Andrew Jaffe: Leaves on the Line

Out of the blue last weekend, I was invited to participate in a review of the year’s science stories on PressTV, which I subsequently learned was an Iranian-oriented news channel; according to my Teheran-raised grad student, “the Iranian government doesn’t have much control over them, so they are sort of free of sides”. Media whore that I am, I didn’t hesitate too long before accepting, and started to mull over the biggest science stories of the past year.

After a few moments reflection, I couldn’t come up with a very exciting list. The biggest pure-science story was the start of the Large Hadron Collider, but (even if it hadn’t broken!) we wouldn’t expect to see any results until next year or later. There was the launch of the Fermi Space telescope (née GLAST), giving the first map of the whole sky in gamma rays. There were the tantalizing hints from PAMELA of an excess in the cosmic-ray spectrum, potentially the signal of decaying Dark Matter, and certainly the prompt for some interesting intra-science controversies. There was the Nobel Prize for the uncovering of fundamental symmetries (and its own controversies), and the Gruber Prize in cosmology. There were new PhDs for three outstanding scientists, and another one that was a bit more newsworthy. Here in the UK, perhaps the biggest science story, still not completely played out, was the £80 million shortfall in the Science and Technology Facilities Council’s physics budget: results from the last few weeks seem like grants around the country have been cut severely.

Of all of these, only the LHC made the list from PressTV. Instead, we were presented with a list including using mobile phones for medical consultations and data-taking; Iran’s first rocket launch (which was inevitably tied to the country’s putative nuclear ambitions, but was more interesting in the context of scientific launches by China and India this year); and a throwaway article on homeopathy that the editors (frighteningly) didn’t originally realize was a spoof (but at least eventually discarded). Update: The show was shown on Christmas Day and is available now for streaming or downloading. Painful…

But really the biggest science story of the year was the biggest story of the year, period (full stop): the election of Barack Obama. He’s got Steve Chu, a Nobel-prize-winning physicist in the Cabinet as Energy Secretary and John Holdren, a PhD physicist and environmental expert from Harvard directing the White House Office of Science and Technology: with these appointments, along with biologists Jane Lubchenko heading NOAA, and Harold Varmus and Eric Lander co-chairing with Holdren the Council of Advisers on Science and Technology, it looks like science in general, and climate change in particular, will be taken seriously and taking center stage in the new administration. Of course there are still some details, such as the fate of NASA’s post-shuttle launch capabilities and in particular its scientifically-derided Mars program, which aren’t clear; you can weigh in via the NY Times here. Let’s hope it’s coupled to and not separated from (or, worse, at odds with) the economic policies needed to get the US — and the world — out of the credit crunch/recession/depression.

By far the best article I’ve read about the British healthcare system, appeared this morning… in the New York Times. It discussed the NHS’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the organization that rations pharmaceuticals in the UK (although you’ll rarely hear the word “ration” used).

When NICE’s decisions are discussed in the UK, it is inevitably in the context of some sad, sick patient denied access to some treatment that could extend his life. But this article took the logical, if unpleasant, stand that, given finite resources, some sort of rationing is inevitable. In the US, this is done by the “free” market — the scare-quotes are to remind us that healthcare spending per patient in the US is several times anywhere else in the world. What that means is that it’s great to be rich in the US — quick access to any drug, any test, any procedure, but only if you (or your insurer) will pay. But in the rest of the civilized world health-care is largely provided directly or indirectly by the government, irrespective of the patient’s wealth or employment. This is fair in an egalitarian sense, of course, but not necessarily in the libertarian sense Americans often prefer: why shouldn’t I be able to spend my money if I have it?

Conversely, this correctly pushes some of the criticism back onto the drug companies. Drug pricing is a particularly contrived manifestation of the invisible hand of the market: true costs are muddied by extensive R&D budgets, and demand is confused by governments and insurance companies willingness — or otherwise — to pay. (Elsewhere in the Times, my Imperial compatriot Olivia Judson touches on the interaction of scientists and drug companies as part of a larger piece on science, politics, Bush and Obama.)

