Yes, this is the kind of thing I would read for leisure… don’t judge.

Next step: Planning a trip to visit China and India and learn about their innovation cultures first-hand.

Description of the report:

The return of the once-dormant economies of China and India to dynamism and growth is one of the most remarkable stories in recent history. The two countries are home to nearly 40 percent of the world's population, but until recently neither had played an influential role in the contemporary global economy.

In the past two decades, China and India have liberalized internal economic policy, treatment of foreign investment, and trade, and have experienced economic growth at sustained high rates. From the point of view of the United States, however, the most important development in the Chinese and Indian economies in the long term may be the strides they are making in developing their own domestic innovation capacities. After a long period of underinvestment, both countries have committed to growing their science and education systems to bolster research and further economic expansion.

Some observers of the recent growth have said that both countries are surging in their efforts to spur innovation; others have emphasized the potential of one country over the other; and still others have suggested that both China and India have a long way to go before achieving innovation-driven growth. With such a range of views, The National Academies set out to describe developments in both countries, in relation to each other and the rest of the world, by organizing a conference in Washington, D.C. The conference, summarized in this volume, discussed recent changes at both the macroeconomic level and also in selected industries, and explored the causes and implications of those changes.

via The Dragon and the Elephant: Understanding the Development of Innovation Capacity in China and India: Summary of a Conference.

Considering that riding my bike through DC streets feels about as foolish as diving into a shark tank, this is good news. Hopefully these recommendations will be backed up with the big, honkin’ carrot of federal DOT funding for projects with comprehensive bike and walking path improvement provisions.

Today, I want to announce a sea change. People across America who value bicycling should have a voice when it comes to transportation planning. This is the end of favoring motorized transportation at the expense of non-motorized.

We are integrating the needs of bicyclists in federally-funded road projects. We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.

To set this approach in motion, we have formulated key recommendations for state DOTs and communities:

• Treat walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes.
• Ensure convenient access for people of all ages and abilities.
• Go beyond minimum design standards.
• Collect data on walking and biking trips.
• Set a mode share target for walking and bicycling.
• Protect sidewalks and shared-use paths the same way roadways are protected (for example, snow removal)
• Improve nonmotorized facilities during maintenance projects.

Source: My view from atop the table at the National Bike Summit

(And watch for the spelling of words such as “public.”)

The Funniest Protest Signs Of 2009

Then, read this.

Thank you, someecards. Thank you very much.

I respect the right of people to pay for porcupining (acupuncture) or extra-expensive bottled water (homeopathy) out of their own pockets, but I certainly don’t want to pay for this useless treatments out of my taxes.

Hmmm… Unless I can include “microbrew therapy” as an alternative medicine. Now you’re speaking my medical language.

Think Tank Objects to Taxpayer Funding for Therapeutic Touch, other Alternative Medicine Therapies

Health-care reform should prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to cover non-evidence-based medicine, says CFI report

(Washington, D.C.) –The Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy (OPP), a group that lobbies for sound science in government policy, today released a report titled A Fracture in our Health Care: Paying for Non-Evidence Based Medicine. The report is highly critical of an effort underway to amend current health care reform legislation with provisions allowing taxpayer dollars to support unsubstantiated “alternative” medical treatments.

Americans are increasingly turning to various forms of alternative medicine. The Washington Post has reported that 38% of adults in the United States have turned to acupuncturists, holistic chiropractors, herbal and homeopathic healers, and various other forms of non-standard treatments. Now senators Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), and Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), along with support from the ranking member on the Senate health committee Senator Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), are sponsoring an amendment to the health care reform bill which would support funding for alternative medicine, and also require all insurance companies to cover state-licensed alternative medicine providers, under the guise of prohibiting “discrimination” against such providers.

“Our report seeks to sound some alarm bells: we are coming dangerously close to having lawmakers legitimize quackery by putting the government stamp of approval on these unproven treatments,” said Ronald A. Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry. “We call upon the legislative branch to follow President Obama’s lead and insist that public policy be informed by sound scientific evidence.”

