The Scientific Politico

Abstract: President Obama's New R&D Plan

2010-09-16T15:22:00.000-07:00

From the White House:

EXPANDED, SIMPLIFIED AND PERMANENT RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION TAX CREDIT

The Obama Administration recently issued a press release detailing his plans to extend the R&D tax credit permanently. The President's plan specifically proposes to expand the credit, simplify it, and make it permanent. A quick summary and then some brief thoughts of my own follow.

Summary

Expand the Credit

The administrations plan is to expand the credit by 20%. The Administration estimates that this would devote about $100 billion dollars over the next years to leverage R&D investment.
Eligible research would take place only in the United States, which would keep high-tech jobs here.

Simplify the Credit

Currently businesses choose between two different formulas for calculating their R&D credit. A very complex one that provides a 20% credit for investments over a certain number, and a simpler one that provides a 14% credit in excess of a base amount
The Administration proposes to bump the value of the simpler formula to 17% which theoretically would make it more attractive to businesses and thus simplify the credit.

Make the Credit Permanent (humorously stated as "Permanent the Credit" on the official release)

This one speaks for itself, the plan would make the credit permanent.
The Administration proposes paying for it fully by "closing loopholes" and other measures proposed in the FY 2011 budget

What do we make of all of this?

Obviously the plainest benefit from making the tax credit permanent is increased business certainty. The credit as been extended 13 times since its creation in 1981. Making the credit permanent would likely give businesses the confidence they need to continue and accelerate investments in R&D. Currently the R&D tax credit is subject to the political whims of a fickle legislature. Specifically during election years the uncertain nature of the credit is most apparent, with Democrats* and Republicans* blocking legislation to to permanently extend the bill (depending on how it was packaged, of course).

*(I also have a tendency to think that one side is being more disingenuous in its blocking of the R&D tax credit this particular election cycle but in keeping of the non-partisan spirit of this blog, I will refrain from making naming names.)

This isn't the first time the credit has been proposed to be permanent. There were several bills floating around Congress last year (S. 1203 and H.R 422) that proposed to do similar things to the credit that the Administrations plan does now. My only pet peeve? Why not just throw out the two formula system, give every business the 20% simple tax credit (like S. 1203 and HR 422 proposed) and then actually simplify the credit? Although, I am of the mind that any permanent tax credit is better than the mess we have currently, having had 13 extensions since 1981, and having the last extension expire in December of 2009. We'll see if Congress can pass the credit once and for all this time.

The Future of Biology and a Little Bit on Synthetic Biofuels.

2010-08-31T15:12:00.000-07:00

In the course of my blog postings, the National Academy of the Sciences report Rising Above the Gathering Storm has been cited frequently. The report's recommendations led mostly to the drafting of the 2007 America COMPETES Act. Rising Above the Gathering Storm however, focused mostly on the physical and engineering sciences, so another, slightly less known report was drafted: A New Biology for the 21st Century; which naturally (pun intended) focuses on the life sciences. I have drafted a summary of the report, as seen below, and will conclude with some thoughts of my own on the topic of synthetic biofuels.

A New Biology for the 21st Century - A Summary

What is the “New Biology?”

At its core the “New Biology” is about integration, integration of the many sub-disciplines of biology, and integration into biology of physicists, chemists, computational scientists, mathematicians, and engineers. It is not just the disciplines that need to be integrated; Interagency co-leadership of projects will be needed to help New Biology reach its full potential. It’s important to remember that inter-agency collaboration is not just about funding: the expertise, and individual knowledge possessed by each agency will be required to solve society’s greatest problems. Furthermore, the New Biology is characterized by a shift in higher-education. Interdisciplinary programs that expose students to the wide array of subjects that the New Biology will need to draw from will become critically important. It is well to keep in mind that a New Biologist will not be a dilettante flittering from subject to subject, rather, he or she will have a deep knowledge in one subject, and a working fluency in several others. Finally, New Biology is more akin to the Moon Challenge, or the Human Genome Project, in a sense that it would be problem-driven science, as opposed to individual investigator driven. However, great emphasis in the report is placed on the fact that New Biology will in no way replace basic research, rather basic research is crucial to the flourishing of New Biology.

