation (what participants contribute) and the capacity to punish those who cheat. Again, these factors are cross-culturally important and stable, revealing universal properties of the mind that persist in the face of changes in the environment, including the emergence of civilization, formal governments, universities and so forth.

This view of cooperation and fairness shows striking parallels with other systems of knowing, including language and mathematics. Although each of these systems show cross-cultural variation, each is constrained by machinery in the brain that is present in all humans, independent of culture. The implications of this perspective, and these particular findings in anthropological economics, are profound. Given our nation's interest in and commitment to international trade, we would be well advised to take seriously both the facts concerning human universals in decision making as well as the power of cross-cultural differences to tweak the perception of fairness. We are more likely to develop productive programs for economic development by understanding those parts that unify all humans and those parts that make us different. Our government must not only incorporate such findings, but seriously consider the integration of scientists working in these areas with government officials attempting to launch international aid programs.

2. The brains underlying control and its loss

Each year, our government spends millions, if not billions of dollars on problems concerning violence, drug abuse, gambling, smoking, and eating disorders. Although these problems appear different on the surface, they reflect a common underlying theme: overcoming temptation in the face of weak systems of control. Over the last decade, studies in cognitive neuroscience and genetics have begun to pinpoint areas in the brain that are involved in reward, conflict monitoring, and control, as well as gene sequences that may put some people at greater risk than others with respect to overcoming problems of control. To illustrate the importance of these findings for the health of our nation, consider the following frightening fact: the best predictor, internationally, of the level of violence within a nation is the proportion of young men in the population. Men are more violent than women in all cultures. Although cultures can shift the level of violence, the sex difference remains. Men are more heavily involved in risk taking. We now know that a significant correlate of violence in humans, both men and women, is the level of circulating serotonin—a key neurochemical in the brain. When serotonin levels are low, the level of control is lower; low serotonin levels are associated with greater impulsivity, more risk taking. We are only beginning to understand what determines and changes levels of serotonin in the brain. One thing is certain: the key lies in understanding what happens in development. A recent study illustrates this point, and shows why science must interface with policy. Genetic analyses have revealed that a particular form of one gene causes differential expression of an enzyme. This enzyme plays a critical role in the production of serotonin. In a study of several hundred young boys, results revealed that when this gene produces a low level of the target enzyme, such children are far more vulnerable to physical abuse by parents than in children with a high level of the enzyme. In particular, boys who were targets of severe parental aggression were much more likely to shows signs of antisocial personality disorder if the level of the enzyme was low than if it was high. Parental aggression should not be tolerated under any circumstance. But what this study reveals is that we are not equally vulnerable to aggression. As our understanding of genetics and neuroscience increase, we will be able to use this information to better plan programs for intervention. Ultimately, this interplay between molecular genetics and neurobiology on the one hand, and social work on the other hand, should lead to a reduction in overall levels of violence as we can perhaps begin to target the source in development as opposed to the consequences in adulthood.

In closing, I believe that our government is ideally poised to bring science more fully into issues of policy. The rapid explosion of knowledge in the sciences must not sit idly in the libraries of universities, but should make its way into building a healthier nation. As President, you have the opportunity to lead this initiative.

Sincerely yours,

Marc D. Hauser
Professor of Psychology
Primate Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory
Harvard University

I've given much thought to present adminstration's policy on science particularly on evironmental issues (very broadly defined), but also on related areas (such as energy policy), and have even been involved in some of the issues involving terrorist threats (diseases of people and agricultural resources). I have yet to see an area where science has informed any of this present administration's policies. Despite much hand waving about "sound science" I have no confidence that a science advisor would have any useful impact whatsoever. 

I think I'll give this position a pass, not so much out of spite, but because I think there are many better platforms from which to ensure that science effects good policy at the international, national, and state levels.

Stuart L. Pimm
Doris Duke Chair of Conservation Ecology
Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Science
Duke University
Author of The World According to Pimm: A Scientist Audits the Earth

Dear President Bush:

I respectfully decline your invitation to compete for the job of science adviser. I just don't think we could work together successfully. For one thing, you're a morning type and a jogger, and I'm not. For another, I somehow don't think we have compatible views of what science is and how it works.

You're an upbeat sort of guy, and would no doubt expect your science advisor to bring you lots of good news about how science is going to solve all the world's problems. But to tell the truth, I'm a little discouraged right now about science's ability to solve all the world's problems.

You see, in my view the source of the world's problems is people. It's people who make wars, commit crimes, mess up the environment, spend too much, spend too little, whatever. So in order to solve the world's problems, we need to understand people. The science of understanding people is called "psychology." But psychology isn't taken seriously, because most folks think they already understand people—who needs science?

What's worse, this attitude is common not just among non-experts like (begging your pardon) yourself: it's common even among psychologists. They all have their own pet theories of what makes people tick, and if the evidence doesn't happen to agree with their theories—well, to hell with the evidence.

Do you see the dilemma? We need a science of human behavior—a science of the human mind—that would tell us (among other things) why people won't believe the evidence that science produces. But if such a science produced interesting and novel results, nobody would believe them! So what's the point?

Maybe you should look for a science advisor in some other field ... um, botany? No, too controversial. Dermatology?

Thanks anyway, and good luck!

Judith Rich Harris
Psychologist
Author, The Nurture Assumption, and the forthcoming Why Are Siblings So Different?

Dear Mr. President:

I must respectfully decline your invitation, as I am unsuited to such a role, but I wish to take this opportunity to offer a potentially crucial piece of advice regarding strategic research directions.

The United States, like all the leading technological powers, has recently turned its research efforts toward a broad field called "nanotechnology". I introduced this term in the mid-1980s and described long-term prospects that helped motivate the recent explosion of interest and investment. Advanced nanotechnologies, based on molecular manufacturing, will enable the production of computer systems a billion times more powerful than today's, aerospace vehicles with 98% less structural mass, and medical tools enabling molecular repair of cells, tissues, and organs. These and related technologies will be economically and strategically decisive.

Molecular manufacturing will be based on molecular machine systems able to manipulate and assemble molecular components to make larger products. If you look in a conventional factory today, you will see electronic devices sensing and controlling processes, but the actual work—shaping, moving, and assembling parts—is done by machines that, quite naturally, use moving parts to move parts.

Research programs today are poorly focused on developing the molecular machine technologies essential to the strategic objective of molecular manufacturing. Researchers, steeped in late-20th-century culture, often see machinery as somehow archaic, left over from the 19th century, rather than recognizing it as the necessary foundation of technologies past, present, and future. The broad field of nanotechnology embraces a host of topics related to more fashionable academic topics, such as biotechnology, materials, and microelectronics. Interest in these topics has diverted resources into short-term efforts that are well worth doing—but not at the expense of neglecting core technologies essential to the long-term promise of nanotechnology.

The issues here are broad and basic enough that policy makers need not defer to the judgment of narrow technical experts: Advanced nanotechnologies will be based on molecular manufacturing, which, like all manufacturing, will require systems of machines with moving parts. Accordingly, the development of molecular machine systems must be a central priority of the ongoing National Nanotechnology Initiative.

K. Eric Drexler
Chairman, Foresight Institute
Author of Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing, and Computation; Unbounding the Future; and Engines of Creation.

Dear Mr. President,

The United States has led the world in science and technology since World War II. In recent years our lead has reduced as Europe, Japan and Canada have matched and in some cases exceeded our investments in education and science. This is to be expected, and we can be happy that all of our rivals for scientific and technological leadership are also our allies. Indeed, in the modern world, science, democracy and prosperity go hand in hand, and it is no coincidence that throughout history those nations that led the development of democracy also led their times in scientific advancement. Our main goal, as the leader of the democratic world, must be to see that the benefits of democracy and science, and the prosperity they jointly give rise to, are extended to all the peoples of the Earth.

To achieve this we shall have to make use of the unique strengths of our society, which have been responsible for our dominance in science and technology. These strengths are connected to the openness of our society to new ideas and new immigrants, to our spirit of initiative and innovation, to our generosity, our preference for peace over war, and the respect for peoples of all cultures, races and nations that comes from our being a nation of immigrants. We would best build on these by the following steps:

1) Create crash programs, analogous to the Manhattan project and the Apollo program, to solve the major scientific and technological problems facing human kind. These include global warming, energy efficiency and renewable energy resources. It also includes developments in medicine and biology related to public health, such as the AIDS epidemic as well as finding ways to protect against terrorism without compromising our freedoms.

Only the United States has the scientific capability, economic resources and technological base to mount programs to solve these problems. Only the United States has the experience of successfully carrying off such ambitious programs. Only the United States has the spirit of innovation and risk taking that makes such projects succeed. By taking on and solving these problems we would create enormous benefits to all the peoples of the world. There is indeed no better way to maintain our position of leadership in the eyes of the world.

Thus, in each of the areas I mentioned, I propose that the United States announce a crash program with clearly defined goals. Put the prestige of your office and the scientific and technological capabilities of the United States on the line in each of these. Create a flexible, flat organization, led by scientific and engineering visionaries, not managers and bureaucrats, fund them generously and give them all the scope and resources they need to succeed quickly. Remember that it took less than five years to make the atomic bomb, and less than ten to put a person on the moon. Avoid the temptation, in areas such as global warming and energy independence, to reward special interests by delaying action and funding further studies. Instead, put the energy of our scientists and engineers into finding and implementing workable solutions to the problems.

This is an expensive proposal, but it will be worth every dollar. For example, in the long run it will be cheaper to invest our resources to develop renewable sources of energy, and new energy efficient technologies, than in increasingly risky and destabilizing attempts to control oil and gas by military force.

2) Our leadership is due in no small measure to the fact that a large fraction of scientists and engineers working in the United States immigrated here in order to study and work. To maintain leadership, we must keep open the possibility that a bright young engineer or scientist can come to our shores from anywhere in the world and realize the American dream while working in our universities, laboratories and companies. We benefit enormously from the talents and contributions of those who stay and become American citizens, but we also benefit from those who return to their countries after studying and working here. There is no better way to win friends and to promote the spread of our values than by continuing to have open doors for scientists and engineers. Generally speaking, there is no person of any background or culture more likely to appreciate our democratic values, and less likely to engage in terrorism or religious fundamentalism, than a person trained in the sciences.

3) Let us do everything we can to maintain leadership in pure sciences. This means funding the NSF and NIH generously, but it means more than that. Over the last several decades these organizations have become increasingly bureaucratic, inflexible and unresponsive to the needs of those scientists who do the most to advance science. There are fewer and fewer grants to individual scientists as an increasing proportion of the funds are diverted to big projects and research centers. But it can be documented that most major advances come from the laboratories and offices of individual scientists, and not from big research centers and projects. Then why the trend? Unfortunately all too often, the big research centers and projects serve to further the careers of bureaucrats and administrators in government and the universities.

In the universities as well there has been also a rapid growth of bureaucracy and middle management. Where there used to be one chair or dean, there is now a suite of offices with several associate and assistant bureaucrats. While many businesses have eliminated middle managers and flattened hierarchies, to gain the flexibility needed to innovate and compete in a rapidly changing world, universities have been going in the other direction. Many business leaders are quite simply shocked when they try to partner with universities, as they discover how administrative heavy and bureaucratic the large universities have become.

But progress in science depends on risk taking and an openness to novelty and surprise. This is why most scientific advances are made by young scientists, or by those who take the risk of switching fields during their careers. I once asked a General of the Marine Corp how they educate people to take on large amounts of risk. He said the most important thing they teach a Marine officer is that there is a big difference between leadership and management. This is a lesson too many of the administrators who lead the big universities and research projects never learned.

So I would ask: why should the universities, which are the sector of our society most responsible for innovation and discovery, be the place where seniority and bureaucracy most hinder the rise of talented young people to positions of leadership?

I once asked a venture capitalist how he judged when he was taking on the right amount of risk. He responded that when more than 10% of the companies he funded succeeded, he knew that he was not taking on enough risk, and that his profits would consequently suffer. This amazed me, as we university professors write our grant proposals to NSF and NIH as if there is no risk whatsoever. To be funded, we have learned, we must present every scientific project as if it is bound to succeed. Many scientists simply propose doing things they already know will work. This reduces risk taking, leads to much duplication of effort and slows down the progress of science. I would then propose that you require that the federal funding agencies reorganize themselves so that they behave more like venture capitalists than like mortgage bankers, so that young scientists, and scientists of all ages with bold and ambitious ideas, have the support they need to take on the degree of risk that is required to keep science advancing rapidly in the United States.