The CFI report focuses specifically on the lack of evidence for therapeutic touch (TT), an example of the kind of non-evidence-based medicine that would be covered under the Harkin amendment. During therapeutic touch, practitioners purport to massage the patient’s “biomagnetic field” with their hands. The report exposes this as nonsense, revealing that the purported magnetic field is far too weak to affect any biochemical processes, and is billions of times less energetic than the energy our eye receives when viewing even the brightest star in the night sky. The report points out that a study published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that  “Twenty-one experienced TT practitioners were unable to detect the investigators ‘energy field’. Their failure to substantiate TT’s most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further professional use is unjustified.”

“CFI strongly opposes the wasting of taxpayer dollars on this and other non-evidence based medicine,” said Dr. Lindsay.

Dr. Wallace Sampson, a well-known critic of alternative medicine and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, an affiliate of CFI, said “Therapeutic Touch, an example of ‘Distant Healing,’ is a scientific absurdity. This is bold foolishness, elected representatives legislating into policy their own personal delusions. This is abuse of public office; and reason enough for recall or being voted out of office.”

The Center for Inquiry’s specific policy recommendations contained in the report are as follows:

• Government should spend no taxpayer dollars in support of any alleged medical treatments or healing protocols, such as Therapeutic Touch, that have no grounding in experiment or in our understanding of basic scientific fact.
• Any health care reform bill Congress passes should prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to cover non-evidence-based medicine.
• Congress should greatly reduce or eliminate funding for the NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), as a decade of study has shown that most alternative cures work no better than placebos.

“The United States can ill afford to continue wasting precious resources on unproven – and often disproven – medical techniques. (In the process of) reining in the ballooning cost of medical care, every dollar of health care funding is needed to provide tested, proven medical treatment to those who require it.  It is inexcusable to squander scarce resources by funding unsubstantiated, non-evidence-based medical techniques that have no basis in theory or experiment,” states the report.

A Fracture in our Health Care: Paying for Non-Evidence Based Medicine was authored by Eugenie V. Mielczarek, emeritus professor of physics at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA., with assistance from Derek C. Araujo, general counsel of the Center for Inquiry; Adam Magazine, a volunteer attorney for CFI in New York City; and Lori Sommerfelt, a sociology major at American University in Washington, DC.

A downloadable PDF copy of the full report is available online at www.centerforinquiry.net/touch.

Excerpt:

I can’t believe I am standing today in a Christian church defending the proposition that we should lessen the suffering of those who cannot afford health care in an economic system that often treats the poor as prey for the rich. I cannot believe there are Christians around this nation who are shouting that message down and waving guns in the air because they don’t want to hear it. But I learned along time ago that churches are strange places; charity is fine, but speaking of justice is heresy in many churches. The late Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara said it well: “When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist.” Too often today in the United States, if you talk about helping the poor, they call you Christian, but if you actually try to do something to help the poor, they call you a socialist.

via Why Is Universal Health Care ‘Un-American’? | CommonDreams.org.

Excerpt:

The clear message Chu took home from China was that its leaders are dead serious about climate change and clean energy. They won’t accept an emissions cap before we do — understandably, since our per capita emissions are still four times higher — but they’re preparing for a carbon-constrained economy. They already have cars that are more fuel-efficient than ours, and they’re developing more-advanced transmission lines. They’re still building a new coal-fired plant almost every week, but two years ago, they were building two of them every week. They’re making a huge push into wind and solar and should be the world’s largest producer of renewables by 2010. “Every Chinese leader I met was absolutely determined to do something about their carbon emissions,” Chu said. “Some U.S. policymakers still don’t think this is a problem.” (Read “One Voice in a Billion: Changing the Climate in China.”)

In fact, GOP leaders have said that global warming is a hoax, that fears about carbon are “almost comical,” that the earth is actually cooling. When I asked Chu about the earth-is-cooling argument, he rolled his eyes and whipped out a chart showing that the 10 hottest years on record have all been in the past 12 years — and that 1998 was the hottest. He mocked the skeptics who focus on that post-1998 blip while ignoring a century-long trend of rising temperatures: “See? It’s gone down! The earth must be cooling!” But then he got serious, almost plaintive: “You know, it’s totally irresponsible. You’re not supposed to make up the facts.”