The Great Challenges of Society

The NAS uses four great challenges to society to explain the potential of New Biology.

· Food Production

· Ecosystem Preservation & Restoration

· Sustainable Energy

· Health

Food Production

The Challenge: Producing enough food to feed the world’s 8.4 billion people by 2030, while allowing crops to adapt to climate change, and making sure there is enough land for ecosystem services and energy production.

The New Biology Approach:

· Understanding Plant Growth

o A deep understanding of both plant genomics and development (the part’s list and the instructions, respectively) will lead to comprehensive, and safe plant bio-engineering.

o We lack a fundamental knowledge in plant development. We have some parts lists, but no instructions.

o A deeper understanding of genomics and development combined with advances in breeding and engineering, will make it faster and less expensive to develop plants with desired characteristics (i.e. extreme climate tolerance).

· Genetically Informed Breeding

o New quantitative methods are being developed to allow scientists to target genome differences between plant parents, and to decide which genes bestow the desired trait.

o With this technology scientists can examine at the seed level which would be plants have the desired trait, rapidly expanding the speed, and power of plant breeding to bring about desired traits. (Old methods required waiting for the next generation to check for desired traits).

· Transgenics and Genetic Engineering of Crops

o Adding genes to plants from other species may lead to some important breakthroughs

o For example some desert plants follow C4 photosynthesis which allows them to photosynthesize in dry environments. If we could figure out a pathway to allow current C3 plants switch to C4, then that could lead to increased food production in changing climate, and environmental conditions

· Biodiversity, Systematics, and Evolutionary Genomics

o Greater understanding of biodiversity, and the gene pools that come along with it will provide a sort of warehouse for plant “parts”. Tapping into this warehouse will allow plant engineers, and breeders to help crops to adapt to climate change, and increase production

· Crops as Ecosystems

o Plants do not grow in vacuums, they grow in complex ecosystems with interactions among insects, microbial communities, birds etc. Understanding these interactions will have huge benefits to crop production in an uncertain climate future.

o New Biology is especially well poised to take on this challenge, because the knowledge must come from a wide array of scientists. Ecologists, microbiologists, hydrologists, environmental engineers, and computational scientists will all be required for such a study.

Ecosystem Preservation & Restoration

The Challenge: Sustaining the productivity of Earth’s ecosystems in the face of a changing climate.

The New Biology Approach:

· Monitor Ecosystem Services

o The goal of monitoring ecosystem services is to provide an accurate assessment of the services, and the ability to figure out when such services are at risk.

o Obtaining both intensive (lots of varied information) and extensive (across a wide variety of ecosystems, and across a large expanse of land) ecosystem monitoring will require an inter-agency effort, and the combined efforts of engineers, ecologists, statisticians, and computational scientists. Both types of collaborations are key principles within the New Biology.

· Advance Understanding of Ecosystem Restoration

o Holds the possibilities of both restoring ecosystems, and engineering ecosystems to help mitigate climate change.

o Right now very few techniques in the restoration ecologists toolkit. Need an integrated approach to ecosystem restoration.

· Integrate Basic Knowledge about Ecosystem Function with Problem Solving Techniques

o The new biology could lead to a new field of ecosystem engineering, which would be the equivalent of an MD-PhD in the medical world.

Energy

The Challenge: Rapidly expand the availability of sustainable, alternatives to fossil-fuels.

The New Biology Approach:

· Identifying and Optimizing Sources of Biomass for Biofuel.

o Corn cannot be our biofuel source forever, and must be supplemented and eventually replaced with either direct sugar crops (sugarcane or sweet sorghum), or cellulosic materials (switchgrass, miscanthus, or agricultural byproducts).

· Identifying and Optimizing Microbial Biocatalysts

o Microbial biocatalysts offer a promising way to make cheap biofuels quickly. Using genomic and metabolic research, organisms are being found to act as micro-factories, to produce the biofuels of the future.

o Collaborations among microbiologists, and evolutionary geneticists required.

