WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC

1. STATE OF THE UNION: OUR ANNUAL LOOK AT WHERE SCIENCE FITS IN.
This will be brief, since I fell asleep. However, we did a word
search on the transcript. Bingo! We got a hit on "scientific
research." It came up in a discussion of the need "to build a
culture of life." (When was it that "life" became a code word?)
The President thanked Congress for doubling NIH funding, but he
urged the lawmakers to quit dawdling on his energy strategy,
"including safe, clean nuclear energy." That was it for science.

2. HUBBLE: WILL EARTH'S MOST PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT DIE?
In his opening statement at a hearing on Hubble options, Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY), Chair of the House Science Committee, observed:
"One can't help but root for it"; surely he can do more than that.
It's widely expected that on Monday the President's asking budget
will only include funds to dump Hubble in the Ocean. What madness
compels this act? Hubble, Joe Taylor testified, "is still in the
prime of its scientific life." Steven Beckwith, director of the
Space Telescope Institute, said it's the nation's "most productive
science facility." It was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.
The James Webb Space Telescope won't go on line before 2011. Even
more powerful, we will no doubt come to view JWST with the kind of
affection we now feel for Hubble. But long before that happens
Hubble is posed to explore dark energy and extrasolar planetary
systems. The official explanation for cutting the service mission
to Hubble is that, at more than $1B, it's too expensive. Whoa!
Lou Lanzerotti testified that it would cost no more than a flight
to the ISS, and the nation is committed to 25-30 shuttle flights
to the ISS. Would someone tell us what the ISS is doing? And how
is NASA paying for 25-30 flights at $1-2B each? Is Ken Lay doing
NASA's books? As we pointed out years ago, shuttle arithmetic is
not that hard. You just divide the cost of the shuttle program by
the number of flights http://www.aps.org/WN/WN93/wn032693.cfm .
President's budget or not, it's Congress that controls the purse.

3. PUBLIC ACCESS: AT NIH, ZERHOUNI ANNOUNCES A NEW ACCESS POLICY.
The public pays for research done on federal grants as well as the
cost of publishing it; they shouldn't have to pay again to see it.
Under a new policy that goes into effect on May 2 researchers on
NIH grants will be "asked" to submit their results to a public Web
site within one year after publication in a scientific journal.
There are advantages to having articles in one federal database.
However, most journal publishers, including APS Editor in Chief
Marty Blume, oppose the policy, fearing it will cut into their
subscription base. A leading proponent of free access, former NIH
Director Harold Varmus, only regretted that scientists were
"asked" to submit their data. He would have preferred "expected."

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---

Yes, good ol' Mr. Park. Will somebody please tell him the ISS _does_
have a purpose -- it's a suppository developed just for you Bob! Now if
we could just find some way to get you into orbit...

Park took a different tone back in '93 when a bunch of democrats and
pols in the Clinton administration killed the super-collider program
because it was too damn expensive. He reported most of the developments
surrounding the SSC without all the invective he seems to save for
republicans, and in one post he even rationalized its cancellation on
the basis that a balanced federal budget might be a good thing!

Sam Wormley wrote:

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC

1. STATE OF THE UNION: OUR ANNUAL LOOK AT WHERE SCIENCE FITS IN.
This will be brief, since I fell asleep. However, we did a word
search on the transcript. Bingo! We got a hit on "scientific
research." It came up in a discussion of the need "to build a
culture of life." (When was it that "life" became a code word?)
The President thanked Congress for doubling NIH funding, but he
urged the lawmakers to quit dawdling on his energy strategy,
"including safe, clean nuclear energy." That was it for science.

2. HUBBLE: WILL EARTH'S MOST PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT DIE?
In his opening statement at a hearing on Hubble options, Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY), Chair of the House Science Committee, observed:
"One can't help but root for it"; surely he can do more than that.
It's widely expected that on Monday the President's asking budget
will only include funds to dump Hubble in the Ocean. What madness
compels this act? Hubble, Joe Taylor testified, "is still in the
prime of its scientific life." Steven Beckwith, director of the
Space Telescope Institute, said it's the nation's "most productive
science facility." It was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.
The James Webb Space Telescope won't go on line before 2011. Even
more powerful, we will no doubt come to view JWST with the kind of
affection we now feel for Hubble. But long before that happens
Hubble is posed to explore dark energy and extrasolar planetary
systems. The official explanation for cutting the service mission
to Hubble is that, at more than $1B, it's too expensive. Whoa!
Lou Lanzerotti testified that it would cost no more than a flight
to the ISS, and the nation is committed to 25-30 shuttle flights
to the ISS. Would someone tell us what the ISS is doing? And how
is NASA paying for 25-30 flights at $1-2B each? Is Ken Lay doing
NASA's books? As we pointed out years ago, shuttle arithmetic is
not that hard. You just divide the cost of the shuttle program by
the number of flights http://www.aps.org/WN/WN93/wn032693.cfm .
President's budget or not, it's Congress that controls the purse.