Welcome to Washington, where a Nobel Prize winner’s opinion is just another opinion, where facts are malleable and sometimes irrelevant. It’s tough to be Mr. Outside in a town where policy happens on the inside. Congress is blocking Chu’s plan to create eight “Bell lablets” to investigate his game changers, along with his efforts to scuttle hydrogen-car research he considers futile. He’s trying to make DOE’s bureaucracy more nimble, but it still pushed less than 1% of its stimulus funds out the door in five months. And while Chu ends speeches with Martin Luther King Jr.’s quote about “the fierce urgency of now” — one of Obama’s favorites — the clean-energy bill is on hold until health care is done. There’s still a broad perception in Washington that dealing with climate change will require sacrifices that Americans won’t tolerate.

The Chinese don’t seem to worry about that. At one point, Chu acknowledged that democracy makes change a lot tougher, although he hastened to add that he’s a big fan of democracy. “We just have to do a better job communicating the facts so the electorate can educate themselves,” he said. Soon he sounded like he was talking to himself again: “Let’s be positive. The facts really do matter to the American people.”

via Steven Chu, A Political Scientist — Printout — TIME.

From the New York Times:

The Swiss Menace

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Published: August 16, 2009

It was the blooper heard round the world. In an editorial denouncing Democratic health reform plans, Investor’s Business Daily tried to frighten its readers by declaring that in Britain, where the government runs health care, the handicapped physicist Stephen Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance,” because the National Health Service would consider his life “essentially worthless.”

Professor Hawking, who was born in Britain, has lived there all his life, and has been well cared for by the National Health Service, was not amused.

Besides being vile and stupid, however, the editorial was beside the point. Investor’s Business Daily would like you to believe that Obamacare would turn America into Britain — or, rather, a dystopian fantasy version of Britain. The screamers on talk radio and Fox News would have you believe that the plan is to turn America into the Soviet Union. But the truth is that the plans on the table would, roughly speaking, turn America into Switzerland — which may be occupied by lederhosen-wearing holey-cheese eaters, but wasn’t a socialist hellhole the last time I looked.

… continue reading here: Op-Ed Columnist – The Swiss Menace – NYTimes.com.

It is important to also look at the concept of healthcare “rationing” from a global perspective.

Healthcare Rationing: What Price Is A Life?

Was Dick Cheney’s quadruple bypass surgery worth the money?

In the United States healthcare reform is policy wonk talk for changing up the way Americans ration health. Conservatives criticize change in the healthcare status quo as “rationing”. Liberals blithely promise reform will not include “rationing”. Both are fibbing.

Rationing healthcare is what health systems do. No scheme, no government, no insurer, no individual (save perhaps the über-rich) has unlimited money to buy all the healthcare everyone wants.

In America, we ration healthcare by place of employment. If you have a steady job with a large employer, you probably have decent health insurance. If you are self-employed, maybe not.

Vice President Dick Cheney suffered four heart attacks beginning at age 37. Thanks to American socialized medicine for elected officials, Cheney has been cared for at the very best taxpayer-subsidized hospitals. His is a life worth saving.

If Cheney were a poor, young, Latina private housekeeper, most likely he would not have had health insurance when he needed it. And, it is damn certain he would not have gotten any preventive checkups in, no doubt, a “secure, undisclosed location”.

If Mr. Cheney were born in the developing world, he might well have died in infancy. Dr. Donald R. Hopkins, Vice President, The Carter Center, writes, “Children born in most advanced industrialized countries…experience infant mortality rates of 10 per 1,000 live births…and can expect to live an average of more than 70 years. Children born in developing countries…face infant mortality rates of 150 or higher (with) a life expectancy of 50 years or less.”

The cure for measles, a highly contagious disease, has been in use for over 30 years. As a result, measles has been wiped out in the developing world. In poorer countries, measles still infects 30 million people annually, mostly kids.