· Approaching Biofuel Production as a Systems Challenge

o Collaboration across a wide variety of scientists will be needed to meet the energy challenge

o However not all these collaborations need to be physical, information technology allows for virtual collaboration which will be crucial for projects of this size.

Health

The Challenge: Developing healthcare to meet every individuals needs…and genome.

The New Biology Approach

· The Genotype-Phenotype Challenge

o Understanding how our genotype, environment, and microbial genotype inside of us, affects our phenotype is crucial to individualized medicine.

o The time is fast approaching where it will be economically feasible to sequence the genomes of every patient that arrives at the hospital

o However the challenge is much more than that, because we have to deal with environmental factors, epigenetics, and microbial communities within the human body.

o Once those areas are fully fleshed out, truly individualized medicine, rather than medicine based on statistical probabilities will arrive in America’s hospitals.

o New Biology, with its emphasis on problem driven, collaborative, interdisciplinary science is uniquely positioned to take on this challenge.

· Understanding Networks

o Understanding protein interactions, nerve cell interactions, developmental processes, etc. Is critically important to reaching the goal of individualized medicine.

o Collaborations among teams of scientists in many disciplines, is the best way for such a challenge to be met.

· Studying Complex Systems Directly in Humans

o Work with model organisms has been very productive, advances in imaging, high-throughput technologies, and computational biology have made it possible to compare and relate model system information directly with the human system.

o Another approach to the genotype-phenotype challenge is direct read outs of proteomes (all the proteins in a sample) and metabolomes (all the metabolites in a sample). The technology to acquire such read outs is currently expensive, and cumbersome, however it is being increasingly being used to analyze, blood, sweat, and urine.

o Such readouts could be used to design tailor-made drugs (i.e. adjustments made based upon how each individual would metabolize each drug).

o Such a task dwarfs the complexity of the Human Genome Project. Perfect for the New Biology to take on.

· A Systems Approach to the genotype-phenotype challenge

o A broad inter-agency approach is needed to solve the genotype-phenotype challenge

Conclusion

What is the New Biology?

· Collaborative Science

o Interagency

o Interdisciplinary

o Multi-University

o Public-Private Groups

· Problem Driven Science

o Letting the Challenges Drive the Science

o Basic, Investigator Driven research still plays a major role

· New Biology Education

o Interdisciplinary Studies

o Working fluency in several disciplines, deep knowledge in one

· The New Biologist may not even be a biologist!

o Physicists, Engineers, Computational Scientists, Statisticians, etc. who collaborate with other scientists on life systems.

If you managed to make it through the summary, Bravo, I commend you. The full 115 page report was not at all times a joy to get through but the writing inside I think is important. Some of the items the report touches on I consider so obviously beneficial to the enterprise of science that I wonder if it's unnecessary to give them their due praise, but interdisciplinary work among the sciences, and mission driven studies I think are crucial to the next generation of science.

Now for a little bit on Synthetic Biofuels

A New Biology for the 21st Century does gloss over a few issues. If you take a look at the Energy section again, it refers to "biocatalysts" for creating biofuels. What does this mean? They are referring to the concept of using algae or some other living organism, genetically engineering it to take even more CO2 from the air, and then using them to create a petrol substitute. While I must admit this is a very cool (and theoretically carbon neutral) idea, the specifics concern me. Namely, where is the natural resource infrastructure to support such an industry? Algae require quite a bit of water and nutrients and aren't exactly something you can just introduce into an ecosystem. Maybe the concerns are premature for a technology in an infant stage, and I'm surely not calling for a cessation of research into algae biofuels (I believe my earlier statement was it is "very cool") but resources are resources and where are they going to come from? Jim Thomas, a member of a technology watch-dog group actually summarized my concerns pretty succinctly.