Lee Smolin
Theoretical Physicist
Founding member, Perimeter Institute in Waterloo Canada
Author of The Life of The Cosmos and Three Roads to Quantum Gravity.

Dear Mr President,

The most pressing scientific issue facing the nation and the world is the deep level of ignorance of science that exists among the vast majority of the world's population, civilized as well as uncivilized. This is manifest in two ways: 1. Lack of knowledge of even basic scientific discoveries about the world; and 2. Lack of appreciation of the effectiveness of scientific reasoning at arriving at the truth: what Eugene Wigner, one of the last century's leading scientists, called "the unreasonable effectiveness of science".

This appreciation is necessary not only to remove current obstacles to the advances of science; it also needs to infiltrate people's everyday lives so that their daily decisions about how to live are based less on fantasy and irrationality and more on facts and logic.

Until this ignorance is corrected, the whole of the scientific enterprise will be continually hampered by its failure to convince an uncomprehending legislature and electorate to provide suitable funding for science, and to exploit to the maximum its discoveries. The best way to deal with this particular problem, which impedes the solution of most other scientific problems, is to provide an annual bonus on top of their salary to new science teachers of $100,000 a year, and put applicants through a rigorous selection process based on a combination of knowledge, skill and passion for the subject, combined with superb pupil handling ability.

There are about 3 million teaching posts in the USA. If, say, a quarter are to teach math and science, that means finding $75 billion a year. It sounds a lot, but it's actually $5 per person per week. It's estimated that global warming could cost the world $300 billion a year, and America a sizeable proportion of that amount. Good science could deal with that problem and pay for itself. Or take something more banal. In the US people spend almost $75 billion dollars a year on nutritional supplements. If people understood science better, most if not all of that money would be saved, either by eating a better diet or by not buying junk medicines. In one generation the problem will be solved, and during that generation, as a new breed of scientists enters the universities and research institutes, the whole of science will begin to benefit.

A less obvious issue is the deteriorating nature of man-machine interfaces as technology becomes more complex. This is not just a matter of better design of control panels and remote controls-it needs a more fundamental innovation where the intention of the any user is immediately translated into the actions of the device.

Karl Sabbagh
Public communicator in science
Author of A Rum Affair: A True Story of Botanical Fraud; The Riemann Hypothesis: The Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics

Dear Mr. President:

We live in the age of science. The geometric growth in computing power and internet communications is emblematic of the impact science has had in all human endeavors. Science has made the world of today as different from 1950, as 1950 was from 1500. Given that fact it is jarring to encounter the results of the National Science Foundation's biennial report on the state of science understanding, published last April:

• 30% of Americans believe that UFOs are space vehicles from other civilizations
• 60% believe in ESP
• 40% think that astrology is scientific
• 32% believe in lucky numbers
• 70% accept magnetic therapy as scientific
• 88% agree that alternative medicine is a viable means of treating illness

Education by itself is not a panacea. Although belief in ESP decreased from 65% among high school graduates to 60% among college graduates, and belief in magnetic therapy dropped from 71% among high school graduates to 55% among college graduates, that still leaves over half fully endorsing such claims! And for embracing alternative medicine, the percentages actually increase, from 89% for high school grads to 92% for college grads.

Why do so many people, even smart people, believe so many weird things? The problem is usually blamed on education, especially science education. That is only part of the problem. People believe weird things because they are taught what to think, not how to think. Consider these additional statistics from the NSF report: 70% of Americans still do not understand the scientific process, defined in the study as grasping probability, the experimental method, and hypothesis testing. One solution is more and better science education, as indicated by the fact that 53% of Americans with a high level of science education (nine or more high school and college science/math courses) understand the scientific process, compared to 38% with a middle level (six to eight such courses) science education, and 17% with a low level (less than five such courses).

To address this serious problem we need to teach people that science is not simply a database of unconnected factoids, but a set of methods aimed at building a testable body of knowledge open to rejection or confirmation. Science is a way of thinking that recognizes the need to test hypotheses so that the process is not reduced to mere opinion mongering, that the findings of such tests are provisional and probabilistic, and that natural explanations are always sought for natural phenomena.

Lacking a fundamental comprehension of how science works, the siren song of pseudoscience becomes too alluring to resist, no matter how smart you are. So my recommendation, Mr. Bush, is that since your father was the "education President" you become the "science education President." Not just any science education, but science education that teaches students how to think; and not just how to think about weird things, but how to think about, challenge, and be skeptical of all things, including and especially political, economic, and social issues.

Science is the greatest tool ever devised to understand the cause of things. It is, therefore, our greatest hope for a viable future. Ad astra!

Michael Shermer
Editor-in-Chief, Skeptic magazine
Monthly Columnist, Scientific American
Author of In Darwin's Shadow: The Life and Science of Alfred Russel Wallace: A Biographical Study on the Psychology of History.

Mr. President:

One large set of pressing problems our nation and the world face—ranging from growing rates of childhood asthma to global warming—stem in large part from a shared root cause: the cumulative impacts of our habits of consumption. The asthma and global warming, for example, both stem largely from the build-up in the air of particulates from the production (through, say, coal-burning power plants) of the energy we use in our homes and the exhaust of autos. Yet most of us make little or no connection between our own buying habits and concerns like our children's asthma or the warming of the planet.

The reason: Virtually none of us can give a precise answer to the question,"What are the impacts for health, the environment, our planet's resources, the gap between rich and poor, of the products we buy? The answers are potentially available, but now are hidden by a fog about the consequences for ourselves and the world of our own actions as consumers.

Yet the multiplier effect—the vast number of people who buy those same products—creates a vast network of inadvertent, adverse consequences. This goes on because we have little or no information about the hidden links between what we buy, and how it impacts our world, our health, our climate, our children. So those of us who complain about or suffer from these problems still continue to be part of their very cause.

My proposal: surface the hidden links between what we buy and the consequential impacts of those products. Then let consumers make choices based on this new information—in a sense,"voting" every time we purchase goods—and let the power of the free market, rather than government policy alone, become a force for improvement.

So, Mr. President, I urge you to deploy the forces necessary to fill in the hidden links between the goods we consume and their impact in the world. Then create a website that consumers could access at the point of purchase—perhaps by passing a palm pilot-like device over the barcode to get to the product-relevant area of the website.

That website should provide immediate data comparing a product to others in its category on any of several dimensions, such as working conditions in factories where components or the product was manufactured; wages (weighted for national norms, etc.); how much energy was used in producing and transporting the product to market; impact on the environment of its production (this alone involves multiple factors, from industrial byproducts like heavy metals and other toxins, to polluting micro-particles); and so on.

Ideally, consumers could determine which of such dimensions were most important in their personal decision to purchase, and so have a built-in logarithm that would pop out the best choices as they wander down the aisles of a store.

As we've seen in the diamond industry—with the industry wide effort to certify the source of diamonds to keep from market "blood" diamonds that finance corrupt regimes and civil wars in Africa—consumer preferences can become forces for social, political, environmental and economic good. But this can only be only true if consumers become aware of links that are now hidden.

Such transparency could alter the buying habits of substantial numbers of consumers, and so create a new marketing advantage for some companies. Ethically driven (or simply nimble) companies could find market advantage in becoming the"good guys" in their category, and so gain market share. This could then open up an entirely new arena for competition between companies, creating a financial incentive to find ways to improve the environmental; health, and other consequences of everything from their manufacturing processes to their wage structures.

Of course, gathering the required data poses a formidable task. It can begin modestly, focusing on the easier dimensions of information. But ultimately filling in the missing links could require a Manhattan Project-like intensity of research, that would draw on findings from fields as diverse as industrial engineering and sociology, environmental sciences and economics, biochemistry and systems theory. It might also require the creation of an impartial body to gather and vet the data—something like a mega-Consumer Reports. Perhaps a new cabinet post for transparency, Mr. President?

Daniel Goleman
Psychologist
Author of the international bestsellers, Emotional Intelligence; Working with Emotional Intelligence; (with Boyatzis & McKee) Primal Leadership.

The role of the secretary of science.

At the beginning, there is always understanding.

In order to act on all issues scientific and otherwise with constructive progress and the discovery of solutions, data, information and ideas need to be put in an understandable form.

Public information about science should be made public.

Public information refers to everything that creates an informed citizen. Public means everything that we as a society agree should be available to the body politic.

The making of scientific information understandable means presenting, designing & structuring this information so that it is accessible, available and actionable. Constructive science is based upon accessibility, understandability, an informed constituency and finally action.

Richard Saul Wurman
TEDMed Conferences
Architect, cartographer, creator of the Access Travel Guide Series
Author and designer of Information Architects;Follow the Yellow Brick Road; and Information Anxiety.

Mr President,

As your new scientific advisor, I would like to draw your attention to an important and perhaps surprising fact. The citizens of your country are not just flesh and blood. They are, increasingly, flesh, blood, and machine. Let me explain why, and then why it matters.

While the biological bodies of our fellow citizens remain (temporarily at least) much as they ever were, their minds are more and more the minds of hybrid beings. As thinking beings, as persons, they are constituted not just by the blood and guts contents of their ancient biological skinbags, but also by vastly transformative webs of social and technological structure.

To see what I mean, reflect that recent advances in genetics, cognitive science, neuroscience, evolutionary psychology and cross-cultural studies are helping to paint a much fuller picture of the complex interplay between native skills and rich developmental plasticity that makes us who and what we are. Part of this picture involves native dispositions of various kinds. But another big part involves a vast and distinctive shot of cortical plasticity. This plasticity allows young (and older) human brains to factor surrounding culture, tools and technologies deep into their problem-solving practice. Brains like ours alter profoundly to fit the technologies and practices that surround them.

And there is more. In the past, this process of fit was mainly one-way. Human brains adapted to the devices that they had to work with. But new technologies are changing this one-sided profile. Our best devices now adapt to individual users according to patterns of use. They provide for fast, fluent, painless information retrieval that alters the tasks left to biological memory. They are mobile, portable, robust. Lose one and you feel impaired, as if afflicted by some transient neural trauma. The simple cell phone, with its ever-expanding range of functions, will probably one day be seen as the key transition technology that led humankind into a new hybrid age.

The level of productive debate and co-operation between the humanities and the sciences of the mind is also rising daily. At this critical historical moment, America can lead the world by taking the quality of human life seriously, and by devoting its impressive resources not to hopeless and misguided causes but to helping all its citizens lead full and rewarding lives. That means spending money on the kinds of education, training and research that will help us to understand ourselves as we are today, and to build better hybrid minds tomorrow. Such a project requires understanding both our biological roots and the socio-technological matrixes that take those roots and turn them into the hybrid intelligent systems we recognize as persons.

This project, the project of tracking the interactions between biology and the social and technological matrix itself, could be for the new century what sequencing the human genome was to the last. Done properly, it could mark a transformative moment in human history: the moment we put war and aggression aside, and tried to build better people by better understanding who and what we are.

Andy Clark
Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Cognitive Science Program
Indiana University, Bloomington
Author of five books including Microcognition and Being There: Putting Brain, Body and World Together Again.

The National Institute for the Scientific Study of Peace (NISSP)

Dear Mr. President:

The technologist Kevin Kelly has urged you to give more support to long-term, blue-sky, globally relevant research. I could not agree more. In that spirit, I recommend that you create a new governmental body, The National Institute for the Scientific Study of Peace, to address by far the most pressing issue of our time: the persistence of war as a means of resolving disputes between nations.

Fields such as evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and cognitive science are now providing new insights into the brain, emotions, reasoning and the evolution of human nature. Findings from these fields as well as from economics, game theory, anthropology, and political science can help us to understand the causes of war and find ways to reduce its occurrence. Thus far, however, the scientific community has not given war-related questions the serious, sustained attention that they deserve.

The National Institute for the Scientific Study of Peace (NISSP) would redress that insufficiency. Its short-term goal would be to find more effective means of resolving conflict in the world today, wherever it might occur. The long-term goal would be to explore ideas on how nations can make the transition toward permanent disarmament: the elimination of armies, arms, and arms industries. Through its grants and publications, NISSP would encourage ambitious young scientists to see peace as a challenge at least as worthy of pursuit as a unified theory of physics, a cure for cancer, or a cheap, clean, renewable source of energy.