Would you deny the Vice President, a former heavy smoker, his quadruple bypass surgery (estimated cost: $45,000.00) to pay for inoculating 180,000 children against measles (estimated cost: 25 cents per child)? That is reality of global healthcare rationing.

900,000 poor children are annually sentenced to death because measles inoculations are unavailable (rationed?). Would you spend a quarter to save a child’s life?

via Healthcare Rationing: What Price Is A Life? — Social Edge.

(For a concise summary of Detroits economic woes over the last few decades and through the recent loan requests, read here.)

The government has two fundamentally different questions on its hands in making these loan decisions.

Car Company CEOs at Bailout Hearing

For the Big (and shrinking) Three, the question is,

“Should the government bail out an industry that, regardless of the current recession, is responsible for driving itself to the brink of bankruptcy because of poor strategic decisions in product offering and labor management?”

For Tesla, the question is,

“Should the government bail out a high-tech startup that perhaps overreached in its goals for reinventing the automobile power system?”

Tesla Roadster

While all the companies concerned are “US automobile manufacturers”, the two questions are drastically different in reasoning.

Many have argued that bankruptcy is just the medicine Detroit needs to cure its financial woes. Others feel the painful restructuring process will do more damage to the local and national economies and related industries than is worth suffering, including the auto executives requesting the assistance.

I think the correct response lies somewhere in between. Now that the government has significant leverage over the auto companies, let’s use this bargaining position to our advantage. The EPA has always butted heads with auto industry lobbyists over fuel economy standards. Now the government can write the standards on its own terms. For example, we could model new standards after those in Europe with regulated CO2 emissions.

I’d like to avoid bankruptcies, if only for consumer psychological reasons. Consumers will avoid purchasing cars from bankrupt companies, and this will only exacerbate market share losses to foreign competitors.

But if Congress needs to send Detroit back home a couple more times (driving in their hybrids!) until they return with appropriately detailed and significant plans for their use of the loans, so be it.

Tesla is in a separate universe from the established companies. With its small size, it does not have the gravity in the national economy and its failure won’t send the US plummeting into an economic black hole.

On the other hand, its lofty vision of selling all-electric autos is a force far beyond its fleet size. While the sale of a few hundred Tesla roadsters will not make a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions, the same bunch of battery-powered cars will exert undeniable pressure on the Big Three to respond with similar offerings.

Sure, Tesla’s only product costs $100,000 and is far out-of-reach for most Americans. But consumers will look at that vehicle and then walk into a Ford, GM, or Chrysler dealership and ask for the same thing at a third of the price. They’ll figure that with the R&D capabilities and scale of a major auto manufacturer, a plug-in auto at a reasonable price should be feasible.

Let’s face it. History shows that American auto companies lack the foresight to take longer-term, strategic factors (like the inevitable rise in cost of oil) into consideration when they do research and design vehicles. So, if they don’t possess the internal initiative to develop cleaner vehicles, then maybe Tesla is just the thorn in their sides we need.

Is it worth $400 million in loans to keep Tesla in place as a carrot to lead Detroit?

I think that is some produce that will really produce.

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist!)

But this post isn’t about that kind of automobile noise. This is about the noise emanating from Detroit in regards to the future of our nation’s decimated auto industry and how we — yes we, the people and our government — will be responsible for keeping the industry afloat.

Thomas Friedman opened an article in the New York Times, called “How to Fix a Flat”, on the subject with this:

Last September, I was in a hotel room watching CNBC early one morning. They were interviewing Bob Nardelli, the C.E.O. of Chrysler, and he was explaining why the auto industry, at that time, needed $25 billion in loan guarantees. It wasn’t a bailout, he said. It was a way to enable the car companies to retool for innovation. I could not help but shout back at the TV screen: “We have to subsidize Detroit so that it will innovate? What business were you people in other than innovation?” If we give you another $25 billion, will you also do accounting?

As usual, Friedman’s ideas were thought-provoking. He received 594 comments on the article before commenting was closed.

Friedman paints a picture where auto executives steered their companies away from any long-term competitiveness toward short-term fixes and Michigan’s legislators shielded the industry from the regulation that would have forced it to compete globally.