...And the point is this: any meaningful assessment of synthetic biology as a technology has to grapple with the socioeconomic impacts of the industry that it gives rise to...And I think in the process, it might become like the petro-economy. Trying to guarantee the supply of sugar or cellulose or algae for the vats of synthetic organisms pumping out product will require a massive reorganization of natural resources, a grabbing of land and stripping away of plant matter and water and nutrients that could affect every part of the planet...

However, Jim and I differ in two senses: 1) I do not have (though I wish I did) his flair for the dramatic, and 2) I don't think the research should stop, I think algae biofuels have huge potential benefit. I do think, however, that we need to be aware of, and plan out a way to manage and mitigate any negative socio-economic impacts of the new technology. This does not have to be like the hey-days of synthetic chemicals where we place pound after pound of toxic chemicals into the soil without a single afterthought to the consequences. President Obama actually initiated a presidential commission to examine synthetic biofuels and other synthetic biology issues, so I think the groundwork is being laid to avoid at least some of the more egregious mistakes of the past. I personally think looking to an independent-ish third party like the National Academies to do a report on the potential consequences and benefits of such technology would be a great supplement to the presidential commission. We should be examining these issues now, before synthetic biology really takes off, so we have the appropriate structure to work through any issues, before the Rachel Carson of the 21st century has to write another book.

Just some food for thought.

Hope to see an issue examined in The Scientific Politico? E-mail @ SciencePolitico@gmail.com

Abstract: ARPA-E

2010-08-27T14:10:00.000-07:00

Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E)

ARPA-E is a federal agency under the Department of Energy. Its origins lie in the Rising Above the Gathering Storm report produced by the National Academies of the Sciences which outlined the struggles of U.S. R&D. In 2007 ARPA-E was commissioned by the America COMPETES Act to sponsor creative transformational energy research. ARPA-E has a FY2011 Budget request of $300 million and received an estimated $385 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).

ARPA-E is based on the framework of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA was founded in response to the Soviet’s launching of Sputnik, and focuses on high-risk high-reward research. DARPA employs a unique organizational model employing a lean staff, a non-bureaucratic structure, and a focus on change-state technologies.

ARPA-E is designed along the same lines as DARPA and focuses on high-risk high-reward research in six areas: energy efficiency, materials science, carbon capture and storage, electrofuels, batteries, and short-term duration variability energy storage (for renewables).

ARPA-E Programs

BEETIT

Building Energy Efficiency Through Innovative Thermodevices
Program designed to fund research to develop sensible and low carbon impact cooling and heating for buildings that can retrofit into current buildings including:

Cooling systems that emit fewer greenhouse gases
Energy-efficient air conditioning systems especially those designed for warm and humid areas.
Vapor-Compression AC systems

Current projects funded

ADMA: High-Efficiency, on-Line Membrane Air Dehumidifier Enabling Sensible Cooling for Warm and Humid Climates
Architectural Applications: Innovative Building-Integrated Ventilation Enthalpy Recovery
Astronautics Corporation of America: An Efficient, Green Compact Cooling System Using Magnetic Refrigeration

GRIDS

Grid-Scale Rampable Intermittent Dispatchable Storage
Seeks to establish the U.S. as a leader in stationary electricity storage infrastructure, designed for short-term duration variability in renewables.
GRIDS considers two areas

Proof of concept storage components projects focused on validating future electrical energy storage concepts
Advanced prototypes that address the short comings of the current electrical grid system.

Current projects funded

ABB Inc.: Superconducting Magnet Energy Storage System with Direct Power Electronics Interface
Beacon Power Corporation: Development of a 100 kWh/100 kW Flywheel Energy Storage Module
Boeing: Low-Cost, High-Energy Density Flywheel Storage Grid Demonstration

IMPACCT

Innovative Materials & Processes for Advanced Carbon Capture Technologies
Program designed to fund research to develop the next generation of carbon capture and storage technologies
Areas of Interest

Capture processes that reduce energy-loss, and cost increases
Materials that can resist caustic conditions related to flue emissions.
Low-cost catalysts

Current projects funded

ATK: A High Efficiency Inertial CO2 Extraction System - ICE
Codexis, Inc.: Low-Cost Biological Catalyst to Enable Efficient CO2 Capture
GE Global Research: CO2 Capture Process Using Phase-Changing Absorbents

Electrofuels

Program designed to fund research to develop fuels for cars from microorganisms capturing CO2 from the air.
Areas of Interest

Organisms capable of extracting energy from hydrogen, reduced earth-abundant metal ions, robust readily available organic redox active species, or from direct electrical current.

