According to a press release, the roundtable discussion will address specific scientific and economic issues regarding effective restoration in the Gulf of Mexico, including “What role can science play in identifying what the linked ecological and economic goals of ecosystem recovery are in the Gulf?”

“Restoring economic vitality to the Gulf will depend on a foundation of sustained coastal health,” reads a press release for the event. “A discussion about an integrated, science-based approach to ecosystem restoration, and the knowledge gained from experiences in large-scale restoration efforts around the country, can help ensure that recovery efforts follow a path toward vibrant coasts and coastal communities.”

Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., has been invited to attend the discussion, which will feature a panel with reps from NOAA, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Consortium and the Harte Research Institute.

The damage from last year’s Deepwater Horizon disaster continues to this day, as fears of tainted seafood linger. The state’s Department of Agriculture recently unveiled a training program for restaurant workers in an effort to combat consumer fears. But concerns over a new oil sheen (possibly coming from the sunken Transocean rig) continue to plague gulf fishermen and residents; LSU researchers only recently determined that the oil has even impacted certain species of marsh fish.

“I hear your mom is asking about evolution and, you know, it’s a theory that’s out there, and its got some gaps in it,” Perry said. “In Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.”

A woman, presumably the mother, is then overheard telling the boy to “ask him why he doesn’t believe in science.”

Perry continues, “Because I figure you’re smart enough to figure out which one is right.”

Watch the exchange in this video clip:

Shortly after clips of the Portsmouth, N.H. meeting began making the Internet rounds, Huntsman became in involved by tweeting, “To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.”

Roughly 3,000 people re-tweeted Huntsman’s statement and, roughly an hour after his original tweet, he added, “Lots of new followers … If you want to learn more about or support our campaign of serious solutions go to jon2012.us/pmWG6D”

One hour later Huntman took to the twitter once again to proclaim his like of an American musician fans knew as Captain Beefheart, who died in December 2010.

“I wonder if a tweet where I admit how much I like Captain Beefheart will make the followers skyrocket even more!” tweeted Huntsman, linking to a YouTube video of the Captain and his Magic Band playing their song “Electricity” on a beach. It likely did, since hundreds more of his followers re-tweeted the missive.

After saying that evolution is a “theory” that has “some gaps in it,” Perry tells the boy that “in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution in our public schools.”

The only problem with that, of course, is that it’s not true.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that teaching creationism in public schools would be unconstitutional. Following a 2009 decision by the State Board of Education, Texas science teachers must encourage students to take a critical look at “all sides” of scientific theories like evolution.

As our sister site, The Texas Independent has reported, that state-mandated ambivalence about a theory as widely accepted as evolution has drawn challenges over the years. Just last month, the SBOE opted not to approve supplemental science materials featuring intelligent design.

The watchdog group Texas Freedom Network has worked for years to oppose efforts to teach religious alternatives to evolution in public schools. Its president, Kathy Miller said in a statement that Perry’s remarks were “irresponsible” and could have dangerous consequences:

Gov. Perry has once again waded into the culture wars for political gain, but without considering the harmful consequences. It is irresponsible for the leader of a state, or a presidential hopeful, to suggest to public school teachers that it is OK to teach creationism as science when such attempts have repeatedly been ruled unconstitutional by the courts, and could result in litigation against a school district.

It was the second day in a row Perry’s been pressed on his beliefs about science — Wednesday he denied not only that humans have caused global climate change, but that the climate was changing at all.

Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman took in some more moderate GOP traffic when he tweeted his belief in both evolution and global warming Thursday.

From John Horgan in Scientific American:

Two sources at the Science Times section of the New York Times have told me that a majority of the section’s editorial staff doubts that human-induced global warming represents a serious threat to humanity.

Environmental advocates have long bemoaned the “on the one hand, on the other hand” journalistic approach that lends equal credence to scientific consensus and global warming denials. But even the bemoaners probably didn’t suspect the Times’ true bias.