And now the industry just isn’t asking for votes in its favor it’s asking for billions in financial support. See the industry’s latest innovation below in a comic by Signe Wilkinson.

Detroit's Latest Plug-In Design

Or Nick Anderson’s comic take:

Catch Detroit

I think it is the gift of a truly talented cartoonist to create comics like these, images that make the viewer laugh out of one side of his mouth while he winces with the other. These comics are painfully entertaining.

Friedman unfortunately chose to close the essay with a tired cliche: that all the auto industries need for redemption is a year of leadership from Apple’s Steve Jobs.

While I have deep respect for Mr. Jobs and his achievements leading Apple to design some of the most popular products of this generation, the problems facing Detroit are larger than any one person can repair.

The fundamental, underlying market mechanisms that steer the behavior of the American auto industry are like, well, a buggy GPS system — they told the industry to turn left in the middle of a bridge and now the industry is through the guardrail and plunging headfirst into the abyss. (For a visual, refer again to Nick Anderson’s comic above.)

Why are the product offerings of the Big (but shrinking) Three so out of line with current consumer demands? Because the companies tuned their product lines to produce the greatest possible short-term profit, without regard to their long-term global competitiveness.

When oil was cheap and carbon even cheaper (aka free), it made economic sense to build the most expensive vehicle a customer would buy, because the pricier the vehicle, the larger the profits. And by the way, this is America, and in America, we like to get a lot for our dollar, so the bigger the vehicle, the better. It’s the same game that restaurants are playing with ever-increasing portion sizes, in a way.

Cheap oil refines into cheap fuel, and cheap fuel does not provide much financial incentive for consumers to purchase fuel-efficient vehicles.

Free carbon (dioxide) means that the emission of greenhouse gases has no cost, and this leads to a similar outcome as cheap fuel, because fuel-efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions are related (inversely).

The problem is that oil isn’t cheap (the falling prices are only temporary) and greenhouse gas emissions aren’t free. Ultimately, greenhouse gas emissions have a cost and the price is paid by the environment in the form of climate change.

So, Detroit has been shielded from economic reality in the US by a curtain of cheap oil and cheap carbon. Suddenly the curtain is pulled back and, uh-oh, Detroit is caught on stage with its pants around its ankles.

It turns out that where Detroit’s competitors live — primarily Japan, Korea, and Europe — fuel is a few times more costly and greenhouse gas emissions are regulated by the Kyoto Protocol. The competitors have been preparing for the automobile market of the future for decades, but the Big Three were thrown into reality over the course of about half a product development cycle, and what a cold shower of reality it was.

Yes, the US has Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards, but I won’t even bother to dive into that controversy. Let us just agree that the regulations haven’t prepared Chevy, Ford, and Chrysler for today’s sudden market reality. After all, it was CAFE that laid the red carpet for the arrival of minivans and SUVs to displace place of wagons. Wagon, as “passenger cars”, were required to have higher fuel economy than minivans and SUVs, as “light trucks”.

In the end, the US was lacking the necessary indicators of cost to influence purchasing behaviors towards sustainable automobile designs. Additionally, the stock market rewarded short-term performance, so the auto companies had no incentive to take responsibility and guarantee their own long-term competitive strength. Since the industry was blind and could not look forward to plan for its own future, we — the US people and our government — are now responsible for taking the industry by the hand and saving it from running into a wall of bankruptcy.

The government may soon step in with financial aid, it looks like we the people might all be proud new owners of auto industry stock. Of course, that stock looks less like a stork carrying a bundle of joy and more like a burning, stinking bag on the doorstep.

Just don’t step on it.

Well, Bush didn’t get that message and it turns out he’s going to screw up a few more things before he walks out the Oval Office door. As the Denver Post points out, W. is working to pass anti-consumer, anti-environment “midnight regulations” before the clock rings Jan. 20th and he turns back into a pumpkin.

“Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.”

Bush likes to swim in polluted water for fun.

So, despite the fact you thought electing Obama was going to provide a breath of fresh air — or clean water — Bush is doing his best to prevent it.