Has the potential to be 10 times more efficient than current photosynthetic-biomass approaches to liquid fuel production.
Current projects funded

Columbia University: Biofuels from CO2 Using Ammonia-Oxidizing Bacteria in a Reverse Microbial Fuel Cell
Ginkgo BioWorks: Engineering E. Coli as an Electrofuels Chassis for Isooctane Production
Harvard Medical School- Wyss Institute: Engineering a Bacterial Reverse Fuel Cell

BEEST

Batteries for Electrical Energy Storage in Transportation
Program designed to fund research to develop the next generation of car batteries for plug in hybrids and full electric vehicles.
Current projects funded

Missouri University of Science and Technology: High Performance Cathodes for Li-Air Batteries
ReVolt Technology LLC: Zinc Flow Air Battery (ZFAB), the Next Generation Energy Storage for Transportation
Stanford University: The All-Electron Battery- A Quantum Leap Forward in Energy Storage

ADEPT

Agile Delivery of Electrical Power Technology
Program designed to fund research to develop advances in soft magnetics, high-voltage switches, and reliable high density charge storage.
Areas of Interest

Fully-integrated, chip-scale power converters for applications, including: compact, efficient drivers for solid-state lighting, distributed micro-inverters for photovoltaics, and single-chip power supplies for computers
Kilowatt-scale package-integrated power converters by enabling applications such as low-cost, efficient inverters for grid-tied photovoltaics and variable speed motors
Lightweight, solid-state, medium-voltage energy conversion for high-power applications such as solid-state electrical substations and wind turbine generators

Current projects funded

Case Western Reserve University: High-Power Titanate Capacitor for Power Electronics
GE Global Research: Nanostructured Scalable Thick-Film Magnetics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Advanced Technologies for Integrated Power Electronics

ARPA-E is funding some pretty impressive work, I encourage you to poke around on their website a little bit, as what I have linked here is just a small sample of their overall research portfolio. I can only hope that the DARPA model will work as well for energy as it did for defense, and look forward to seeing this basic research head to commercialization.

Policy In Space

2010-08-19T16:30:00.000-07:00

Where the United States' Space Policy Stands Now

Think back to 2004, when President Bush outlined his administration's vision for U.S. space policy: retire the space shuttles, and complete the ISS by 2010, develop a new crew exploration vehicle (Orion) for a manned spaceflight by 2014, planning for a moon landing by 2020, and then on to Mars. NASA responded to President Bush's plan by creating the Constellation Program. Fast forward to 2010, and the landscape (Note: the author realizes the irony of using the previous term in this article) has changed. President Obama in his FY 2011 budget cancelled the Constellation Program. The Obama administration's vision for space policy is largely different from his predecessor.

What does the Obama Space Policy Do?

Increased reliance on private spaceflight

Private spaceflight to service the International Space Station

Extends the life of the ISS "until 2020 or beyond"
Funds R&D for the "next generation launch systems" including new U.S. rocket technologies.
Reach an Asteroid by 2025
By the mid 2030's send astronauts to orbit Mars and return them safely.

Source

What does this mean for U.S. Spaceflight?
It means, coupled with the Constellation cancellation, that for the foreseeable future the United States will be relying solely on private spaceflight companies to conduct its missions. Since the space shuttle is still set for cancellation in 2011, and relying on Russian Soyuz spacecraft isn't an ideal option, NASA needed to fill the void to continue servicing the ISS. Enter the COTS Competition, where NASA solicited private spaceflight companies to demonstrate (with NASA funding) their crew and cargo space transportation capabilities. NASA selected two companies as the winner of its first round of COTS awards SpaceX and Rocketplane Kistler (RpK). NASA's contract with RpK was later cancelled because of problems on RpK's side, and a new contract was awarded to Orbital Sciences. In December of 2008 it was announced that SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle and Dragon spacecraft would replace the Space Shuttle's cargo transporting duties to the ISS after the shuttle decommissions in 2011.