But then I reviewed the photos I took at the hearing. Turns out Chu may have been a bit baffled after all:

The move, long sought by scientists and patient advocates and opposed by religious groups, would enable the National Institutes of Health to consider requests from scientists to study hundreds of lines of cells that have been developed since the limitations were put in place — lines that scientists and patient advocate say hold great hope for leading to cures for a host of major ailments. [...]

President Bush imposed the restriction on Aug. 9, 2001, limiting federal funding to studies of what turned out to be 21 cell lines that were already in existence as of that date to prevent tax dollars from encouraging the destruction of more embryos.

This is the low-hanging fruit.

From Bloomberg:

The pledges, made orally or in writing, are viewed by advocates as buttressing federally funded education programs that say avoiding pre-marital sex rather than using protection will curb pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. President George W. Bush’s administration more than doubled the budget for abstinence-only education programs since 1999 to $204 million this fiscal year. More than a dozen states have rejected federal money rather than limit what is taught.

“The results suggest that the virginity pledge does not change sexual behavior,” wrote author Janet Rosenbaum, a postdoctoral fellow in the department of population, family and reproductive health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “Clinicians should provide birth control information to all adolescents, especially abstinence-only sex education participants.”

A 2007 congressional study (PDF) found that abstinence-only programs have “no impacts on rates of sexual abstinence,” and students who participate in them become sexually active at the same age and have as many partners as students who participate in more comprehensive sex-ed programs. With Democrats set to control the presidency and both houses of Congress, these studies should spell the end for abstinence-only education.

Ironically, that could be good news for conservatives who are honest about their desire to decrease the number of abortions and curb the spread of sexually-transmitted diseases.

After President-elect Barack Obama fills out his cabinet appointments, he will turn to appointing new leadership for the government agencies with the power to regulate industry—a process that will likely bring an end to what has become known as the Bush administration’s “war on science.”

President Bush’s appointees at environmental and health regulatory agencies have let ideology trump scientific and statistical analysis, critics allege. His picks for top posts at the Environmental Protection Agency, the Office of the Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration have faced a steady stream of complaints from Democrats, public interest groups and scientists themselves.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Obama has signaled throughout the campaign season and during the transition that he plans to break from the Bush mold. In appointing Steven Chu, head of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as energy secretary on Monday, Obama said, “His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science, we will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that the facts demand bold action.”

In response to a series of question from a grassroots organization called ScienceDebate2008, Obama, the presidential candidate, vowed to “restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.”

The group, whose members included Chu, is dedicated to raising awareness of science and technology policy issues.

Obama’s emphasis is understandable Examples of unscientific decision-making over the last eight years have not been hard to find.

EPA has lost several lawsuits because it has poorly controlled mercury, smog and other pollutants and refused to regulate emissions that contribute to global warming. Stephen Johnson, Bush’s third EPA chief, has ignored EPA scientists and, last year, he blocked California from enacting its own greenhouse gas motor vehicle emission standards. The state has sued EPA in federal court.

In 2007, the White House came under fire for editing a CDC report on the effect global warming would have on public health.

James Holsinger, Bush’s second-term nominee to become surgeon general, was blocked by the Senate because of a position paper he wrote for the United Methodist Church that he wrote arguing that male homosexuality was unnatural and unhealthy. “When the complementarity of the sexes is breached,” he wrote in 1990 “injuries and diseases may occur.”

Democrats have criticized the FDA under Bush for everything from salmonella outbreaks to lack of oversight of drug companies. Earlier this year, when FDA officials told Congress that Bush’s budget was sufficient even though Democrats were offering more money, House Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) let FDA chief Andrew von Eschenbach have it.

“[Y]ou’re not the first fella I’ve had to skin for not doing his job and coming up here and defending an indefensible situation,” Dingell said. “I want to maintain my respect for you but I can’t maintain my respect for you if you keep toe dancing around the hard facts that curse you with the inability to do your job because you don’t have resources.”