Just as a percentage of the budget for the Human Genome Project is allocated to ethical issues, so part of the Defense Department's budget could be allocated to NISSP. One tenth of one percent should be sufficient. Some might argue that war is not a scientific issue. Certainly it is a dauntingly complex one, with political, economic, and social ramifications. But the same could be said of global warming and population growth.

Scholars such as the Yale political scientist Bruce Russett have noted that democracies rarely wage war against each other. We need more rigorous investigations of correlations such as these, which can identify ways to promote stability within and between nations. What is the link between the risk of war and nations’ political ideologies? Trade and economic policies? Religious and ethnic diversity? Population growth and poverty? Education and womens' rights? Freedom of the press? Availability of energy, food, and other vital resources?

Darwinian theory is sometimes said to imply that conflict is inherent in nature and hence inevitable in human affairs. This view assumes that evolution is primarily what game theorists call a zero-sum game, in which one organism's gain is off-set by another's loss. War is the ultimate zero sum—or, more often, negative—sum game.

But as the journalist Robert Wright points out in his book Nonzero, non-zero-sum processes such as symbiosis and cooperation also play vital roles in evolution. The key to global peace and prosperity, Wright argues, lies in fostering trade, communications, and other mutually beneficial interactions between nations. (Nonzero has been touted by your predecessor in the White House, but don't hold that against it.)

Many scientists will dismiss total, global disarmament, which I believe should be the ultimate goal of our strivings toward peace, as hopelessly unrealistic. These skeptics will argue that at the very least some trans-national organization should always retain a military force, perhaps equipped with nuclear weapons, to deter or suppress attacks from outlaw states or quasi-states, such as Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Certainly global disarmament seems a remote possibility now, but that does not mean we should fatalistically accept armies and armaments, including weapons of mass destruction, as permanent features of civilization. Given the extraordinary advances our species has already achieved in science, technology, medicine, and human rights, surely we are intelligent enough to make not only war but even the threat of war obsolete. The only question is how, and how soon

Yours truly,

John Horgan
Freelance science journalist (Scientific American, the New York Times, the Washington Post, among others)
Author of The End of Science; The Undiscovered Mind; and Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality (forthcoming).

Dear President Bush:

One thing a science advisor should do is attempt to define science. The last definition we had was in 1892 when Charles Eliot, the President of Harvard, led a committee that decided upon the high school curriculum that is still in place today. They defined science as biology, chemistry, and physics (in that order.) These just happened to be the science departments at Harvard in 1892. They defined mathematics as algebra, geometry and trigonometry (— same reason.) But a few things have happened since 1892.

One thing that has happened is that there are new and different science departments at Harvard (and elsewhere.) Another thing that has happened is that nearly everyone goes to high school and half of those kids go on to college. In 1892 those who went to high school (and on to Harvard which probably what President Eliot was worried about) were preparing to become teachers, professors, ministers and statesmen. They were not preparing the bulk of the population to live.

One of your illustrious predecessors, John Adams—he was the father of another President of the same name, a confusion that I am sure you identify with—said that education was about only two things: how to make a living and how to live. Unfortunately our current school system does neither.

Science is a good example. Should people learn science?

I have recently become the academic dean at Grandview Prep in Florida. I am trying to build a realistic high school curriculum there. I will tell you a story that will help you understand my problem:

I helped build an on line physics course for Columbia, so I installed it in the curriculum at Grandview. There were immediate objections that it would be too hard. (It is a college level course, but actually it is intended to replace "Physics for Poets" at Columbia so it isn't that hard.) Nevertheless it was decided that the good students at Grandview could take this course but the bad students would have to take regular physics. (I thought this bizarre but went along.)

So, I asked the physics teacher what he taught in regular physics. The first thing he mentioned was Ohm's Law. Apparently, the bad kids could understand Ohm's Law but not space travel (which is the basis of the Columbia course.)

Now, I don't know about you President Bush, but Ohm's Law simply fails to come up in my life. And, while we are discussing things that come up in one's life, when was the last time you used the quadratic formula? Your father said every graduating senior would know the Pythagorean Theorem by the time his Presidency was finished (I suppose he was counting on another term eh?) I have it on good authority (from your brother Neil) that no adult member of the Bush family knows the Pythagorean theorem, you or dad included. I suppose you never needed it. (Neither did hardly anyone else.)

Our problems in science and in education come from our view that education is about preparing for Harvard in 1892 and not for life in 2003. So, as your science advisor I would propose three things:

• 1) Begin to help change our education policy to create students who prepare for the real world they will inhabit by learning how to wire their houses instead of quoting Ohm's law or how and when to refinance their house rather than learning Euclidean Geometry. I would create more curricula in science and other subjects that emphasized everyday reasoning issues like the use of stem cells or waste cleanup or snow removal or alternative energy sources. Why can't science be about real issues in real people's lives? I'll bet you didn't take a single science course at Yale. Who could blame you? I was a member of the Yale faculty for many years. The science professors are preparing future scientists not future Presidents. The nation suffers as a result.

• 2) We must call for a new curriculum meeting to replace the 1892 curriculum and to reinvent the schools. Stop going on about test scores and making sure every kid studies the same stuff and build hundreds of new curricula and let students choose. We need to teach people how to think not how to memorize information.

• 3) We must consider education (and science) as our most likely product for export. The world needs education more than it needs food. This is the best way to counter terrorism in the long run. We have the best and brightest in this country because a lot of our education system isn't broken. (We have great universities and superb Ph.D. programs for example.) Let's start considering how we export these great educational products with the intent not of taking others country's best minds and making them US citizens, but with the idea that if they cant read in Pakistan this can cause us a great many problems down the road. On line learning is the answer because it is easy to export. Why haven't we spent money on creating high quality on line literacy programs and science reasoning programs that would make the export of education a real possibility? Instead of spending money on making better tests why not spend money on better curricula?

The time has come to make science more accessible and education in it and other subjects more relevant.

Sincerely,

Roger C. Schank
Distinguished Career Professor of Computer Science
Chief Education Officer
Carnegie Mellon West
Founder of the Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University
Author of Scrooge Meets Dick and Jane; Coloring Outside the Lines (Raising a Smarter Kid by Breaking all the Rules), Engines for Education

Dear Mr. President,

Thank you for your invitation to advise you on matters of science. Science is after all the most public form of knowledge.

Scientific knowledge consists exactly of those pieces of information that can in principle be verified by anyone with the tools and desire to do so.

My advice to our highest elected official is to keep science public. Secret knowledge, no matter how laboriously acquired, is less than science.

Some knowledge, of course, must remain secret for the security of the nation. Do not have the National Security Administration publish its cryptographic keys.

But unless there is a clear security risk, publish all else. Why? Science belongs to the public: they pay for it; they benefit from it. The benefits of scientific knowledge accrue far more rapidly when that knowledge lies open for all to see, to test, and to try.

Your administration has presided over some good examples of the benefits of open dissemination of scientific knowledge. I will restrict my attention to my own field of quantum computation.

Quantum computers are devices that store information at the level of atoms, and that process that information in a way that respects the wave like nature of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is famously weird, and one of the consequences of quantum weirdness is that even a small quantum computer, consisting of a few thousand atoms, would be able to break all existing public-key cryptosystems.

By their potential power, quantum computers pose a significant threat to the security not only of classified encoded material, but to the security of most commercial transactions, in particular those that take place electronically. Despite the clear application of quantum computation to problems of national security, your security agencies have elected to pursue the majority of their research on quantum computers by open competition for public funds, under the stipulation that the results of the research be published and made available to all.

This is a wise course. Although potentially highly disruptive, quantum computers are hard to build. Large-scale quantum computation is a decade away, at least. To construct such large-scale quantum computers will require the scientific and engineering community to solve wide-ranging problems of nanofabrication and control. The solutions to such problems will have wide application in the design and manufacture of high precision, high-power technologies across the board. The potential benefits of such research are a thousand times greater than any drawback from potential disruption to security.

By keeping the science public, your agencies are dramatically speeding the development not only of quantum computers, but of a wide variety of other quantum technologies, ranging from enhanced lithography to more accurate atomic clocks, to precise global positioning. The frontier of the very small offers huge space for development: keep this frontier open to all.

Science is public knowledge. But science is not the only field where openness is important. The security failures of 9/11 were caused not by too little, but by too much secrecy. And the discussions that form public policy should be public.

I know that other advisors are offering you conflicting advice: keep your cards close to your chest—don't let our enemies (or our allies) benefit from our hard-earned knowledge. Don't listen to them. Science isn't poker: it only works when the cards are dealt face up. Don't go down in history as the Texan who closed the scientific frontier.

Yours,

Seth Lloyd
Professor of Quantum-Mechanical Engineering
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear Mr. President,

Many thanks for your invitation to apply for the position of Science Advisor to the President. Alas, there is some mistake, for I am a philosophy professor. At their best, scientists respond to problems with answers, and this can be useful to presidents. Philosophers have a cranky habit of responding to answers with more problems. You don't need that.

Taking into account all of the poor scientific policy advice that has been promulgated in Washington for the last forty years, you'll need luck in your search for the right person. The record shows that scientists are as much victims of fashion as other ordinary mortals. Recall a few examples of science in predictive mode:

• In the mid-1970, many climatologists warned of a coming Ice Age that would severely diminish agricultural productivity by year 2000.

• Frightened by dramatic allegations in the 1960s about the environmental effects of DDT, the U.S. banned the pesticide in 1972. In retrospect, the allegations of harm were so much hyperbole. In the meantime, millions of people, especially in Africa, have died of malaria, with Europe and the U.S. reluctant to support them in DDT mosquito eradication.

• Let's not forget the scientific predictions about oil and mineral resources. In the 1970s your predecessors in office were being told that there would be essentially no oil left by the 1990s. Gold would be $10,000 an ounce, of course.

• Overpopulation? When I was in the Peace Corps in India in the 1960s we all "knew," in line with expert scientific advice from the U.S. government, that the population explosion would cause massive, worldwide famine by the late 1980s.

This list could be expanded into periodic cancer scares, worries about the ozone hole, silicon breast implants, acid rain (another wildly exaggerated threat), air pollution, and so forth. It's odd when you think about it: though you and I might have enjoyed scary Frankenstein movies, when we were children, science and technology were seen as great forces for the benefit of mankind. Things shifted in the 1960s, and a spirit of pessimism began to invade science.

Today, it is much easier for scientists to receive grants if they indicate their research might uncover a serious threat or problem—economic, medical, ecological. Media fascination with bad news is partly to blame, along with the principled gloominess and nagging of organizations such as Greenpeace. But government itself has played its natural part. After all, as H.L. Mencken once remarked, "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

Since I'm sure you're keen to avoid such alarmism, you'll need an advisor who can see through the fashions of science, and understand something of their psychology. The epidemiologist who slightly overstates the conclusiveness of his study suggesting that french fries might cause cancer (in mice) or the young climatologist on the global-warming gravy train are not basically dishonest people. You too might more easily buy into some doomsday scenario, if it meant regular business-class flights to major resorts to compare computer climate models with other experts (models that you know in your heart could not possibly predict average atmospheric temperatures fifty years hence, but what hell, the food's great).

I hope your new Science Advisor comes to the job armed with knowledge of the rich history of junk science and false predictions served up to government in the last forty years. The point is not to be cynical about fads and careerism, but wisely to choose where best to support both pure science and science that can give us beneficial technologies.

Denis Dutton
Founder and Editor, Arts & Letters Daily
Department of Philosophy
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, New Zealand

Here two answers to the Edge Annual Question. In the first version I have followed your instruction to stick to science and to those scientific areas where I have expertise. The resulting memo is practical and unimaginative. It may not be of much interest to the Edge community, but I think it would be more useful to the president than a wider-ranging document. The second memo is the unpractical and imaginative version. It is not very imaginative, because I still want it to be taken seriously as an agenda for the twenty-first century.

Memo to the President (I)

The scientific enterprise in this country is generally in good shape and needs only modest increases in support to keep up with inflation. One weakness of the enterprise that needs to be addressed is the system of peer review that governs the support of investigator-initiated proposals. The peer-review system works well for proposals that lie within established disciplines of science. It works badly for proposals that lie outside or between established disciplines.