SpaceX
Established in 2002 by PayPal founder Elon Musk, SpaceX is a spaceflight corporation based out of Hawthorne, California. SpaceX's design philosophy is based on less managerial levels, less sub-contracting, and conducting the vast majority of manufacturing in-house. SpaceX is the designer and manufacturer of the Falcon 9 launch system, and the Dragon spacecraft. Under their contract with NASA SpaceX will perform a minimum of 12 flights with Falcon 9 and Dragon to the ISS, with an option for up to $3.1 billion in flights.

Falcon 9 Launch System

The Falcon 9 is SpaceX's latest launch system building off of the Falcon 1 design. The first stage is powered by 9 Merlin engines, also designed by SpaceX, and the first stage provides just over 1.1 million lbs-f of thrust. The second stage is just a shorter version of the first stage, and uses the same material, tooling, and manufacturing techniques, leading to a reduction in cost. The Falcon 9 is also the title picture of this article. The nine engine architecture is based upon the design of NASA's Saturn I and V rockets. As mentioned above the Falcon 9 was the launch system chosen by NASA to re-supply the ISS after the space shuttle is no more.

Dragon Spacecraft

The Dragon Spacecraft is reusable and free-flying. It contains a pressurized cabin with an unpressurized trunk for carrying pressurized/unpressurized cargo, and crew. While it was initiated internally by SpaceX in 2005, it is being developed in part under the NASA COTS program. In addition to its future duties with the ISS, the Dragon could be used for in-space technology demonstrations, or scientific experiments.

So, after all that, Where do we stand?

I must admit, after reading that the Constellation Program was cancelled, I was pretty disappointed. I tended to agree with Neil Armstrong that the private corporations were not ready for spaceflight. This inchoate opinion however, changed when I began research on the subject. This is a good example of the type of thinking espoused here at The Scientific Politico, summed up as such: short sound bytes of information, even when they come from revered astronauts, aren't always based in fact, as much as they are based in sentimental attachment, so always check the data. SpaceX has the capability to service the ISS, and should be supported in that endeavor. I think that private space flight isn't the harbinger of the end of American spacefaring dominance, it is the future of it.

The next edition of The Scientific Politico will be a brief Abstract on HR5781 and its implications on the future of commercial spaceflight. Look for it on Tueday.

Abstract: High Speed Rail

2010-08-17T08:40:00.001-07:00

A high-speed train at the platform in Milan, Italy.

You may have noticed TSP's last article was titled A Snapshot on Nuclear Energy. The over-arching concept of this blog was to intermix shorter articles that give a nice overview of a subject, with long-form legislative analysis, report summaries, opinions, etc. The article on nuclear energy was an example of the short-form articles, I deemed it a Snapshot for lack of a better term, but now I have a better term: Abstract. Why Abstract? An abstract in science is a short description of the following paper, it hits all the main points, and gives a nice overview of what the scientist is going to discuss in his or her research paper. Just the same, an abstract in The Science Politico is going to give a short overview of a topic of interest, hit all the main points, and then hopefully leave the reader with an ever so slightly increased awareness of the subject.
And now without further ramblings on blogging philosophy, an abstract on high-speed rail:

High Speed Rail

High Speed Rail (HSR) means different things in different countries. In the European Union, trains on upgraded track must travel at least 200 km/h (120mph), and trains on newly built track must travel at least 250 km/h (156mph) to be considered high speed. On Japan's Shinkansen lines, trains run at speeds of up to 260 km/h (162mph), and in China top speeds are around 350 km/h (220mph). The United States you ask? Well, maybe it is better if you did not.

