This is fantastic news. Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and 1997 Nobel Laureate in Physics for his work in laser cooling of atoms, has been nominated to be the next Secretary of Energy in the Obama administration. (Thanks to Elliot in comments.) This post is enormously important for science in general and physics in particular, as the DOE is responsible for much of the funding in physics and a lot of other R&D work. It’s also, needless to say, a crucial position for determining the country’s energy policy at a time when strong and imaginative leadership in this area is crucial.
I can’t imagine a pick for the job that would make me happier. Obviously Chu is a Nobel-prize-winning physicist, which is not bad. Almost as obviously, he’s an incredibly smart and creative guy. For evidence, look no further than his group’s web page at LBL. You’ll see atomic physics, for which he won the Nobel, but there are also very serious efforts in biophysics and polymer science, just because he thinks those things are interesting. (Apparently he has not devoted much thought to advanced HTML design.) I got to talk with him at the launch event for the Science and Entertainment Exchange — he also cares about the public perception of science — and it’s clear that he has a wide-ranging, creative intellect, which is what we need to tackle the problems of energy production over the years to come. Chu has recently become intensely concerned about the challenge of global warming, and is serious about doing something to fix things. He and Craig Venter are teaming up to make microorganisms that turn carbon dioxide into strawberry ice cream, or something like that. I wouldn’t bet against them.
Let’s be clear: just because Chu is an accomplished physicist, this doesn’t mean that researchers should expect a bonanza of new funds. The previous administration has left the budget and the economy in shambles, and nominating a Nobel Laureate to head DOE doesn’t magically bring new money into existence. But it means the hard choices that inevitably will be made will be made intelligently by people who understand the significance of what is going on. We can never ask for more than that.
Here is Steven Chu talking about Science Debate 2008. Berkeley’s loss is Washington’s gain, but in this case the country will be better off for it.
I heard Chu talk about energy policy at the 2005 Einstein conference in Warwick, England, and I had the strong impression that he is very much committed to solving the climate change problem. Janice may well be right about the money trail (links please?) but I do think Chu is quite progressive on this front.
Pingback: Ceramic Tech Weekly » Blog Archive » Chu, scientist and Nobel laureate, tapped for DOE head
“The previous administration has left the budget and the economy in shambles”.
The democrats in congress are far more responsible for the credit crisis than the Bush administration.
Pingback: Michael Nielsen » Biweekly links for 12/12/2008
Pingback: Chu no governo, água em planeta extra-solar, violação CP nos neutrinos « Ars Physica
I am optimistic with Chu’s appointment that many national problems over which DOE has jurisdiction will see lots of good progress. But physicists should be careful: make sure your big proposals are good, because the Secretary of Energy will be able to make informed personal judgments on them!
In general having a physicist in charge of DOE may prove a mixed blessing for physics: the Sec of Energy in practice has lots of influence on how DOE Office of Science funds are allocated, and all physicists have their own (generally strongly held) opinions on which subfields are deserving and which ones aren’t. I don’t know Chu well enough to know his biases, but I’m sure we’ll find out when the 2010 budget request comes out…
Janice Silverman,
It is a big improvement to start out with competence,to which we can hope that Obama will be willing to listen.
We are not going to get radical change unless there is a publicly perceived need for it. And that will come more easily if the people in charge are not seen as predisposed to be radical.
You remember: “Only Nixon could go to China.”
To Neil B:
Neil B wrote: “Now, an energy question coming up in letters to Newsweek (12/15) – Glenn Sjoden at UF claims that reprocessing of nuclear fuel is relatively easy and done by other nations (like France and Japan) except the US – is he right? Is it really a good idea?”