It looks like Bush can see a little more darkness at the end of the tunnel and is working to bury his legacy even deeper in a quagmire of incompetence. Can January 20, 2009 get here soon enough?

In this scenario, the country’s investments in research (bioengineering bacteria to produce cellulosic biofuels, for example) pay off and we are able to increase our exports to the rest of the world.

The key factor, though, is that the product must be manufactured in the US if we want to reduce our trade deficits and subsequently our borrowing. Biofuel processing will probably always be somewhat localized, as the cost of transport is high, and we aren’t likely to have surplus fuel anytime soon as large as our oil appetite is today. However, we can produce the bacteria, fungus, or other microorganisms in the US and export them to plants around the world.

Here’s the BusinessWeek article and here is my original post.

Update: I just found another BusinessWeek article with four ways the country can use innovation to help the economy recover:

• Inject capital
• Think global
• Focus on public programs
• Support talent

As the New York Times addresses in the recent article “Rivals’ Visions Differ on Unleashing Innovation”, the financial crisis is diverting attention in the upcoming election from the candidates’ science and innovation policies to their approaches for fixing the economy today. Since the media suffers from attention deficit disorder and can only devote coverage to one issue at a time, I’ll use my blog to reach the masses (mini-masses?) and share the importance of innovation to the US’s future.

First, I’ll simplify the process of national innovation to the highest degree possible. Check out this 1st-grade-math graphic I created:

Innovation Math

Let’s break this equation down.

For the US to remain an innovation leader, the country needs money to be spent on research and development combined with talented people to do the work and discover breakthroughs.

Show me the money

Where’s the money come from? It is a combination of government and corporate research investment. If you’d like to compare the Presidential candidates on their technology investment policies, read here. Both candidates support making the federal R&D tax credits permanent, which is important for encouraging corporate investment. But Obama supports significantly more government investment than McCain, and I think Obama has it right. One example: Obama supports the investment of $150 billion over 10 years in developing clean technology.

Many groundbreaking technological advances were achieved on the back of government investment in space, defense, and university basic research — fields like computing and the Internet, medicine and nanotechnology, and transportation technology like RADAR. (Note to avoid angry emails: I didn’t say the government invented the computer, just that its investment advanced the progress.) When there is no clear connection between the basic scientific research and a commercialization opportunity with positive R&D ROI, the government is needed to provide the initial investment. The government then receives its ROI when companies later commercialize the progress in research, create jobs, and pay taxes.

The argument for just how the government should manage this investment in innovation is complicated, so I won’t attempt to solve that problem in this post. However, you can hear some interesting perspectives in this podcast from the journal Nature regarding the upcoming election and national innovation policy. Here are couple takeaways to pique your interest:

• Idea to create a new National Innovation Foundation to holistically manage innovation strategy for the US
• Countries like Taiwan, Japan, China, UK, Germany, and Singapore have national innovation strategies, but the US does not
• Over the past 8 years, the number of computer science graduates in the US has declined by 50%

It’s the people, stupid

Now, let’s move on to the people side of the equation. This is why I really wanted to write this post.

All that money won’t do any good if it isn’t paying and funding the research of talented, educated workers. Undoubtedly, you’ve heard by now horrific statistics, like “China is producing 10 times more engineers than the USA.” While numbers like this might be a stretch — read this article from BusinessWeek about the apples and oranges comparison — there is no doubt that global competitiveness is higher than ever before.

We need to get serious about changing the status quo and take real action to influence youth culture and increase the attractiveness of careers in science and technology. If we want to strengthen national innovation, why don’t we first get innovative with science advocacy? According to the above podcast, there are hundreds of programs across K-12 education advocating science, but let’s face it:

Children and teens are not the most receptive to ideas of what is cool and important coming from the classroom.

Children and teens learn what is popular and desirable from their social relationships with their peers.

These programs aren’t effective enough yet because the marketing is wrong. Let’s look at this problem as a business case study and see if we can find some insight that educators are missing.

(I wrote previously about the importance of science education and strategies for making science interesting in this post. Here, I’ll take a different approach to a similar problem.)