So far among the science-oriented agencies, only a new EPA administrator has been chosen. On Monday, Obama announced he’d like the job to go to Lisa Jackson, chief of staff for New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine and the state’s former top environmental official.

Jackson and the rest of Obama’s environmental team won wide praise among scientists and liberal bloggers for the pick.

“Today’s appointments suggest a new dawn for America’s role as a leader in research and innovation to address the world’s great challenges,” wrote Shawn Lawrence Otto, the CEO of ScienceDebate2008, a grassroots group that tried to inject discussion of science policy in the election. “We were founded by scientist-statesmen, their voice is what has always made us great, and frankly, it’s good to see it back in the policy process,” he wrote.

Some advocates want Obama to elevate his science advisor, the appointee who will head the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, to cabinet rank much like the national security advisor. In past administrations, this position has gone to physicists, and whether Obama departs from that mold remains to be seen.

“Having that person at place at the table will signal to the public that science is back in the process rather than sidelined and that’s been a theme that Obama has sounded during the campaign,” Mary Woolley, the president of Research America, a research advocacy group, said.

Centers for Disease Control
The Washington Post reported last month that Obama is unlikely to keep Julie Gerberding, the embattled CDC chief. Several names have been floated to take Gerberding’s place.

They include Jeffrey Koplan, a member of Obama’s transition team charged with reviewing the Department of Health and Human Services; Bill Corr, the executive director of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids; and Nicole Lurie, a public health expert at the RAND Corporation. Corr has worked on Capitol Hill and served as chief of staff at HHS. Lurie served as the deputy assistant secretary for health at HHS from 1998 to 2001.

For science advocates, the most important criterion for the next CDC chief is that he or she restore intellectual rigor to the policy-making process and insert the agency into the administration’s internal debates about how to combat climate change.

“We need CDC to become engaged in the federal climate science program,” said Rick Piltz, the founder of Climate Science Watch. “They’ve never been a player as it pertains to how public health is affected by climate change. [CDC needs] a focused program of research and assessment.”

Food and Drug Administration

Last week, a leading House Democrat encouraged Obama to clean house at the FDA.

“The current FDA senior management blocked clinical trials, drove dedicated medical professionals out of the agency, and lined their pockets with outrageous bonuses,” Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) wrote to Obama last week. “A new Commissioner or Interim Commissioner must bring the Agency back to the forefront of science, integrity, and transparency.”

During the campaign, Obama vowed to allow the FDA to regulate tobacco. Giving the FDA new authority to regulate tobacco would vastly expand its power. While Stupak severely criticized Bush’s FDA chief, von Eschenbach, a spokesman from Stupak’s office said he had not pressed Obama to nominate anyone in particular.

The candidate’s FDA administrators, according to news reports, include Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steve Nissen and Joshua Sharfstein, the chief of Baltimore’s publichealth department.

Another possibility is Harold Varmus, the former National Institute of Health director and a Nobel Prize winner. He is now the CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York City and a member of the Obama transition team.

The biggest challenge for the next FDA administrator “is regaining the public’s trust,” said Rick Weiss, a former Washington Post science reporter who is now with the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. Weiss says that FDA has lost the public’s confidence during the past several years after drug related scandals and food safety crises.

One avenue Obama could take, Wisee suggested, is to depart from the tradition that the FDA chief is a medical doctor.

“Obama could break that mold with someone who doesn’t have a conventional background that might be more relevant to the modern FDA,” Weiss said, adding that a candidate might have expertise in the law or food safety issues.

Surgeon General

The surgeon general spot is rife with potential for missteps. President Ronald Reagan’s appointee, C. Everett Koop, was controversial among liberals at first for his views on homosexuality but eventually won their grudging respect and alienated some on the right for waging war on HIV-AIDS and smoking. President Bill Clinton appointed Joycelyn Elders, whose off-hand comment about masturbation drew heaps of criticism from Capitol Hill and forced her resignation.