A glaring example of the failure of the system is the lack of support for large underground detectors of elementary particles. During the past year, the two most important discoveries in particle physics were made using such detectors, one in Canada and one in Japan. The United States has fallen behind in this highly promising area of research, because underground detectors lie between the disciplines of physics and astronomy. Physicist peer-reviewers failed to support underground detectors because they are not accelerators, and astronomer peer-reviewers failed to support them because they are not telescopes.

Similar failures of the peer-review system occur in areas of space technology that lie outside mainstream disciplines. They probably also occur in areas of biology and medicine with which I am not familiar. A possible remedy for this state of affairs would be to assign a small fraction of the national research budget, perhaps five or ten percent, to proposals that are exempt from the normal process of peer-review. The choice of exempt proposals to be supported could be made by directors of federal agencies, with the help of panels representing science as a whole rather than specialized disciplines.

Memo to the President (II)

During the last ten years, the human genome project has laid the foundation for a comprehensive understanding of human biology. The translation of the new understanding into cures for human diseases will be a slow and difficult process.

Meanwhile, a new century has begun. It is time for you to launch a bold new initiative in biology, a planetary genome project to sequence the genomes of all the millions of species that live together on this planet. This will require first of all an aggressive development of new sequencing technology, comparable to the development of computer technology during the last half century, so that the cost of sequencing will continue to fall as rapidly as the cost of computing.

The goal will be to complete the sequencing of the biosphere within less than half a century, at a cost comparable with the cost of the human genome. The successful completion of the project will bring an enormous increase in understanding of the ecology of the planet. Increased understanding could then be translated into practical measures to sustain and improve the ecology while allowing continued rapid economic development.

Detailed understanding of the ecology could lead to large-scale and cost effective use of solar energy and to stabilization of the atmosphere and the climate. Let this century be the century of cures for planetary as well as human diseases.

Freeman Dyson
retired professor of physics
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, New Jersey
Author of Disturbing the Universe; Infinite in All Directions; and The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet.

Dear Mr President

Your administration has commendably focused not only on the urgent ways in which science can help the nation, especially through the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Homeland Security, but also in boosting the broader and longer-term interests of the country by increasing the budgets of, for example, the National Science Foundation, whose science constituencies underpin critical sources of knowledge and skills. I am troubled by the half-hearted approach adopted by your administration towards alternative energy sources and climate research, but will leave those issues for another day.

However, every President should leave a personal legacy that goes beyond the national political and social goals of the moment. If that legacy addresses one of the major issues facing the wider world, so much the better.

Malaria provides you with precisely that opportunity. It affects hundreds of millions of people and kills well over one million every year. It affects countries across South America, Africa and South East Asia. The challenges are made all the more urgent by the development of multidrug resistance by the parasite.

There have been some positive moves from philanthropists and charities for the control of malaria and for the development of vaccines and drugs, and some limited progress with private-public partnerships. But these funds—two or three hundred million all told - are a drop in the ocean. Furthermore, they do not seriously address the longer term need to investigate the malaria parasite at a basic scientific level.

Some people will argue that we already have enough science, we simply need to develop better drugs, or a vaccine, or have better controls of the disease through prevention. History shows, however, that every one of these alternative routes has its own chronic difficulties. Addressing new opportunities in the basic science of the disease could, in the long term, deliver more far-reaching solutions.

The journal Nature recently published the sequence of the malaria parasite Plasmodium falciparum's genome, and other related fundamental information critical in understanding the parasite. That's a key step along the way, and provides a new platform on which to develop essential insights into the many biomolecular and cellular pathways by which the parasite survives and interacts with us, its indispensible hosts. New techniques are beginning to be applied, such as high-throughput analyses of the pattern of gene expression and of the interactions of proteins at key phases of the parasite's lifecycle. The new availability of the genome combined with these techniques will undoubtedly spur progress significantly—if there are funds to permit it.

For the United States to provide significant help in this battle would not simply represent an act of great good will. It would also be in the nation's long-term strategic interests. The less that so many developing countries have to battle with the illness and mortality of malaria and the social burdens that they bring, the more they can focus on economic and social development and provide new opportunities for US businesses and other organisations.

There are many excellent researchers who would make rapid progress in malarial "post-genomics" if substantial new money became available. It would therefore be widely recognised as a wonderfully enlightened action if you were to ensure that the National Institutes of Health introduced a malaria post-genomics programme, with a new budget of at least $300m, as a first step towards the prevention and cure of this devastating disease.

Philip Campbell, PhD
Editor-in-Chief
Nature

Dear President Bush:

At no time in our history is science more important in our society and thus to your administration than now. We have made exciting and promising advances in so many areas of scientific and medical research yet we still have so much to learn. This is especially true in the rapidly growing field of genomics.

In just the last 10 years we have gone from having the complete genetic map of just a few microbes to today having completed the sequencing of more than 100 organisms. With the genetic material in hand of organisms such as human, mouse, and fruit fly, researchers now have the opportunity to understand these complex creatures so that we may one day better treat disease, fully understand evolutionary biology, and thus understand the most fundamental aspects of life and how we as humans function.

The future is indeed bright but only if we have a science-literate administration to help translate this basic research into potential treatments. With these great advances also come tough ethical issues. But we must not become mired in these debates nor let fear and ignorance win out over progress for us all. While I cannot accept the offer to be science advisor I would like to outline a few ideas for your administration to consider.

There are three key areas that need immediate attention:

• 1) Revamping the health care system using genomics and other predictive tools to move toward a preventative medicine based system.

• 2) Stepping up our efforts in developing deterrents and defensive mechanisms to overcome the biological warfare threat to humans and agriculture.

• 3) Moving as rapidly as possible toward a hydrogen-based economy.

Our health care system is suffering from double digit inflation while the number of uninsured and underinsured continues to rise beyond any acceptable level for a civilized nation. We have now the potential to dramatically change the cost of health care by using the new predictive tools that will come from the genomics revolution. It is imperative that we make the commitment to go the less costly route of preventing and limiting the extent of disease rather than treating symptoms after they occur as we do now.

On this same preventative theme we can greatly diminish or effectively eliminate the threat of bioterrorism by using the modern tools of genomics to more quickly and accurately detect a suspect agent including genetically modified organisms; develop new effective vaccines without the risk profile associated with current small pox and anthrax vaccines; and develop new effective antivirals and antibiotics.

While your administration has made great progress in providing new funding for these efforts, more direct funding for the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) at the NIH will move this field faster.

Despite much discussion on the topic of alternative energy solutions, the United States continues to rely almost exclusively on fossil fuels. According to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) approximately 80 percent of all human-caused carbon dioxide emissions currently come from fossil fuel combustion. The DOE also estimates that world carbon dioxide emissions are projected to rise from 6.1 billion metric tons carbon equivalent in 1999 to 7.9 billion metric tons per year in 2010 and to 9.9 billion metric tons in 2020.

This continued consumption of fossil fuels is ample evidence that there is a growing need to eliminate carbon dioxide output into the environment and capture back some of the carbon dioxide associated with global warming. Recent climate modeling from Scripps Institute of Oceanography suggests that if climate change is allowed to continue unabated a temperature increase of just two degrees will be enough to dramatically reduce annual snowfall and ultimately food production due to the drought that will develop in our most important agricultural states.

As a nation we must invest in finding new solutions for our energy needs. I believe that genomics could provide a viable avenue for alleviating some of the problems associated with carbon-based fuels.

I believe it is imperative that we push forward on all the fronts outlined above to insure energy independence, national security, and an improved environment, health and well-being for future generations.

Sincerely

J. Craig Venter
Pioneer in sequencing the human genome
President of the Center for the Advancement of Genomics
President and Chairman, J. Craig Venter Science Foundation

The best thing that happened to U.S. science in the last half-century was the Cold War and its consequences—one of them being the Space Race. Americans cared about space in the 1960s as they'd never cared about any science or engineering project before, and never have since. The social catastrophe of the late '60s tends to obscure the spectacular achievements of those years.

What the president ought to do is obvious: focus the nation's mind on a big, real and exciting problem. Ideally we ought to have a competitor to keep us playing our best game—but if the problem is interesting enough, maybe the competitor doesn't matter.

We know several things for sure about what this Big Project ought to be. "Men on Mars" is not it. (It's a fascinating prospect, but too close intellectually and emotionally to the Moon program.)

The right answer will have nothing to do with environmental doomsday stories; it will deal with people's everyday lives, making them better.

Nowadays nearly everyone travels by air; it might be time to reconsider supersonic passenger travel—but the solution has to be cheap and clean and quiet enough to be acceptable, nothing like the Concorde; a hard problem; that's what makes it interesting.

Or: a nationwide magnetic (or some other post-iron-on-iron technology) rail system. Or: practical rocket planes for New York-Tokyo in two hours or less. Or: anything whatsoever to get people between New York and New Haven in under an hour.

That's the sort of science and engineering that changes lives, by manufacturing time, the world's most precious commodity. (Maybe its only precious commodity.)

These are the sorts of practical problems that scientists and engineers (for the most part) no longer give a damn about. But transportation has a lot to do with the nation's quality of life, and transportation is headed downhill fast. For most people, travel is substantially more of a pain today than it was in 1950. Why is that acceptable? I don't give a damn how fast my computer runs if moving my carcass costs more time, effort and pain every year.

David Gelernter
Professor of computer science, Yale University
Chief Scientist, Mirror Worlds Technologies
Board Member, National Endowment for the Arts
Author of Mirror Worlds and Drawing a Life: Surviving the Unabomber

Mr. President,

During the past several months, I've been frustrated by the smallpox puzzle and the accompanying national agony about vaccination. Dozens of people have cornered me asking "what should I do about vaccinating my family" or, more pointedly: "are you or your family getting vaccinated?"

I was vaccinated against smallpox hundreds of times in the smallpox program in India, and again by CDC last year during the "smallpox bio terrorism" sessions for first responders. In this regard, it is appropriate that as President, you were recently vaccinated. My children, wife, mother, brother and neighbors have not been recently vaccinated and I do not recommend it, at least not yet. Based on the risks and benefits of what we know today, I do not recommend anyone rush out to get vaccinated unless they will be a "first responder" or work in a hospital emergency room.

Why? My decision is based on trying to solve many simultaneous equations. The smallpox dilemma has no simple answers, and making the correct decision may, literally, be a matter of life and death.

The facts today: Smallpox as a disease does not exist. It has been eradicated. A very small amount of the virus which causes smallpox, Variola, has been held frozen in liquid nitrogen in two "legal and secure" facilities in Atlanta and Moscow, as agreed to by the 150+ member states of the World Health Organization. It is easy to "awaken" the demon of smallpox if it is removed from these freezers. Except for a very controversial and potentially destabilizing removal last year of some viral material by U.S. Army scientist Peter Jahrling who used those viruses to infect monkeys with smallpox with the thought of testing smallpox anti viral agents and improved vaccines all the other legal viral samples remain in place. The fear of smallpox as a weapon of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists is based either on the public information, which is speculative and anecdotal, or on military or secret intelligence sources which are unavailable. Vaccination of 280 million Americans could cause potentially fatal vaccine side-effects in tens of thousands and death in 500 to 1000. In order to justify so many vaccine side-effects, there must be real evidence of incremental risk of an epidemic caused by vaccine preventable smallpox. There are at least three gating items, all of which must be true before it is logical to begin vaccinations against a disease which does not exist:

• Gating item #1: Smallpox virus must exist outside of the two "legal and secure" repositories where, with the only known exception being the Jahrling experiments, it has resided securely for nearly three decades

• Gating item #2: That smallpox virus which is outside of the two "legal and secure" repositories must have reached the hands of terrorists or nation-states that would use smallpox in war

• Gating Item #3: That smallpox virus which is outside of the "legal and secure" repositories, in the hands of terrorists with an intent to use it, must not have been genetically altered so as to be impervious to the vaccine we currently have.

As is quite clear from credible journalistic sources, Gating Item #1 appears to have occurred-Russian scientists operating under a Gorbachev approved billion dollar 5-year plan manufactured as much as 100 tons of Variola virus annually at a then secret facility called, ironically, Vector, near Novosibirsk, Siberia in the Soviet Union during the 1980's. There may have been other programs that have remained secret, just as the CIA program "Bacchus" to build a miniature anthrax production lab stayed secret virtually until the anthrax attacks of 2001.