You’re the CEO of a company — let’s call it SciTechSchool Co. — and your business model is this: for every student you encourage to be passionate about science and technology and graduate with a related degree, your company makes $100,000. Woah! What a business opportunity!

(I don’t know what the government’s marginal benefit is for each additional scientist or engineer, but it’s reasonable, if not conservative, to think these people might pay an additional $100k in taxes over their lifetimes.)

Hm… How do you show kids that science is interesting? Do you offer after-school programs to teach them more about science after they’ve had a full day at school already? No, that obviously won’t work.

Maybe, instead of trying to push science at school, you look for ways to slip science into kids’ everyday lives? How do you make science a part of youth social fabric? You make small alterations to what kids are already doing, and without them even recognizing it, they’ll be using science regularly.

Let’s use video games as an example, because we know they garner a lot of youth attention. Say Halo is the game of choice. Want to encourage electrical engineering? Players must fix the virtual wiring in their weapons and suit after being hit before they will work again. Chemical engineering? Players collect chemical components throughout the game and then mix them in precise amounts for regenerative medicine. Mechanical engineering? Players must design their own protective gear and truck armor, balancing strength and weight for the best performance. Computer engineering? Players must program booby traps to capture the enemy, like a knockout gas that is discharged when a sensor detects an intruder.

Video games often involve problem solving by design, all your company needs to do is alter these problems a bit towards science. And this is just one example, the same principle could be applied to other youth pastimes, as well. How about a simple programming language on a mobile phone or a bicycle built for modifications and upgrades?

Let’s change the way we think about science education. If business won’t provide the toys, gear, games, and websites kids need to be science-minded naturally, then let’s create an agency to evaluate and designate “SciTech” products. Then, companies can advertise the benefit to parents, and we let them claim additional tax credits for the development of these products.

It’s due time we get innovative about keeping this country innovative.

While working on a totally unrelated task, I came across a spectacular visualization tool representing the US federal budget. (Aren’t the most interesting finds on the Net stumbled upon? And I don’t mean using the official toolbar.)

Now that this post is half parenthetical, I promise I’ll write one whole sentence without any asides.

(Done. Go me!)

The visualization is in the form of a wall-hanging poster available at WallStats.com. The data represented is the breakdown of the 2009 federal budget as proposed by the White House. You can also see in the background the relative size of the federal deficit (>$10 trillion).

This poster caught my attention as it takes something exceedingly complex (5,000 pages of budget documentation) and condenses it into one large, summary graphic.

What’s that old cliche… A picture is worth 5,000 pages?

It’s intuitive, too. The size of the circle is proportional to the amount of money. There is a clear hierarchy of spending from the top level downwards.

As hard as the goverment is working to spend our money, don’t you think they could come up with stuff like this on their own? After all, the federal budget is just the tip of the iceberg as far as complex, poorly-communicated goverment activity is concerned.

Maybe they wanted to budget for a Federal Activity Communication & Explanation Department, but the circle representing the department’s budget was just too small to show up on the poster…

Now, to explain the title of this post, here are the budgets for several different departments for comparison:

Department of Defense: $515 billion

Defense and national security overall: ~$800 billion

Deparment of Energy: $25 billion (Defense-related: $16 billion; Energy efficiency and renewables: ~$1 billion)

Department of Education: $59 billion

If you were listening to the same Presidential election debate I watched tonight, you heard a lot of talk about the importance of energy security and renewable energy to “break our addiction to foreign oil.” But our we investing enough in our future energy needs? Energy efficiency and renewable energy spending is 0.16% of the defense budget.

You also heard often how the American people and their innovation skills are the country’s greatest strength and will keep us strong, safe, and healthy into the future. But are we investing enough in our children’s futures via their education? Our Dept. of Education budget is 7.4% of the defense budget.

Look at the poster. The Department of Defense battleship is so large that it could wipe the Education and Energy dingies right off the budget map.

C’mon, future leader of the USA.

Put our money where our mouths are.

Now, for something a little more light-hearted: Play some Battleship and flash back to your days of imperial naval domination as a 7-year-old!