3. PUBLIC ACCESS: AT NIH, ZERHOUNI ANNOUNCES A NEW ACCESS POLICY.
The public pays for research done on federal grants as well as the
cost of publishing it; they shouldn't have to pay again to see it.
Under a new policy that goes into effect on May 2 researchers on
NIH grants will be "asked" to submit their results to a public Web
site within one year after publication in a scientific journal.
There are advantages to having articles in one federal database.
However, most journal publishers, including APS Editor in Chief
Marty Blume, oppose the policy, fearing it will cut into their
subscription base. A leading proponent of free access, former NIH
Director Harold Varmus, only regretted that scientists were
"asked" to submit their data. He would have preferred "expected."

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---

Sam Wormley wrote:

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC

snip

3. PUBLIC ACCESS: AT NIH, ZERHOUNI ANNOUNCES A NEW ACCESS POLICY.
The public pays for research done on federal grants as well as the
cost of publishing it; they shouldn't have to pay again to see it.
Under a new policy that goes into effect on May 2 researchers on
NIH grants will be "asked" to submit their results to a public Web
site within one year after publication in a scientific journal.
There are advantages to having articles in one federal database.
However, most journal publishers, including APS Editor in Chief
Marty Blume, oppose the policy, fearing it will cut into their
subscription base. A leading proponent of free access, former NIH
Director Harold Varmus, only regretted that scientists were
"asked" to submit their data. He would have preferred "expected."


I'm more than a little curious as to how the average (i.e.
scientifically illiterate) public is going to react to reading actual
research papers. Oh yes, and the scientifically illiterate public's
attorneys. I wonder if the NIH public site will have only peer-reviewed
reports, or if anything will be put up, in the name of public access.

--
Andrew Resnick, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics
CWRU School of Medicine
tanspose 'op' for mail

the homeless could care less as troops rally on the Washington Mall to
defend
the White House! Only Gen McArthur isnt there this time.



Sam Wormley wrote:

WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 04 Feb 05 Washington, DC

1. STATE OF THE UNION: OUR ANNUAL LOOK AT WHERE SCIENCE FITS IN.
This will be brief, since I fell asleep. However, we did a word
search on the transcript. Bingo! We got a hit on "scientific
research." It came up in a discussion of the need "to build a
culture of life." (When was it that "life" became a code word?)
The President thanked Congress for doubling NIH funding, but he
urged the lawmakers to quit dawdling on his energy strategy,
"including safe, clean nuclear energy." That was it for science.

2. HUBBLE: WILL EARTH'S MOST PRODUCTIVE SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENT DIE?
In his opening statement at a hearing on Hubble options, Sherwood
Boehlert (R-NY), Chair of the House Science Committee, observed:
"One can't help but root for it"; surely he can do more than that.
It's widely expected that on Monday the President's asking budget
will only include funds to dump Hubble in the Ocean. What madness
compels this act? Hubble, Joe Taylor testified, "is still in the
prime of its scientific life." Steven Beckwith, director of the
Space Telescope Institute, said it's the nation's "most productive
science facility." It was designed to be serviced by the shuttle.
The James Webb Space Telescope won't go on line before 2011. Even
more powerful, we will no doubt come to view JWST with the kind of
affection we now feel for Hubble. But long before that happens
Hubble is posed to explore dark energy and extrasolar planetary
systems. The official explanation for cutting the service mission
to Hubble is that, at more than $1B, it's too expensive. Whoa!
Lou Lanzerotti testified that it would cost no more than a flight
to the ISS, and the nation is committed to 25-30 shuttle flights
to the ISS. Would someone tell us what the ISS is doing? And how
is NASA paying for 25-30 flights at $1-2B each? Is Ken Lay doing
NASA's books? As we pointed out years ago, shuttle arithmetic is
not that hard. You just divide the cost of the shuttle program by
the number of flights http://www.aps.org/WN/WN93/wn032693.cfm .
President's budget or not, it's Congress that controls the purse.

3. PUBLIC ACCESS: AT NIH, ZERHOUNI ANNOUNCES A NEW ACCESS POLICY.
The public pays for research done on federal grants as well as the
cost of publishing it; they shouldn't have to pay again to see it.
Under a new policy that goes into effect on May 2 researchers on
NIH grants will be "asked" to submit their results to a public Web
site within one year after publication in a scientific journal.
There are advantages to having articles in one federal database.
However, most journal publishers, including APS Editor in Chief
Marty Blume, oppose the policy, fearing it will cut into their
subscription base. A leading proponent of free access, former NIH
Director Harold Varmus, only regretted that scientists were
"asked" to submit their data. He would have preferred "expected."

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---