0.14 The bush-43 years: 2001-09  (Page 16/5)

Our economy is growing in large part because America has the most ambitious, educated and innovative people in the world—men and women who take risks, try out new ideas, and have the skills and courage to turn their dreams into new technologies and new businesses. To stay competitive in the global economy, we must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity.

—George W. Bush, August 2007

On May 1, 2001, MIT President Charles Vest convened a meeting of eight former science advisors. Andrew Lawler, “Former Advisers Fret Over OSTP Vacancy,” Science (May 11, 2001), 1041-43. According to Science, “The former advisers ticked off several recent actions by the new president that they feel could have benefited from input from a science adviser. They include the decision to abandon the process spelled out in the Kyoto Treaty to limit greenhouse gases, reduce spending on energy R&D, reverse water-quality standards, and move ahead with a new missile defense system. Decisions on the use of stem cells in research and oil drilling in the Arctic loom on the horizon, they added.” Ibid. That several of these decisions were viewed negatively by many leaders of the scientific community no doubt contributed to the reluctance of several potential candidates to consider serving as George W. Bush’s science advisor.

Three months after his inauguration, Bush announced that he would nominate Floyd Kvamme, a former computer industry executive and at the time of his nomination a venture capitalist, to lead PCAST. David Malakoff, “Bush Appointment: Venture Capitalist to Lead Science Panel," Science (April 6, 2001), 28-29. Allan Bromley referred to the timing of the PCAST head’s nomination (coming prior to that of a science advisor) as “a little peculiar.”

A month later, Bush nominated Brookhaven National Laboratory director John H. Marburger III as his science advisor and director of the OSTP. Andrew Lawler, “White House: President’s Science Adviser Ready to Put Science in Its Place,” Science (June 29, 2001), 2408-09. That Marburger would have less influence on or access to the president was made clear when was not also nominated as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, meaning that he would be excluded from cabinet meetings. His offices, traditionally next door to the White House in the Old Executive Office Building, were also moved across Pennsylvania Avenue.

Immediately following his Senate confirmation, Marburger replaced the traditional four associate directors of OSTP with two deputy directors: one for technology and one for science. Portfolios formerly held by associate directors, including environmental matters and national security, would henceforth be folded into either science or technology. “The changes have unsettled some members of the science and technology community,” wrote Andrew Lawler. “Eliminating the national security position ‘is a big blow’ to forging links to the powerful National Security Council, says one former OSTP official. 'The need to incorporate science in the burgeoning war on terrorism suggest that Marburger’s moving in the wrong direction,’ says Al Teich, head of science and policy at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Dropping the environmental job, Teich adds, is a ‘surprising move given the importance of global warming and related issues.’” Andrew Lawler, “U.S. Science Policy: Marburger Shakes Up White House Office,” Science (November 2, 2001), 973-74.