If you're following me you're probably aware that the presidential science advisor position is a bit of an obsession for me. Here's the #longread I put up a couple months back on the position's history. It's weird and fun and interesting, I swear.
And finally, here's my piece for @mental_floss on the letters that presidential science advisors received from the nation's crazy people over the years:
Okay all that random stuff aside, science advisor to the president is a fascinating position with a fascinating history, and the fact that Biden has made it a Cabinet-level appointment is SUPER interesting.
One more thing: Back in the 60s, there was talk of creating a Department of Science in the executive branch. Among the people helping shoot this down was Nixon's first science advisor Lee Dubridge. Why?
Because science was *everywhere* he argued. Everyone in government (then) used a typewriter -- do we have a Department of Typewriters?
Elevating the science advisor position to the Cabinet isn't a Department of Typewriters, but it's an acknowledgement that EVERYONE types.
Anyway @eric_lander, please let me interview you immediately, thank you.
Ok predictably I wasn't actually done:
For 70 years, the president's science advisors were physicists. At first, this made sense -- it was more or less a "let's get ready for a nuclear war" position in the early years. ...
Obama's advisor John Holdren was an interesting compromise -- a physicist, who even gave a Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of the Pugwash Conferences, on nuclear disarmament, but also a climate change expert who saw that as the defining issue of his tenure.
Elevating life sciences to the role now is an AWESOME idea. Climate change is now everywhere -- and Biden's appointments and plans make clear that it will dominate his policy choices. An advisor who can now help elevate CRISPR, and antibiotic resistance, and so on, will be HUGE.
Okay ONE more. Here are three ways presidential administrations dealt with/saw their advisors and OSTP. I find this instructive.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
It's the first time the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology has all-female leadership.
[adjusts glasses]
Biden said FDR asked his "science advisor" for guidance in 1944.
But there was no such thing. He asked Vannevar Bush, an unofficial advisor. But there was no such thing as a presidential science advisor for another seven years.
Also, this seems like the kind of situation where no matter what @SenTedCruz might say about it, if these guys *think* he's on their side, he pretty much is.
Virtually indistinguishable from the rise of the Nazis
The big New Yorker thing on covid is very impressive for sure but come on how is table 1 of an academic paper "buried"
lol did none of them read/see The Big Short
Look it's an enormous piece and full of great reporting and I know I'm being Salty Science Writer here but it does have a collection of minor misstatements/mis-characterizations of the science that you aren't likely to find in, say, @edyong209's stories.
Shoutout to all the politicians rapturously memorializing John Lewis today while simultaneously working as hard as they possibly can to restrict voting rights.
I decided to do a bit of a close read of one particular part of a 1965 report sent to Lyndon Johnson, on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Because I hate myself, you see.
They acknowledge that at that point, firm predictions were hard. Okay. But also, this ⬇️.
[mashes calculator furiously]
[checks current CO2 concentration]
Ah, well, shit.
They knew, in 1965, that the 1885-1940 increase in CO2 likely led to half a degree C of warming. Which uh, maybe should have raised a few more alarm bells?
The basic premise of this lengthy piece is that the rapidity of many climate change processes and impacts has shocked -- shocked! -- many scientists, and that their failure to predict well has helped lead us to our current predicament of fucked-ness. But. BUT.