The United States and High Speed Rail, One Main Question: Do We Have It?
The above posted graph seems to suggest the United States has 730 kilometers of High Speed Rail. This was news to me, since I could not readily think of any high speed lines in the United States. I thought about this a little bit, and then it hit me: The Acela. Yes, you read that correctly, the Acela blazing by at an average speed of 70mph, (top speeds though, to be fair, are a decent 150mph) is considered high speed rail. Now, having ridden the Acela from New York City to Providence, I was sort of bemused to find out that it was considered "High-speed." This is because the standard is different in the United States, slightly lower than that of Europe. The Federal Rail Road Administration divides HSR into three categories:
High-Speed Rail Express: Top speeds of 150mph
High-Speed Rail Regional: Top speeds of 110mph-150mph
Emerging High-Speed Rail: Top speeds of 90mph-110mph
Source
None of these criteria talk about average speed, so as long as the Acela can reach up to 150mph, which it does south of New York for a short strech, it is considered high-speed rail.
Turning back to the graph, it is fairly obvious the United States has nowhere near the amount of High Speed Rail lines that Europe, China, and Japan have. However, several projects are in the works to add to the U.S. HSR Infrastructure:
The Midwest, Florida, and California.
In the Midwest the plan is to connect Chicago with St. Louis, and then with Kansas City. In Florida, the proposed track would first go from Tampa to Orlando, and then later from Orlando to Miami. In California the idea is for the train to go from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
So in otherwords, the strategy for U.S. high-speed rail is to develop corridors. Which I think is the right approach, since the U.S. is far too large to have any sort of country-wide connectedness that Europe has. Also for HSR to dream of keeping the books out of the red, it needs to connect the high population areas with large potential for ridership: AKA corridors that see a lot of travel. In this case, the Acela has the right idea, with annual ridership of 3,000,000 a year along the busy corridor from Boston to Washington, DC.
As far as whether High Speed Rail will actually find ridership in a country addicted to cars, that is another post for another day, but the ridership levels on the Acela are encouraging, and when gas prices go up (when we're digging through tar sands to get at oil...), train ridership increases Amtrak has the data to show it. In short, developing infrastructure that is likely to prove popular both now, and in the future is not a bad idea, especially when the technology is proven, and the United States is embarrassingly behind the rest of the world.
...Plus what could High-Speed Rail Hurt?
Further Reading
Siemens Website for High Speed Rail
Time Article

Abstract: Nuclear Energy

2010-08-17T08:39:00.001-07:00

France's popular nuclear energy program has generated headlines worldwide. It's hard to avoid stories touting France's mind-boggling 75.2% (of total energy) nuclear generation. Which brings us to the question: How does the United States stack up?

In terms of % of total energy generated the United States (Light Blue in the Graph) seems to lag, falling behind France, Germany, Finland, and even Slovakia.

However, in terms actual kilowatt hours generated, the United States generates more kilowatt hours of nuclear energy than any other country in the world.

So everything is great for America then? End of story? Not quite, the United States' nuclear power infrastructure is aging; almost all US nuclear energy is generated from plants built from 1967-1990. About half of U.S. nuclear energy comes from plants over 30 years old. However, U.S. policy is changing as concerns about climate change, and energy independence are causing U.S. policy makers to take a fresh look at nuclear energy. After years of decline, the U.S. is again making large investments in nuclear R&D, with programs like the Next Generation Nuclear Plant, with an expected pilot plant ready by 2021. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (See Sec. 645) also provided funding for the construction of new plants being built Right Now.

So the U.S. stacks up fairly well internationally when it comes to nuclear power. If we can navigate our way past our aging nuclear infrastructure, and we continue to invest heavily in nuclear energy R&D, the United States could easily re-establish itself as a world leader in the sector.