There is no public knowledge, and I stress "public" for obvious reasons, that Gating Item #2 is true. The major known sources of concern are:

• a) Saddam Hussein used saran gas and anthrax in missiles and shells and attempted to use Camelpox in horrid experiments against the Kurds. Logic dictates that if he does have smallpox, he is a serious threat to use it as a "doomsday" weapon.

• b) Weapons inspectors found a refrigerator in Iraq, "ominously" labeled "smallpox" during the last round of inspections-we do not know if the "smallpox" referred to the disease of smallpox or the vaccine against it, but there were active cases of smallpox in Iraq as late as 1972 and there is no reason to believe harvesting viral specimens from those cases was not done. Iran, Iraq's neighbor and sometime enemy, certainly hid cases of smallpox from WHO inspectors (I was one of these) as late as the Shah's ceremonial coronation in 1972-73. When Iran and Iraq went to war a few years later, Saddam Hussein had reciprocal regional reasons for hoarding the Variola virus.

• c) Al Qaeda documents, including some found on a personal computer purchased by a Wall Street Journal reporter, contained references to smallpox as a weapon to be used by terrorists. Taliban fighters and Al Qaeda terrorists frequented a Soviet era "weapons dump" just North of the Afghanistan border; it is not known if any biological weapons were included amongst the other weapons acquired there.

• d) Soviet smallpox epidemiologists, who had betrayed many of us in the World Health Organization by lifting smallpox scabs from patients in India and elsewhere, and then smuggling these infectious specimens back to Russia to become part of Vector's "collection" used to create the infamous India-1 "weaponized smallpox", fell on hard times after the breakup of the Soviet Union. So did some of the virologists at Vector who worked on weaponizing smallpox and other biologicals; there is evidence some of these scientists visited Iraq, and were paid to consult with colleagues in Saddam Hussein's government on biologicals. There has recently been an active US program to find other work for these scientists to rid them of the financial necessity of such activities. There is even the suggestion, strongly denied by her Russian colleagues, that the eminent smallpox virologist Dr. Nelja N. Maltseva, might have visited or even collaborated with the Iraqis.

As for Gating Item #3, no one knows. The well known Australian experiments altering a gene in mousepox suggests it would be easy for terrorists-or even college microbiology students who had access to pox to create a "superpox" impervious to today's vaccines. I won't go into the details but the bottom line is that if anyone had enough hatred and enough money, the creation of a vaccine-proof smallpox variant is well within the realm of the possible. Obviously, if the terrorists have vaccine-proof smallpox, it is silly to vaccinate anyone with a high risk vaccine that is impotent against genetically altered smallpox.

How great is the risk of adverse reactions? Again, no one can really quantify it because much has changed, for better and for worse, since the 1970's from which the last large datasets are available. At that time the death rate from vaccine was about 2 or 3 per million vaccinated, and the risk of serious side effects about ten times higher. There are factors today which might raise or lower the rate of complications. Thirty years ago far fewer Americans had immune systems compromised by chemo therapy or AIDs, and the prevalence rates of eczema, a serious contra indication to smallpox vaccine, were lower as well. On the other hand, recent data from Israel and from vaccination in the US military suggests that vaccinating young healthy pre-screened men and women carries very few risks of side effects and today's ICU medical care for vaccine complications is likely to markedly reduce fatalities. All in all, it is likely that ten to one hundred people per million vaccinated from the general public would have a very serious reaction or even death from the vaccine-somewhere between 3000 and 30,000.

And so, here we are, faced with the need to decide whether to vaccinate our families. We will each need to make personal decisions under conditions of uncertainty.

Here is why I chose not to vaccinate my family:

• 1) To the best of my knowledge, there is no proof of any link between the experiments at Vector and either Al Qaeda or Saddam Hussein, but concern is understandable. If any proof of linkage arises, I might change my mind.

• 2) If Saddam Hussein has smallpox, I believe he might well be crazy or desperate enough to use it as a "doomsday weapon" if he were about to be destroyed; but it is also likely that Iraqi scientists have the ability to genetically alter the virus to make it vaccine-proof. If it is an end game, why would he use a virus that we have a vaccine against? It makes no sense.

• 3) If Al-Qaeda has the smallpox virus, I do not believe they would be willing to use it. Unlike Saddam Hussein, Al-Qaeda seeks the victory of an entire people, a culture, a religion-not the hegemony of any individual. Smallpox is the ultimate boomerang weapon. If it is released from its captivity at Chicago O'Hare airport, it is only a matter of days before it infects Mecca and Medina. It is not a likely weapon for a war that is a "Clash of Civilizations" unless a combatant sought the destruction of both civilizations.

• 4) Smallpox can be prevented if an exposed person is vaccinated as late as four or five days after exposure. While there is some risk that smallpox could be spread unseen for the first attack, within two weeks cases would start to appear and for nearly all Americans, there would be ample time and ample vaccine to be vaccinated after the first attack and still be safe.

• 5) I do not want to go into the fear that a small minority of Americans have that the your administration is prone to exaggerate the risks of terrorism in general and smallpox in particular as part of an attempt to frighten the public into accepting the erosion of civil liberties. As horrible as that allegation is, I simply have no information on which to make any comment other than to note the fear exists. And for my purposes here, it really does not matter. Based on the evidence I have seen to date, the risk of getting a case of vaccine-preventable smallpox today is just not as high as the risk of an adverse reaction to the smallpox vaccine.

That is the conclusion that I have reached as of today. And unless or until that changes, I will not vaccinate my family and the ones that I love.

Lawrence B. Brilliant, M.D.
Interim CEO of Cometa Networks, Inc.
Medical officer for the United Nations World Health Organization(1970s) helping lead the successful effort to eradicate smallpox.
Author of nearly 100 scientific articles and two books and is an expert on smallpox.

FIRST, consider the following: would-be bioterrorists have no need to put their "inventions" through the FDA for approval. But the scientists we are depending on to develop the defensive technologies (for example, new anti-viral medications) are required to go through this extremely cumbersome process. Complying with these regulations not only takes many years, but slows down the entire innovation process.

If we look at an analogous offensive-defensive standoff, that of software viruses, we find that the cyberterrorists are indeed creating and unleashing ever more sophisticated software pathogens. But development of the defensive technologies (for example, antiviral software) has been able to keep pace, and software viruses are at worst a nuisance. We have done so well precisely because the development of software technologies is unhampered by sluggish regulatory procedures. We will need the same speed of innovation and implementation in the biological sciences.

In the current environment, when one person dies in gene therapy trials, there are congressional investigations and all gene therapy research comes to a grinding halt. There's a legitimate need to make biomedical research as safe as possible, but our balancing of risks is completely off. The millions of people who desperately need the advances to be made available by gene therapy and other breakthrough biotechnology advances appear to carry little political weight against a handful of well publicized casualties from the inevitable risks of progress.

This equation will become even more stark when we consider the emerging dangers of bioengineered pathogens. What is needed is a change in public attitude in terms of tolerance for needed risk. The leadership for creating this change can only come from the top official, the President of the United States.

SECOND, on another biotechnology front, pressure will heat up considerably this year in the controversial area of stem cell therapies. The number of available germ cell lines has turned out to be a small fraction of the 60 lines that were to be made available for research purposes. Although I would advocate that this policy be reconsidered, my proposal is on a different front: to dramatically increase funding for promising new methodologies in the field of "human somatic cell engineering," which bypass entirely fetal stem cells. These emerging technologies create new tissues with a patient's own DNA by modifying one type of cell (such as a skin cell) directly into another (such as a pancreatic Islet cell or a heart cell) without the use of fetal stem cells. There have been breakthroughs in this area in the past year. For example, scientists from the U.S. and Norway successfully converted human skill cells directly into immune system cells and nerve cells.

Consider the question: what is the difference between a skin cell and any other type of cell in the body? After all, they all have the same DNA. The differences are found in protein signaling factors that we are now beginning to understand. By manipulating these proteins, we can trick one type of cell into becoming another.

Perfecting this technology would not only diffuse a contentious ethical and political issue, it is also the ideal solution from a scientific perspective. If I need pancreatic Islet cells, or kidney tissues, or a whole new heart, to avoid autoimmune reactions, I would strongly prefer to obtain these with my own DNA, not the DNA from someone else's germ line cells. The feasibility of doing this has been demonstrated, and there should be a crash program to perfect a technology that could dramatically improve the health of all Americans.

THIRD, on a different front, that of energy, there has been dramatic recent scientific progress in developing hydrogen fuel cells, including microscopic-sized fuel cells using the same technology that fabricates electronic circuits. These fuel cells, based on micro-electronic mechanical systems (MEMS) can be scaled from tiny devices that will power everything from portable electronics up to cars, appliances, and homes. These systems use safe fuels such as methanol and generate no emissions other than tiny amounts of water and carbon dioxide. The fuels can be fabricated without environmental impact from widely available coal and shale oil with new technologies that capture emissions. All of the requisite technologies have been demonstrated.

Perfecting these new hydrogen-based energy sources would have profound and positive implications for the economy and the environment, not to mention the geopolitical minefields of our current fossil fuel-based economy.

Ray Kurzweil
Inventor and Technologist
Author of The Age of Intelligent Machines and The Age of Spiritual Machines

To President George Bush

Re: the new Institute for Educational Sciences

We are faced with a paradox. On the one hand, the United States leads the world on nearly every dimension of scientific and technological achievement, in both the biomedical and the physical sciences. At the same time, we have a precollegiate educational system that is mediocre at best. It is natural to ask whether we can use our scientific strength to improve American education. And, indeed, that is the purpose of the recently created Institute for Educational Sciences. This Institute promises to improve the quality of educational research by embracing models from biomedicine. Indeed it singles out "randomized trials" as the "gold standard" for educational research.

By all means, we should ask science to do what it capable to do, but not what it cannot do. (I am sure that, wearing your religious hat, you would agree with that statement. No one is calling for randomized trials in the church, synagogue, or mosque). Education differs from medicine in three crucial respects and these need to be understood and respected.

First of all, education is an endeavor that is laden with human values. While almost no one disputes the medical goals of longer and healthier lives, we in a democracy differ deeply about the kind of education that we value. How could we ever design a single educational system that would please Jesse Helms, Jesse Jackson, and Jesse Ventura? We cannot conduct meaningful scientific research on educational practices unless we articulate a value system with some specificity. And so, to be concrete, we can’t just compare three scientific methods in terms of efficacy. We need to decide whether we want a science education that focuses on factual knowledge, laboratory skills, deep understanding of a few essential concepts, asking good questions, or some amalgam thereof. Only thereafter can proper studies be launched.

Second, young persons are not seeds of corn, nor are they informed adults who can give consent to their involvement in an experiment. It may be appropriate to have randomized trials for certain questions (e.g. what are the benefits and losses of beginning secondary school one hour later each day) but it is not appropriate to institute them for other issues (e.g. teaching a class without any opportunity for student questions, only to determine what the costs and benefits are of such an approach). Certainly, as a parent, I would not give consent for my child to be a guinea pig in order to demonstrate the merits or liabilities of some educationalist’s pet theory.

Third, teaching is and will always be in part an art or craft, and properly so. Teaching depends upon human interactions over long periods of time and on the transmission of wisdom as well as the gradual elimination of pernicious practices. The educational systems that we admire all over the world are not ones that are based on scientific research; they are the ones where skilled practitioners have cultivated wise procedures over the generations and passed them on to their successors carefully though not uncritically. Attempts to create teacher-proof environments are destined to fail. We need to honor the craft of teaching, and not try to eliminate it by scientific (which are often pseudo-scientific) manipulations.

So two cheers for the New Institute, Mr. President, but remember above all: You went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, respected educational institutions where educational values are debated up front, where you were not a guinea pig in randomized trials, and where you had some of the most gifted teachers in the world. Your children, our children, deserve the same respect.

Howard Gardner
Professor of Education at Harvard University
Author of Frames of Mind, The Mind's New Science, and Extraordinary Minds.