Under the Bush administration, the surgeon general has been relegated to a bit player in public health debates, especially in Bush’s second term. Not only does the office not have a permanent occupant, but former Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a heart surgeon by training, became the White House’s chief health advisor.

The office can elevate its stature in an Obama administration depending on who is appointed to the job, but Woolley would like to see more resources directed to the nation’s top doctor.

“The new surgeon general [should be] equipped with a real office rather than just an assistant or two and an office [to have a] bigger impact,” she said.

In an interview with Fox Sports, Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s incoming chief of staff, joked about naming Dr. J, the basketball star Julius Erving, as surgeon general. Obama is more likely to consider the Emanuel household for a highly qualified candidate for one of the government’s public health posts.

Emmanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, one of the nation’s leading bio-ethicists, is an oft-mentioned candidate for a presidential appointment.

Another possibility is that a “Friend of Barack”, or FOB, could end up as the nation’s next surgeon general. Eric Whitaker was a graduate student at Harvard’s public health school when Obama attended the law school. Whitaker became the chief of the Illinois Department of Public Health and worked at the University of Chicago’s Hospital with Michelle Obama.

So far, Whitaker has let it be known that he wants to serve in the administration, but not just yet.

Another Chicagoan under consideration, according to the Chicago Tribune is, Dr. Gail Rosseau, Rosseau is chief of surgery at the Neurologic and Orthopedic Institute of Chicago and an assistant professor of neurosurgery at Rush University Medical Center.

Obama has plenty of allies in the scientific community, but political appointments requiring a background in science and medicine are among the toughest to fill.

“Among the biggest burdens with appointments in these fields are federal salaries. Many scientists are not personally wealthy and have to take pay cuts to work in government,” Cal Mackenzie, a political scientist at Colby College who is an expert in the appointment process, said.

Scientists are also less likely to go to Washington because of “the risk or fear of falling behind as basic science moves steadily forward,” he said.

But because these agencies have been under political and budgetary constraints for the past eight years, Mackenzie also said that the chance to turn the agencies around and be a part of the Obama administration could attract enough competent candidates to provide Obama with a choice.

On Monday, the governors of Alabama, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana and Rhode Island received these letters. All laboratory tests of the powder, which some feared would be anthrax or another biological or chemical agent, came back negative.

Over the course of the week, more states reported similar letters. Yesterday, another TWI affiliate, The New Mexico Independent reported that more than a dozen people who were exposed to the powder at Gov. Bill Richardson’s office were rushed to the hospital and quarantined until scientists determined today that the substance was harmless.

The report from Iowa brings the total number of states receiving these letters to 32.

A Chinese-American, Chu is a professor of physics and molecular and cell biology at the University of California-Berkeley and has been the director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory since 2004, where he has pushed aggressively for research into alternative energy as a way to combat global warming.

It is the oldest of the Energy Department’s national laboratories, but does only unclassified work and in recent years under Chu has been at the center of research into biofuels and solar technologies. Chu has been a strong advocate for the need to engage scientists in the search for ways to combat global warming by replacing fossil fuels with other energy sources such as biofuels and the sun.

If confirmed, Chu would be the second academic Obama has tapped from UC Berkeley, after Christina D. Romer, an economics professor picked to head Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers.

The choice would further confirm that Obama is serious about revolutionizing the nation’s energy policy, and he is willing to look outside of Washington to tap the nation’s top experts in their respective fields.

The strategy is not without risks, as being a good scientist does not necessarily make one a good policymaker. However, Chu’s position as the director of a prominent research laboratory suggests he has experience managing a bureaucracy.

Perhaps most important, the move would close the door on yet another tragic hallmark of the Bush era — in the Obama administration, science will direct America’s energy policy, not vice versa.