This is not to say that the NHS system is perfect. It suffers from an infamous “postcode lottery”, as different geographical parts of the NHS system make different decisions about the way their resources will be used — that is, rationed. And despite the fact that the NHS is one of the largest single employers in the world, it is still too small for its task: initial doctor’s appointments are usually restricted to about ten minutes, and the waiting times for surgery and complicated tests can be months long. But it truly is egalitarian: I once came across Elvis Costello and Diana Krall in an NHS Hospital ER (A&E, as it’s known in the UK).

It is disconcerting to be moved by a website.

This is an even nicer picture:

(Courtesy The Guardian)

And a stirring speech. “Democracy, liberty, opportunity and unyielding hope.”

What a joy to be able to show this map today:

(Courtesy The NY Times. Lots more very cool maps here.)

The Wakeham Review on the state of UK Physics has been released. Andy Lawrence has a good executive summary and The Guardian an overview. It seems to be positive about the state of physics overall, but perhaps lacks the rage and invective the community was hoping for. I am travelling but will try to digest it; let this serve as a placeholder until then.

It’s making the science-blogging rounds today that Obama has answered the questions posed as Science Debate 2008, questions on education, health care, stem cells and, of course, climate. He supports all the right scientific positions, and says several times that he will increase funding for basic research overall, but most importantly acknowledges and condemns the ideological and political interference that has plagued US research during the Bush administration.

McCain will, apparently, follow with his answers soon.

Meanwhile, here in the UK, the lengthily-named Department for Innovation, University and Skills (DIUS) is holding a consultation on Science and Society where you can answer questions like “How should scientists be rewarded for their efforts to communicate science to the public?” (I’m thinking big wads of cash.)

Thanks to Dave for pointing out that the final results of the STFC programmatic review sweepstakes popularity contest consultation exercise have been released. Following on from the recommendations, which grouped all projects into five projects, the STFC Council has decided where and how the money will flow.

The best news overall is that only the very lowest band of projects will no longer be funded, rather than two lowest as had originally been planned. As expected, Imperial Astrophysics has fared relatively well, with continued support for Planck, Herschel, Scuba II, UKIDSS, LISA Pathfinder and XMM Newton.

Overall, it looks like a relatively small number of projects will be “discontinued” and that STFC “will therefore ramp down funding at an expeditious but appropriate rate in consultation with the PIs/stakeholders. Where possible [they] will look for ways to ensure that there is a return on … previous investments.” In astrophysics, these projects include the UK’s contributions to the gamma-ray observatory VERITAS and the astronomical computing and data-analysis projects AstroGrid and CASU/WFAU, in particle physics the b-physics experiment BaBar, and most of ground-based Solar and Terrestrial physics. On the other hand, despite the panel recommendations which put it into the lowest band, the Mercury mission BepiColombo — which apparently threatens to consume the entire ESA science budget — will continue to be funded, because the UK contribution “is subject to an MOU [memorandum of understanding] with the Agency and will be respected.”

But the dark underside to the entire process remains the assumed 25% cut to the “grants line” — the money to pay for the actual science return on these missions, as well as all of the science that doesn’t come from large projects, mostly in the form of salaries for postdocs: theoretical physics, observations of individual astronomical objects, and just thinking hard and opening up new areas to explore. I’ve just got a big stack of grant applications to referee from STFC — let’s see how many of even the best manage to survive the cut.

[I promise to find something new to talk about, now that this unsavory episode seems to be reaching its conclusion, for now at least. Until then, you’ll just have to follow my twittering, although you’re more likely to learn about my musical tastes than cosmology…]

No time for a full blog post, but I wanted to point out the results of the STFC Consultation, now available.

Some of my favorite projects like AstroGrid seem to have not fared too well (the consultation panel rated it highly, but PPAN, responsible for the final ranks, disagreed). Nonetheless, Imperial Astrophysics projects like Planck, Herschel, Scuba II, UKIDSS, LISA Pathfinder and XMM Newton appear to have survived the cut. However,

It is important to stress that these reports are not the final conclusions of the Programmatic Review. These conclusions will be reached by STFC Council using these reports to inform their decision-making.

From the New York Times. Pick one: Bush

• “overstated evidence”
• “exaggerated available intelligence”
• “systematically painted a more dire picture… than was justified”
• lied