Mr. President,

As the year 2002 draws to an end, your Administration is preoccupied with the prospect of war with Iraq, and with a more shadowy adversary in the form of global terrorism. Much has been said in that context about 'weapons of mass destruction.' It goes without saying that such weapons are the products of science and technology; one might say they are perversions of science and technology. What could be more pressing than finding a way to promote the beneficial aspects of science while curbing the misuse?

I do not wish to repeat here the well worn arguments about defensive versus offensive military research, the development of better sensor and detection technology and more efficient intelligence gathering systems. Arms races have dogged mankind from the dawn of history, and history seems bound to repeat itself.

What America, indeed the world, needs most urgently is a positive and uplifting project, a project born of a vision that transcends the factional squabbles that divide us, something to celebrate the creative side of science by the world's greatest scientific power. Forty years ago, when the world was in the grip of the Cold War, the United States committed itself to putting a man on the moon. Although the Apollo program was undeniably a by-product of the Cold War arms race, viewed with hindsight it was the crowning achievement of twentieth century science and engineering. Apollo continues to stand as an emblem for the triumph of the human spirit in a world dominated by dark fears and ideological divisions.

What, then, should be the Apollo program of the Bush Presidency? The answer has been clear since your own father articulated the concept in 1989. The United States, together with its partners in space, should commit to sending an expedition to the planet Mars. The Red Planet is probably the only body in the solar system on which a permanent self-sufficient colony might eventually be established. Although relatively hostile to humans, the surface of Mars is far more congenial than the moon. By establishing a human presence on Mars, our species will be afforded an insurance policy against a global cataclysm at home.

But that is not the prime reason to go to Mars. Rather, the exploration of the Red Planet will represent a scientific bonanza of unprecedented value. By general consent, Mars offers the best—quite possibly the only—hope of finding life beyond Earth. It harbors vital clues to the origin of life on our own planet; indeed, it is possible that life came to Earth from Mars. So the search for life on Mars is a search for ourselves: who we are and what our place is in the great cosmic scheme.

Many commentators are urging George Bush Jr. to finish in Iraq what President George Bush Sr. began in the Gulf War. Mr. President, I urge you to apply this advise in space. Take up the challenge. Go to Mars!

Sincerely,

Paul Davies
Physicist, writer and broadcaster, now based in South Australia
Author of The Mind of God; Are We Alone?; The Fifth Miracle; and The Last Three Minutes.

We all share a strong belief in democracy. But it can only function well when the people understand the choices they need to make and are in a position to make trade-offs rationally. As issues get increasingly complex, ignorance decouples the people from the knowledge they need to help guide policy choices that can shape our future. Illiteracy in all forms—and especially in scientific matters—is a threat to a functioning democracy.

Woodrow Wilson said about a century ago "what are we if we have to be taken care of by a handful of experts who know the job, for if we don't know the job we are not truly free". Therefore, as Science Advisor I would work to greatly enhance the scientific literacy of the public—but not just the public, also government employees, elected officials and the media.

Science literacy is not just about the "facts"—knowledge of chemistry, physics, biology or economics per se. More important for non-specialists is to understand the process of science, and how science interacts with public policy issues and gets communicated via the media.

The media and political institutions are typically advocacy based—if a reporter gets the views of a Democrat, she must also get the views of a Republican. That is certainly appropriate in covering political stories, but rarely are complex issues of science simply decomposable into two polarized positions. Moreover, not only are there many possibilities, but relative probabilities are attached by scientific assessment to each of these possibilities.

Thus, an "equal time" doctrine is in fact a miscommunication of what science knows or how it works. Science is about quality, not equality. However, equality of opportunity to get your data and ideas heard is essential too, but via forums in which people who are knowledgeable about the complexities are present and in peer reviewed publications. Such institutions of science are where probabilities get thrashed out.

Science does not allocate equal time or space to all ideas once the winnowing process of quality assessment has begun. To follow the political doctrine of "balance" diminishes democracy since it distorts the knowledge base upon which sound decisions should be made. In science all views are not given equal time or credence because the scientific process of assessing likelihood takes precedence over mere inclusion. This leads to many conflicts over controversial policy issues, like climate change, strategic defense or health policy.

Climate change—in particular Global Warming—is a good case in point. No honest scientist can assert with total confidence it will turn out to be mild or catastrophic. But a dozen scientific assessments have shown that the "good for you" and "end of the world" scenarios are the two lowest probability outcomes. Some benefits are likely, but so too are a range of risks—especially for natural systems and in poorer countries.

The current political debates in which mild/catastrophic views are polarized and get the bulk of the attention in the media and in front of congress is an unfortunate distortion of what the scientific community has reported in its assessments. Such false dichotomy debates impede, rather than enhance democracy since they are not accurately representing what is known and at what likelihood.

The role of science the is clear: assess what can happen and what are the odds of it happening. The role of policy—driven by the beliefs of the public—is to make value judgments on how to react to the odds of various possibilities. It will take some major realignment of institutions like the media and congressional hearings apparatus to back away from the model of polarized advocates toward a doctrine of "perspective": reporting and debating based on the assessment of the likelihood of various events, not giving advocates of extreme opposite views equal time or space.

Over time, better applications of science by a public and officials who understand what can happen and at what odds will strengthen democracy and distance it from both the special interests that spin and distort to bolster ideological or client interests and the elitism of the few people who are the only ones who currently "know the job".

Stephen H. Schneider
Professor, Dept. of Biological Sciences
Stanford University

Dear Mr. President,

American scientific success, as measured for example by the number of Nobel Prize winners who live in the United States, helps to sustain an illusion that the American educational system is fundamentally healthy. This illusion is further aided by the fact that American higher education is rightly the envy of the world. And it is helped along by the fact that most Americans believe that, though there may be serious problems with most U.S. schools, the ones their children go to are an exception. (This is a variant of the same phenomenon that gets people re-elected to Congress: the public has a low opinion of the Congress in general, but people tend to regard their own Representative as an exception.)

You are well aware that math and science education at the secondary and elementary level is substandard in comparison to most of the rest of the developed world. And education at those levels too often fails across the boards to serve minority populations. You have commented on these facts in public. But you sometimes speak as though we knew how to improve education in all respects. The fact is that most of what we know about education—when we know anything at all—is mostly at the level of widely accepted anecdote rather than solid scientific findings. Enough progress has been made in the last 30 years by cognitive psychologists, as well as by developmental and social psychologists, to allow for an avalanche of research on what is effective in education if a serious national effort were to be made.

Generating support for a serious research program would likely be impeded by pessimism on the part of the public. It is distressing how many people assume that little can be done to improve education—especially for minorities. But in fact we have a large number of demonstrations that it is possible for minority students to perform at levels well above the national average—the "Jaime Escalante Effect." Beneficial results for innovations in minority education have been obtained at every level from early elementary school through college. Unfortunately, it is frequently assumed, even by educators, that such results are possible only for charismatic individuals and that they cannot be duplicated by normal people in normal school systems.

Jaime Escalantes may in fact be rare, but there may be ways to help minority children achieve high levels of educational success short of providing each of them with an inspirational teacher. There are already many hints about how to improve teaching of students in general and there are some suggestions that not all students learn in the same way. An example is tentative evidence that minority children are particularly likely to benefit from interacting with computers as opposed to traditional methods of reading books and listening to lectures.

An all-out effort to find both the generalizations about what kinds of education are good in general, and what kinds are most helpful for minority children, would pay back many-fold. The obvious agency to handle this is the Department of Education. You have directed the Department to spend more money on basic research in education. Perhaps that will be effective, despite the very poor record of the department in spending money wisely for research. My recommendation, however, is to establish a special bureau within the National Science Foundation and avoid any situation where traditional educational researchers have a veto over what kind of research gets funded.

Sincerely yours,

Richard E. Nisbett
Psychologist
University of Michigan
Author of The Geography of Thought: How Asians and Westerners Think Differently—And Why

Dear Mr. President,

Whether or not you choose to follow up with me specifically, I want to thank you for reaching out to a scientist who doesn't benefit from prior personal connections to someone associated with your administration. Your sphere of advisors has seemed unusually distant from the scientific and technical communities.

I can understand, in a way, why you have been reticent in the past. Many scientists work in the academic environment, which tends to be liberal minded, and perhaps you've worried that there would be an ideological coloration in the advice you would receive. It would seem that the scientific mainstream is often at odds with your administration on issues such as stem cell research, global warming, and so on.

But the best way around this is not to retreat from the scientific community as a whole, but to embrace it, and demand that it find a way to transcend ideological colorations in its interactions with you. After all, much of the discipline of science is devoted to reducing personal bias. We spend a lot of our time repeating work that's already been done before because we're so cautious about our all-too-human vulnerabilities that could lead to self-deception. In a way we are the most skeptically conservative community around, and you would probably find more common ground with us than you expect if you gave us more of a try.

I suppose a science advisor has to be part speech writer and part budget warrior.

With that in mind, I would like to give you a sense of what my advice would be like on a variety of difficult issues.

You are in an amazing position. You are the most powerful president in a generation. Be bold! Science and technology are the most potent tools mankind has for improving our circumstances. Let's use this amazing moment in history to create a new period of happiness and prosperity. Please don't let your marvelous position in history go to waste.

In this note I will address the four toughest issues, which present the greatest opportunities and the most difficult political dilemmas. These are:

1) New medicine

2) New energy and transportation solutions.

3) Global warming response.

4) War on terror.

America's success on every level has depended in the past on government lead research initiatives.

There are three models from the twentieth century for giant government research and development projects: The Manhattan Project, the Apollo Program, and the era of massive public works, including the TVA, much of the WPA, and the Interstates.

We have to be bold and imagine a new type of national initiative that combines the best of all three models. The Manhattan project showed what can be done by gathering the very best minds in one place. The Apollo Program showed that it's possible to do big science in a way that engages all the world in a positive way. The massive public works projects I listed, while they might be abhorrent to your economic advisors, should be appreciated because they showed that government can create a giant infrastructure without damage to democracy or capitalism.

I do not propose that big centralized science initiatives are the best method of tackling all our hardest problems, only the ones I listed above.

Private industry can sometimes address a big problem, even one that is serious enough to threaten our survival. In such cases, government should still play role of oversight and be ready to step in should industry fail for some reason. Some examples in this category:

1) Impending loss of efficacy of antibiotics

2) Need for new desalinization technologies and other fixes for looming shortages of fresh water

3) AIDS crisis. In this case, private industry has the research and manufacturing infrastructure in place already, but is not structured to do as much as it should to help patients in most of the world. An enhanced government role is crucial, because this problem as well as other related ones in the Third World will have a huge impact on our security in the long term.

About stem cells, cloning, and such things:

Here we have the potential to extend and improve human life, and it's just the sort of research that is better undertaken under governmental lead. It's expensive, high risk, and fraught with ethical concerns. Furthermore, if the vast new intellectual property riches are either Balkanized or monopolized, humanity will suffer, and America's role in the world order will be seriously challenged.

You face a tough situation here, though, in that one of your core constituencies, the faith-based voters, is understandably queasy about the whole direction. So you've sought compromises on such things as embryonic stem cell research, but the available compromises don't quite give the scientific community enough room to make progress. I understand how difficult these decisions are.

There are two likely negative outcomes from your policies as they stand. In the short term, legitimate research on new fundamental medicine will often be overshadowed by weird proprietary outfits, such as the supposed cloning achieved by a UFO cult or stray doctors here and there. These events poison public discourse.

In the long term, foreign countries will enjoy an economic advantage because the US will not be a center of expertise in medicine. In twenty years we could see a phenomenon in which masses of Americans who can afford the trip head to Europe or Asia for medical care, leaving their dollars abroad, so that there's increasingly less wealth to go around for those Americans who had to stay home.

I don't need to tell you how significant this would be to the long term economic health of our nation.

I would advise you to use your bully pulpit to be tough with both your religious constituents AND the scientific research establishments.

To the scientists, I would say something like this: "You have yourselves to blame in part for the public's reticence to fund the new age of medicine. You seem to love making claims about life's fundamental questions. I'm sick of reading that some robot at MIT has gained emotions, that some new gene explains as much as you seem to claim about a person's character, or any opinion of yours at all about consciousness or God. I don't believe you have expertise on these matters and you embarrass yourselves."

Yes, I want you to be that tough on us, because we deserve it, and because it is what your religious constituents need to hear in the public sphere.