Indeed, that is the ADS concept (Accelerated Driven System). A gap in that way was realized by a french team at Grenoble University (France) with the GENEPI source during 2004, and now the MYRRHA european project. The original ideas were due to two Nobel Prices in physics E. Lawrence (1939) and C. Rubbia (1984). The process can burned nuclear wastes and drive safety sub-critical nuclear cores. It could be a very important solution to energy. See:
http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/gpr/index.htm
http://www.sckcen.be/myrrha/home.php
and the CEA (unfortunately only in french):
http://nucleaire.cea.fr/fr/nucleaire_futur/autres_voies.htm
Another web site in english for the CEA:
http://www.cea.fr/english_portal/energy/nuclear_systems_for_the_future
and a pdf file:
http://www.cea.fr/content/download/380/2053/Nuclear_SystemsFuture.pdf
Pingback: Coast to Coast Bio Podcast » Blog Archive » Episode 7: Scientists in the cabinet, useful chemistry and reference architectures
Pingback: Good news from around the globe, part 1 « Shineanthology’s Weblog
Pingback: Onward: one Final Exam to Go. « blueollie
Pingback: Science in the white house | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Pingback: The end of hope | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine
Pingback: Five Things I Expect From the Obama Administration « Kantankerations
This guy has no perception of reality, did you hear him at the Senate confirmation hearings..wants to increase gas tax by .25 per gallon.
A practicing scientist may be willing to allow and to fund scientists who question the “flavour of the week”, sometimes driven by the media under the guidance of political “scientists”. Will Chu be able to survive the politics of the Cabinet? Will Obama be willing to listen to all and then make an informed decision, not like the media/ politicians which perceives the decision then look for people to justify it.
Pingback: We’re number one!!! Louisiana has biggest industrial carbon footprint. | lacoastpost.com
PLEASE, PLEASE, SECY. OF ENERGY, DR. CHU, AS AN 82 YR. – YOUNG, RECENTLY WIDOWED, YOU MUST CONSIDER ONLY THE O N E & ONLY ‘ALTERNATIVE’ TO OUR DEAR COUNTRY’S ENERGY PROBLEM IN OUR COUNTRY, MAINLY NUCLEAR ENERGY, AND AM BEGGING YOU, TO RECONSIDER DOING AWAY WITH THE YUCCA WASTE, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY RE-NEWABLE++…AND S A F E ! REF: {1} DR. BILL WATTENBURG, KGO TALK RADIO HOST, WHO HAS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING BOOK.. {2} ..WRITTEN IN 2000 BY ROBERT C. MORRIS, “THE ENVIRONMENTAL CASE FOR NUCLEAR POWER” {ECONOMIC, MEDICAL, AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS}..
YES, AFTER CHECKING IT OUT FROM OUR LOCAL ‘CITY OF FORTUNA’ PUBLIC LIBRARY, READING IT, AND THEN ‘BOUGHT’ 2 OF THEM @ ‘BORDERS’, ‘1’ FOR ONE OF MY GRANDSONS, NOW @ BERKELEY UNIV. AND THE OTHER, FOR MYSELF ! IT IS EXTREMELY COMPREHENSIVE IN EVERY WAY.. AND A ‘MUST READ’..
AGAIN, KINDLY FEEL FREE TO CONTACT DR.WATTENBURG, IF YOU HAVEN’T HEARD FROM HIM, PREVIOUSLY.. JUST GO TO YOUR WEBSITE TO ‘KGO RADIO’ 810AM.. DR. W. IS LISTED NEAR THE BOTTOM OF THE HOST LIST, A N D CAN ALSO BE PHONED @ 415-80-80-810, ANYTIME !
THANKING YOU, AND WITH KIND REGARDS TO YOU AND TO YOURS, I WISH TO REMAIN, ~ M e ~
Those of us who listen to Dr.Wattenburg’s program on KGO radio must concede that he is one of the biggest nuclear energy proponents(that’s primarily what his program is about). So it was to him that many would look to as a barometer of Dr.Chu’s performance in regards to nuclear energy. After several months now, it is clear to many of his listeners, that Dr.Chu is dropping the ball on nuclear energy. And many have called into Dr.Bill’s program to express their displeasure, only to have their complaints brushed-off and re-directed toward others(Pelosi,Gore,The Sierra Club ect.). Dr.Bill cannot seem to be able to take-on Chu directtly. Even the most die-hard Wattenburg supporter must(if they’re honest) acknowledge that Dr.Bill is avoiding criticizing Chu directly. This leads to the question: Why is Dr.Bill treading softly around Chu? Could it be he’s met his match? Perhaps he feels bolder against the non-scientist politician or civilian. Is that clucking we’re hearing doc, or is it the knocking of chicken-hawk knees?