Source Data/Further Reading World-Nuclear.org

America COMPETES? Of S.3605 and National Innovation Strategies

2010-08-17T08:37:00.001-07:00

COMPETES Reauthorization Summary

Senate Version
Sponsor: Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Senate Number: S. 3605
Purpose: "To invest in innovation through research and development,
to improve the competitiveness of the United States,
and for other purposes."
Full Text: PDF @ GPO

S.3605 Highlights

Creates a National Innovation Strategy
Coordinates Federal Efforts to Promote STEM Education
Orders a Comprehensive Study on CyberInfrastructure Improvement
Establishes an Interagency Public Access Committee

Sec. 101 National Innovation and Competitiveness Strategy

Sec. 101 establishes that the U.S. create a National Innovation and Competitiveness Strategy, the likes of which have not been seen in the States since the 1983 Presidential Commission on Industrial Competitiveness (God Bless you, Ronald Reagan). While the 1983 Commission can be characterized as a response to perceived Japanese dominance in high-tech and auto manufacturing, the 2007 COMPETES Act (and by extension the Reauthorization) was in part spurred by a National Academy of Sciences Report: Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Download the Full Report Here (Be sure to look for The Science Politico's summary of Rising Above the Gathering Storm and its sister-report A New Biology of the 21st Century Coming Soon).

What the Bill now says Post-Warner Amendment

The Bill originally stated that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) would create and submit the National Innovation Strategy to Congress after one year. However, Senator Mark Warner (D-VA) introduced an amendment that changes the game a little. The Warner amendment directs the Dept. of Commerce, not OSTP, to create a 10 year National Innovation and Competitiveness Strategy, after analyzing the U.S. Economy and Infrastructure.

Why Does the United States need a National Innovation and Competitiveness Strategy?

The "Valley of Death" (early stage funding gap between federally funded basic research and later stage venture capital funded product development) has widened with the current economic decline. A National Innovation Strategy could help lessen the gap by targeting programs aimed at facilitating commercialization of federally funded research. (Like SBIR and STTR).
The United States has a STEM Education Problem. From Rising Above the Gathering Storm: "In South Korea, 38% of all undergraduates receive their degrees in natural science or engineering. In France, the figure is 47%, in China, 50%, and in Singapore, 67%. In the United States, the corresponding figure is 15%." But See: This Article. A National Innovation and Competitiveness Strategy coupled with an examination of the United States' innovation infrastructure could help align incentives to increase the number of U.S. STEM undergraduates. (If the above linked article is true, and the problem is on the demand side, then ostensibly a National Innovation Strategy could help align incentives so as to increase the demand of STEM graduates).
The United States is falling behind its competitors in the Global Innovation Index, particularly to nations with national innovation strategies:

The United States is ranked behind Finland, Hong Kong, and Singapore in terms of the Global Innovation Index. Finland and Singapore have much touted National Innovation Strategies. (Full Text of Finland's National Innovation Strategy Here). Germany, Britain, South Korea, and Japan also have National Innovation Strategies. Says the director of MIT's Washington Office William B. Bonvillian:

"The United States is one of the only countries among the world's leading economies that lack a true national innovation strategy and the institutional focus to coordinate it..."

Where S.3605 Stands Now & Final Thoughts

S.3605 was approved by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation unanimously on July 22nd 2010, and is now awaiting full confirmation by the Senate. The Senate is currently in recess until September 10th, and it is unknown when/whether the bill will be brought for a floor vote. However the committees ranking republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) hinted at the bill's future:

While I appreciate the Chairman’s [Rockefeller] willingness to work with me to reduce the funding levels by about 10 percent from the measure introduced, I believe we will need to further adjust the funding levels before this bill can be joined with the Titles from the HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] and Energy [and Natural Resources] Committees and pass the full Senate. We’ve come a long way in streamlining the bill, but we have more work to do. But I will certainly join in supporting the bill being reported today and look forward to helping move it through the legislative process in a bipartisan manner

When/if the bill is passed by a Senate floor vote, the House and Senate must reconcile their versions before it is signed by President Obama. Let's hope that they do, and the United States will finally get a National Innovation Strategy of its own.
Further Reading:
Innovation Nation by John Kao
Why the Bill may not make it from the Senate