Of course you can have a speech writer smooth these thoughts out so they sound nicer. I'm used to combative debates so you have to tone down any advice I give you in matters of rhetoric. I'm sure you have people who can handle that job.

To your religious constituents, I would say this: "Your concerns are legitimate and sane, but it's possible you've been mislead a bit by those who enjoy exaggerating the true nature of the new frontiers in medicine. You must remember that scientists have to sell themselves in order to be funded, just like everyone else, so you need to learn to discount a little bit of the science fiction-like atmosphere that surrounds reporting on recent research.

For instance, they talk about 'clones', but that's a science fiction word. Dolly the sheep was really no more than a delayed twin, and in fact less similar to Dolly than a regular twin would have been. That's not to say that I support the creation of human delayed twins—I don't. But it's important not to allow the scientific community to mystify what it can do.

It is essential that we hold life precious. Unfortunately, Americans don't always agree on specific questions like abortion, but I know that almost all Americans do hold life sacred and precious. I want to suggest to you that defining the chemical moment of conception as the start of life is not going to work, because it is a definition based on scientific concepts which are themselves in the process of being transformed. We can't reduce human life to a mechanical interaction of molecules, or whatever objects scientists are talking about in a given era. I believe that there is a difference between a collection of cells and a person—call it a soul if you like. If you believe there's a soul in a Petrie dish, you reduce what you mean by a soul.

I want my family and friends to be relieved from disease when it is possible and I want the same for your family and friends. Please join me in a loving quest to achieve this possibility."

I think this approach can work.

Once you win the hearts of both sides, and I think you can, an ethics policy should be based on open information and consent. A person should know and approve of what happens to their tissue. No viable embryo should be created outside of the rule of law. And so on.

But please, let us proceed to improve our lives using the means available to us.

I'll next address Energy, Transportation, and Climate:

We have to address the possibility of climate cataclysm. If we take the position that Kyoto is flawed, and I think there's a strong case that it is, we must articulate an alternative soon, so that the world doesn't think we're crazy.

The revolution in transportation and energy must come about anyway, whether the climate scare is legitimate or not.

I have a bit of a confession to make here. My colleagues and I might have contributed to your falsely optimistic sense about the near term potential of the oil economy. In the last twenty years, ever more powerful computers have created the illusion the oil supply is increasing. I worked on some of the first virtual oil field exploration tools, and such tools have made oil fields far more productive than we ever imagined. Furthermore, computer-aided design has helped produce a new generation of oil extraction machinery that can get at the oil we discover through our simulations. That's all fine, and I'm proud of how much computer science has been able to contribute to the oil exploration business, but there's also a hidden danger. Without computers, not only would oil have been running out by now, but it would have run out gradually, with prices going up as a warning sign. I'm afraid that computers are creating the illusion of an ever increasing supply, and will therefore reduce the period of warning before the supply runs out, which it will.

So, I suppose I hope to make you aware of how my colleagues and I have inadvertently fooled you on this matter. But this issue can be framed positively even better than it can be framed negatively. Why don't we invent new, better fuels and engines and then sell them to the world? What's wrong with that picture? It seems like such a win-win solution.

We should create a new energy/transportation infrastructure, presumably based on a cleaner and more efficient chemistry than the current one. I agree with the emerging consensus that it would probably consist of decentralized hydrogen production, possibly using biotechnology to make the hydrogen. I also see cars that can drive themselves, almost never getting into accidents, and merging flawlessly and automatically into trains to create ad-hoc mass-transit solutions. Car accidents cause more deaths than wars, so the introduction of this technology would create a new boom in wealth and happiness even aside from the curing of problems related to dependence on oil.

If the world saw us building the next energy cycle, our policies related to the current energy cycle would be less contentious.

We might have already contorted the climate enough that switching fuels will not be enough. We might need to resort to a massive technological fix. I dearly hope this will not come to pass, but I believe we should set up an institute that explores such high risk measures as re-carving the ocean floors or intercepting the sun's energy in space on its way to the Earth. Once again, I would grieve if it came to pass that we had to attempt measures such as these in the future, but I must regretfully recommend that we begin to prepare ourselves just in case.

The recent surprise announcement by the Japanese that they had created the world's fastest computer, in order to model the weather, should be treated as a friendly Sputnik-like event. I'm on the science board for what had been the world's fastest civilian computer, at the Pittsburgh Supercomputer Center, and I have to tell you my heart sank when I read the announcement, even though I'm also happy that the new Japanese machine is being put to a good use. I hope you felt as embarrassed as I did, and I wish you would share that emotion with the public.

About the war on terror.

War is Hell. I lived right by the World Trade Center, and I dearly wish I had not been home that day. It is clear that in our connected world, in which many technologies become cheaper and more widely available because of Moore's Law-like processes, and in which communication is easy and essentially free, the old equations about privacy and liberty have to be re thought. I hate this fact with the whole of my being, but I acknowledge it's a fact.

I don't think your administration has been handling this matter very well. For instance, your attorney general comes off badly in public. He seems to be enjoying this turn of events, as if it vindicates his beliefs. If you want Americans or other people in the world to make the mental transition and emotional commitment into a new order, your administration ought to be able to show that it shares in the pain.

You might be thinking to yourself, "This matter is none of my science advisor's business." But privacy these days is about digital policy, and that overlaps both socially and institutionally with the scientific and engineering communities.

I believe you have to have these communities on board in order for your policies to be successful and for the country to be more secure.

I have two specific suggestions.

First, if you want the public to accept less privacy, make it symmetric. Instead of merely building a new domestic spying capability that itself would be vulnerable to corruption, as secret centers of power always are, make key institutions more open and transparent.

This serves multiple purposes. Let's not forget that since the war on terror began, corrupt accounting cost the country more, in monetary terms, than the terrorist attacks. The direct costs were tremendous, but the indirect costs due to the gutting of investor confidence were immeasurable.

We have the greatest information infrastructure in all history, and yet investors weren't tipped off about a wave of massive fraudulent schemes until it was too late. This cannot stand. The remedy is to make big companies and yes, big government agencies, as transparent to the public as the public must become to the new security apparatus.

This might sound counterintuitive at first. Would this not give terrorists more information and therefore advantage as they planned attacks?

I think there are strong arguments that symmetry increases security. No matter how big the spy agencies might be, they can't employ enough trusted eyeballs to look at all the data. And no, as your advisor I can assure you that you cannot count on artificial intelligence programs to make up the gap. The only solution is to have the whole public looking. It was widely distributed public information that lead to the capture of the Unabomber, the DC snipers, and so on.

The strength of Islamist terrorist cells is not so much that they are well trained as that they benefit from a surrounding society that doesn't call in tips. This leads to the second reason to support symmetry. Transparency can be used to make the world friendlier to the US.

Here I would like to add a specific recommendation. The Arabic-speaking world is encountering the power of modern propaganda for the first time via satellite TV. Our response has been to craft infomercials, but why not try to find the next generation of leaders when they are young. They are undoubtedly oriented to new media just like their Western counterparts. Why not make language translators available on the web so that kids in Arabic speaking countries can browse English language websites and learn for themselves about us? Why not encourage personal links using the web? Why not make science and technology education materials available in this way?

None of these proposals would be easy to implement. Computer access is restricted in repressive countries, for instance. Nonetheless, there is considerable room to maneuver and it doesn't cost much.

In a related vein, we could do more to help empower and win the hearts of young people in the exploding populations of the third world by cleverly using inexpensive technology. We could use the latest advances in speech recognition and synthesis to empower illiterate people with access to basic information, for instance. Even undernourished populations often gain access to consumer electronics these days. This strange situation could be turned to advantage. Why not design a hard-to-detect, human powered, wireless communicator designed for illiterate people and give away millions of them in the poorest parts of the world? Why not bring these people into the web of modernity, in which they might find their way to a better life and coincidentally might just send in tips?

All of these ideas relate to security, because as soon as terrorists realize there's even a slight increase in the chance that someone in their home environment might rat on them, they rapidly lose maneuvering room. A little openness could go a long way.

I believe that if such devices were in place, we'd have given out the unclaimed cash award for information leading to the capture of Bin Laden by now.

Respectfully,

Jaron Lanier
Computer Scientist And Musician
Pioneer of Virtual Reality
Founder and former CEO of VPL
Currently the lead scientist for the National Tele-Immersion Initiative.

Dear President Bush,

Science and the technology that flows from it have been great strengths of the United States; without them the US would not be the single superpower that it is today in the world.

For the last fifty years that science has been carried out largely in the open and has been shared with the rest of the world. That sharing has been a source of great strength. The US graduate education system is the strongest in the world and many international leaders have had some of their training in our Universities. The openness and the way in which our universities have been run as meritocracies, not places where national origin or religion is considered in evaluating one's work, has attracted waves of immigration of great scientists and engineers to this country.

There is a place for classified and restricted research but it is mostly in areas that are close to application, not in fundamental scientific and engineering questions. The place for that research is not at our universities. The great universities of the US should remain as open arenas for all areas of research where they act as an engine of creativity that feeds the scientific needs of the US and the world.

As science advisor I would urge you to continue, and strengthen, this policy of openness. I would urge you to set aside perhaps a billion dollars to fund new fellowships for graduate students from predominantly Islamic countries to come and study science (broadly construed) in the United States. I would urge you to direct the INS to treat foreign students as welcome guests rather than suspected criminals who must be monitored constantly by their host universities, and who are to be arrested, as has recently happened, when the courses they end up taking at a respected first rate university do not match some preconceived plan.

To reach out this generous hand to aspiring young students would be courageous in the current domestic climate of fear. But the long term payoff for the United States will be immense. It will create long term personal links between people in the countries we currently most fear and our own country. Based on past experience we can predict that many of those people will rise to positions of leadership and authority within their countries. In the shorter term it will be an act of generosity rather than aggression, and one can hope that it will have positive effects in the way the US is viewed. Besides that we will gain access to a large number of very smart, very driven, young minds who will help us and the world in making scientific progress.

Once I have convinced you to follow this advice I will get to work on some more radical ideas which involve funding science that is deep and curiosity driven, rather than dressed up as responding to politically justifiable immediate needs. Such science has been the well spring of the great advances throughout history.

Rodney Brooks
Director of the MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
Author of Flesh and Machines: How Robots will Change Us

The world can support 1.5 to 2.0 billion people continuously, in combination with a natural world. Right now we have 6.2 billion people. The total mass of vertebrates on land and in the air is now made up 98% by humans+livestock+pets, and 2% by all natural creatures. Ten thousand years ago the 98% was only under 0.1%. Civilization's rocketing growth comes from exploiting non-renewables: coal since 1800 and oil since 1900, for example. US oil peaked about 15 years ago; global supplies should peak in about 10-15 years. There are semi-practical alternatives available or at least conceivable to let us get by on renewables, but virtually no one really sees the importance.

Virtually all your correspondents focus on details of how to make humans better and more numerous. Very few examine civilization's growth and the world as would a creature from space visiting us every few thousand years. Sincerely yours,

Paul B. MacCready
Chairman/Founder of AeroVironment Inc.
The "Father of Human-Powered Flight"

Mr President,

Biomedical research in the United States has a distinguished record of contributing to knowledge and to new medical treatments. In the same way, research with cells derived from cloned human embryos will offer unique opportunities to study many extremely unpleasant diseases, perhaps one day to have treatments for these diseases and also to produce safer medicines. This research cannot be carried out in any other way.

The diseases include motor neurone disease, diabetes and genetic causes of sudden heart failure. Researchers could learn a great deal about these diseases if they could study in the laboratory the cells that are affected by the disease. Later they would assess the effects of drugs upon the malfunctioning cells. One day it may also be possible use cells from cloned embryos to treat unpleasant degenerative diseases by supplying replacement cells for those that have been damaged in diseases such as diabetes or heart failure.

Each year thousands of people in the USA are killed by taking medicines, even if the medicine was prescribed and used appropriately. This is because people differ in the way that they react to drugs. Pharmaceutical companies would be able to reduce this risk to us all and design drugs to be safer and more effective if they could study these differences in function of liver cells. At present the only source of such cells for research is the liver of casualties, if the organ is not suitable for transfer to a patient. Liver cells with these important differences in responses to drugs could be derived from cloned embryos and be used first to study these genetic differences and then to design better drugs and to establish the basis for personalised treatments.

There is no fully effective treatment for any of these conditions and in some cases none at all. We all know people affected by them and may fall victim ourselves, as we get older. In these circumstances, it would be a tragedy if concern over the unsubstantiated claims of the birth of a cloned child led to legislation that prohibited these important research projects.

By contrast there is every reason to encourage legislation to prohibit the production of children by cloning. Apart from the many ethical and social concerns the evidence from experiments with animals all points to the conclusion that the likely outcome of attempts to clone humans would include late abortions, the birth of dead children and of abnormal live children. As there is no way to avoid this tragic outcome it is important that legislation is enacted as soon as possible to prohibit such attempts.

I urge you to distinguish between these two uses of the cloning procedure, to allow the research that has the potential to be so beneficial, while prohibiting the misguided attempts to produce children.

Ian Wilmut
Professor and Head of Department of Gene Expression and Development at the Roslin Institute
Leader of the team that cloned Dolly the sheep in 1966 (The first animal to be cloned from an adult cell).
Coauthor (with Colin Tudge & Keith Campbell) of The Second Creation; author of After Dolly: The Uses and Misuses of Cloning (forthcoming).

Dear President Bush,

Standard Long Term Analysis in Style of Business and Government

Science and the nation are inextricably intertwined. The economic and military strength of the county is based upon the technologies that have sprung from our basic science research. Likewise our medical system is fully dependent on a mixture of medical research and physical sciences detector development. Thus the health, well being, safety of our country's citizens depends very directly on the technological fruits of scientific research.

If the USA is to remain the premier nation on Earth, then it must maintain a robust scientific research program. The appropriate level is open to societal debate; however, many businesses, e.g. drug companies and advanced electronic companies, have developed guidelines at a few percent of their total budget. The issue is not can the country afford this level of expense, but whether it can afford not to continue an active, high-quality basic research program.

In terms of defense this is obvious. One only needs to ask the question: What would be the consequence if some other country to develop a new energy-directed or new generation bio-weapon, before the US did and created countermeasures? However, that same thing is true for major new technologies in the economic and health arenas? Basic scientific research is so key to the long-term viability of the nation, that even though the pay off is often years out, it is current priority. Change can be so rapid in technology that ten years is often two generations.

A strong scientific research program is not sufficient alone. Clearly, there must be sufficient infrastructure. The most key ingredient is a scientifically literate work force and general population. Just as it is clearly wise to invest in science, investment in education (science, mathematics, critical thinking) is better than exporting technical jobs, electronically or otherwise, to other countries (e.g. India, Russia, etc.) with stronger educational systems. No matter how good an infrastructure the nation has, it still must have the people to run it and the scientists and engineers to create and design the next generations. It is hard to believe that the country would hire foreign mercenaries for military and daily operations.

At present we enjoy a very good lifestyle. The primary question for the nation and civilization as a whole is: What is it that allows this? What has been the big change since the stone age? What steps can we take to keep this and progress to the next level? Are humans smarter, harder working, or any another way significantly better raw material now than in the stone age? One surmises most of the difference in physical attributes can be ascribed to better nutrition and medical care.

The Human Future for Stone-Age Man?

It appears in fact that most humans use our technological infrastructure to live a lifestyle with which a stone-age human could readily identify. People live in shelters—houses or apartments rather than caves. The go out daily to make their livelihood—now in SUVs, cars, commuter trains rather than most by foot. People gather by electronic fires (TV) or in bars ­most probably more isolated than the stone-age clans. In general the bulk of people live in, exploit, and make up a large cultural and technological infrastructure. They take advantage of the base accumulated by humanity.

Nearly all the advances are made by a very small fraction of the population—the innovators—mostly scientists, engineers, entrepreneurs. The society and nation, which encourages, nurtures, and makes this innovation possible and exploits it, will proper in many ways.

Humans as a whole really have not have changed basically since the stone age. Natural selection has not really changed humans since humans became the dominant species. In some regions local culture has instilled in its people respect for law and human life but even in those places the people will go to war when threatened. Other regions tribal and clan clashes are a way of life.

If the bulk of humans have not advanced physically, intellectually and socially over the stone age milieu, then new technology can be as easily used for terrorist and criminal activities as for neutral and beneficial activities. Thus as technology improves, the potential for devastating acts of terrorism continues to increase. The logical end would be when it is possible for a small group or single individual to destroy all life on Earth.

For economic, medical, and likely military motivations it is likely that many areas of technology will continue to develop and its potential for positive or negative consequences will increase. This means that, if humans are not changed significantly physically different, then we must understand how to develop a world culture that rejects suicide attacks and then eventually violence to resolve conflict. This would requires a whole program: (1) a better understanding of why people form cults and groups that support such activities, (2) understanding and removing the reservoir of young people (e.g. HAMAS recruits, Jim Jones cult,) (3) demagogic and totalitarian leaders and societies. This is a mixture of social and political science studies and actual programs.

The first step is to assess the various issues and determine what programs can be put in place in the short run and what research should begin soon. Then developing a longer-term program to reduce the threat of terrorism both by technical robustness and by social efforts. Note that El Al is most successful through focusing on the people rather than relying on sophisticated technology. Intelligence comes first and then attention to people. We would prefer not to be in the position of Israel as a country suffering terrorist activities on a very frequent and regular basis. It costs much in terms of casualties, economic, and military activities without any end in sight.

As long as terrorism can be kept at a low level in the country, then the USA can continue most of its development including the scientific research for the future. We also need to invest in the twin programs of being robust against terrorist acts and an active program to convert potential terrorists into positively contributing members of society. Rather than nation building we must engage in civilization building.

The path I did not mention was to stop or slow dramatically scientific research and the development of new technologies and hope or search for a new stability. We cannot stop things completely because other countries already have significant scientific and technological capability. Already third-rate countries, such as Iraq and North Korea, are able to have advanced welcome programs. We could enter new dark ages, the Nuclear Dark Ages or Weapons of Mass Destruction Dark Ages. I don't mean nuclear winter from the exchange of thousands of nuclear weapons; but a more gradual but catastrophe filled deterioration. In the new Dark Ages there will be a repeat of regional wars, blackmail and spoils of war, occasional small nuclear exchanges, all of these leading to a spiraling down of civilization.

George F. Smoot
Professor of Physics
University of California at Berkeley
Leader. NASA's COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) Team
Author (with Keay Davidson) of Wrinkles In Time

The Gender Gap In The Computer Culture

There has been much interest in the digital divide as it pertains to inequities between the poor and the rich. There is another digital divide that threatens to limit scientific productivity and scope. This is the inequity in the numbers of women who participate in the computer culture. The computer culture is still, in the main, made by engineers for engineers and by men for men. Girls are less likely to take high-level computing classes in high school, and comprised just 17 percent of those taking Advanced Placement Computer Science exams. Girls outnumbered boys only in their enrollment in "word processing" classes, arguably the contemporary version of a typing class. In 1995, at the post-secondary level, women received one in four of the Computer/Information Sciences bachelor's degrees and only 11 percent of the Ph.D.'s in Engineering-related technologies. These educational gaps reverberate in the workplace, where by most estimates women today occupy only 20 percent of the jobs in Information Technology.

A recent study of middle school and high school girls, commissioned by the American Association of University Women made it clear that gender inequity in digital culture is increasing. One goal is to get more girls into the "pipeline" to computer-related careers. This could, of course, be an end in itself, but diversity in participation would also mean a richer digital culture. Digital culture (not so far away from a world that asked users if they wanted to "abort, terminate, or fail" processes running on their machines) could be positively transformed through the integration of girls' and women's insights and life experiences. So one of the values in getting more girls and women interested in the computer pipeline is that their greater presence may transform the computer culture overall; by the same token, changes in the e-culture itself—the ways technology is discussed, valued, and applied—would invite more girls and women to participate fully in that culture, to become computer fluent.

This comment on values reflects the fact that today women seem to be disenfranchised in the computer culture for cultural rather than intellectual reasons. When young women are asked about their attitudes towards computing they almost never report overt discrimination, but at the same time, when asked to describe a person who is "really good with computers" they describe a man. And most of them do not predict that they will want to learn more about or become more involved with computers in the future. These girls are not computer phobic, they are "computer reticent." They say that they are not afraid but simply do not want to get involved. They express a "we can, but I don't want to" philosophy. Girls' views of computer careers, and of the computer culture—including software, games, and Internet environments—tend to reproduce stereotypes about a "computer person" as male and antisocial, Women no longer (as they once did) see computing as "too hard" for them. Earlier generations of women said, Women can't be involved in technical professions, "We can't but I want to." Girls and young women today seem to be saying, Women can do computing, "We can, but I don't want to!" This position is usually accompanied by a characterization of the computer as it has been presented to them at school as infused with values that they cannot identify with. Simply put: the computer culture is presented as a world which emphasizes technical capacity, speed, and efficiency. It estranges a broad array of learners, many girls included, who do not identify with the wizardry of computer aficionados and have little interest in the purely technical aspects of the machines. The computer culture has become linked to a characteristically masculine worldview, such that women too often feel they need to choose between the cultural associations of "femininity" and those of "computers," a cliché that has proven resistant to the growing diversity of information technology and its users. Girls discuss information technology-related careers not as too difficult, but as a "waste of intelligence." Insists a young woman from Baltimore, "Guys just like to do that: sit in a cubicle all day." In talking about their lack of desire to continue learning about computers, girls also focus on the violence and cruelty of current video games and see a culture that they do not want to participate in. They are happy to play social simulation games and chat with their friends, but see their identity on the computer as that of "users," not the empowered.

Their teachers have given them little to inspire them. Teacher education has stressed the "technical" side of things: Education schools tend to give instruction in basic technical skills rather than on how to integrate computers into the curriculum. A 1999 national survey found that only 29 percent of teachers had six or more hours of curriculum-integration instruction, whereas 42 percent had that amount of basic-skills training. In the study by the American Association of University Women of 2000, only 30% of teachers ranked as "sophisticated" in their use of computers report that they received any technology training in an undergraduate or master's teacher education program, which probably reflects in part responses from older teachers. Only 11 percent of the total teachers who were polled report that they received training specifically in how to apply or integrate computer technology into their lesson plans. Thus, current teacher-training practices emphasize short technical courses on connectivity and hardware. Preservice teachers make it clear that they start their jobs uninformed about what the technology is supposed to accomplish for their classrooms, either educationally or socially.

Our current approach to teacher training focuses on the technical properties of hardware; it does not emphasize educational applications or innovative uses of computing across the curriculum. Yet what teachers need is sustained and ongoing education about how to integrate technology with curricular materials and information about how to make technology part of a humanistic classroom culture, so essential for bringing girls into the picture. This latter approach would create better informed teachers as well as multiple entry points to computer competence for both students and teachers. The prevailing emphasis on the "mechanics of computer operation" does not respond to this need. As one teacher put it: "Without teacher education, it won't matter if each student has his/her own computer. We teachers hate having thousands of dollars of equipment thrown at us and being told to use it when we have no clue how to go about it"

There are many points of entry to address this problem. All require research and educational imagination in curriculum planning. All would make the computer culture more vibrant and relevant for women as well as men, and ultimately for us all.

• Advocate technology as a learning partner across the curriculum. This strategy is important for improving learning, developing computer literacy, and for inviting a variety of users, including girls, into technology. The infusion of technology across the curriculum also recognizes and supports multiple entry points into technology. Some learners may develop a fluency with information technology through music, some through mathematics, and others through the arts.

• Enforce a distinction between using the computer as a tool (teaching students how to use powerpoint) and using computation to inspire new ways of thinking and learning. It is the second that will inspire young minds to believe that there are rich rewards in staying with the subject.

• Professional development for teachers, both preservice and inservice, needs to emphasize not simply how computer technology works but on how it can spark creativity across disciplines. There appear to be a group of learners, predominantly young men, who are willing to throw themselves into computing, presented as a technical puzzle. But given the integration of computing into culture, those in the field need to have broader interests and motivation for being there. Improving the way computation is introduced in education will thus not only draw in young women and keep them from dropping out, it holds our only chance of having a more broadly based computer culture for all of us.

Sherry Turkle
Director, Initiative on Technology and Self
MIT
Author of Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet and The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit.