Mos Eisley by Way of Mojave

In the past decade, there has been a flurry of interest in privately funded spaceflight. The most impressive example is the success of SpaceX, founded in 2002 by entrepreneur Elon Musk. But underneath the shadow of SpaceX’s rockets – which are funded by way of over $1 billion in NASA contracts – exists a whole ecosystem of smaller efforts. The epicenter of this activity is the spaceport in the small town of Mojave, California. It’s often referred to as the “Silicon Valley” of the Space 2.0 or NewSpace movement, a comparison I’ll come back to later.

Screen Shot 2013-03-19 at 3.24.10 PM

“Imagination Flies Here!”

A few weeks ago, I had the chance to visit the Mojave for a tour of its Air and Space Port. This trip was associated with an art exhibit in Riverside called Free Enterprise: The Art of Citizen Space Exploration. Tyler Stallings (UC-Riverside) and Marko Peljhan (UC-Santa Barbara) curated the show which featured and international collection of some 25 artists. (One of favorites is Agnes Meyer-Brandis’s wonderfully fun “Moon Goose Experiment” which I saw last year when I was in Berlin.)


Press release for the UC “Free Enterprise” exhibit

The Mojave Air and Space Port is adjacent to the small Mojave airport which was built in 1935 to service the regions’ gold mining industry. During World War two, a Marine Corps Air Station was located there. The military thread is woven deep into the region with Edwards AFB just a short drive away. The town has a libertarian vibe which causes one some cognitive dissonance given the area’s heavy reliance on federal money. There is also an undercurrent of evangelical Christianity in the town which can be seen in the various signs for churches, ministries, et al..

Screen Shot 2013-03-19 at 1.15.31 PM

One of the cars parked at Mojave Air & Space Port

When we arrived in Mojave, a dry west wind was already starting to pick up. By afternoon, it was blowing steady 25+ mph. So, we started the tour in the shelter provided by the Roton Atmospheric Test Vehicle, a “single stage to orbit” experimental vehicle built in the late 1990s by Rotary Rocket. Although the improbably designed Roton never flew higher than 75 feet, it was the first major NewSpace project at Mojave and it helped catalyze the nascent industry. It’s an odd looking craft visible from a few miles away which helped provide a landmark for people like me trying to find the spaceport. As one person on the tour said, the Roton offered “a good example of when engineering automatically becomes art.”

Screen Shot 2013-03-19 at 3.21.00 PM

Engineering or art? The Roton…

Next to the Roton is a small building that houses a scale model of the Voyager, a super efficient aircraft that flew around the world non-stop in 1986. It hangs above a replica of SpaceShipOne, a smallish craft that completed the first manned private spaceflight in June 2004. First piloted by Michael Melvill, SpaceShipOne flew two more times in 2004 to win the Ansari X-Prize and a $10 million purse1 Both the Voyager and SpaceShipOne were designed by Burt Rutan and his company, Scaled Composites, built them. (Former Microsoft tycoon Paul Allen backed the SpaceShipOne venture with $25 million in funding.) Both craft now hang in the National Air and Space Museum’s main gallery.

Our next stop was a show of NewSpace photos taken by Mike Massee. Massee presented a photographic chronology of space-related activities at Mojave over the last decade or so. He focused his photoshow largely on the work done by XCOR Aerospace which Massee has worked for since 2001. XCOR was started in 1999 as a spin-off from Rotary Rocket. Its main focus now is building the Lynx, a sub-orbital rocketplane which, when operational, can carry a pilot and passenger some 62+ miles to the edge of space.2

Screen Shot 2013-03-19 at 1.15.46 PM

Part of the Lynx test craft

From Massee’s talk, I learned some of the insider lingo at Mojave: engineers are called “rocket plumbers” while an explosion is called a “hard start.” (This can be deadly serious. An explosion in 2007 killed three Scaled Composite employees.)) There was a lot of engineer-speak throughout the talk – Massee was particularly proud of his photos showing the “shock diamonds” produced by XCOR’s rocket engines which have grown in size and power over the past several years. (Lynx will have four engines that each produce 2500 pounds of thrust). The plan is that sometime in the future, flights of the Lynx will take off regularly from a spaceport like Mojave. According to XCOR, some 175 flights have been sold at $95,000 each.

What does it take for the FAA to certify your venue as a spaceport anyway? A 1984 law mandates that U.S. citizens obtain a license prior to conducting a launch. Another law passed 30 years later, established a regulatory framework for commercial human space flight. This law also established an “informed consent” protocol for carrying space flight passengers and created a new experimental launch permit for test and development of reusable suborbital launch vehicles. (( According to the FAA, the rules “require launch vehicle operators to provide safety-related information to passengers and to identify what rules an operator must follow in order to conduct a licensed launch with human passengers.  All space flight passengers must be fully advised, in writing, of the risks associated with human space flight and they must agree to accept those risks. The protocols also include training and general security requirements for space flight participants.”)) Currently, there are eight FAA-certified spaceports in the U.S.. They’re not like Mos Eisley in terms of flight activity although the airport restaurant in Mojave certainly had a fair share of oddball characters gathered for Saturday lunch.


Sign at the entrance with images of Mojave’s most famous flight to date – SpaceShipOne, 2004.

Our last stop was a tour of the XCOR shop at Mojave. The highlight of this was seeing a test of a (very) small rocket engine. Even with just a one-second burn, it produced a deafening sound that made me glad for the ear plugs XCOR staff provided and sent out a wall of heat that reminded me of when I used to visit steel mills in Pittsburgh. Different rocket fuels produce different colors; this one blasted out a jet of blue flame. Nearby the XCOR facility was a local “maker space” akin to a club house where off-duty engineers and technicians were building their own computer numerical controlled machine tool.

Screen Shot 2013-03-25 at 11.55.08 AM

Test burn of an XCOR rocket motor (photo by Nicole Archambeau)

I took away two main impression of the NewSpace effort and the technological ecosystem that has grown up around it. One is that the people engaged in it are not that interested in their history. This is not to say that they don’t care about history – they regularly refer to earlier tests, successful flights, and even some basic historical analogies – opening the frontier, etc.. But they are determinedly focused on the future. A quick conversation with XCOR’s chief test engineer, Doug Jones, made this clear. Jones was well aware of Gerard O’Neill’s space colony ideas and had also been a fan of Eric Drexler’s radical ideas for nanotechnology. He could speak fondly and knowledgeably about both The High Frontier and Engines of Creation. But he didn’t seem interested in framing his own career and his current work in the context of this earlier visioneering. A corollary to this means that NewSpace actors, speaking generally, are not engaged in saving the raw materials that future historians will be able to use to document their work.

The second point has to do with how we might think about the NewSpace enterprise as a whole. It’s become fairly common to try and draw some analogies between Mojave and Silicon Valley, for example.3. In some important ways, the attitudes of the NewSpace community resembles another California business culture, that of Silicon Valley. This is not surprising – several major players in the private space business first made their fortunes in computer and internet based businesses. In addition to Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, Elon Musk (co-founder of PayPal) and Jeff Bezos (founder of started private space firms. In 2002, for instance, Musk launched SpaceX, a California-based company which hopes to make regular trips to outer space with its series of Falcon rockets. The NewSpace movement, therefore, straddles the classic California divide between NorCal (Silicon Valley) and SoCal (the aerospace industry).

The business connections NewSpace entrepreneurs made over the years allowed them to tap into an established network of venture capitalists and “angel investors.” These networks are reflected in other ways as well. Elon Musk, CEO of a NewSpace company called SpaceX, and Larry Page, one of Google’s co-founders, sit on the board of directors for the X-Prize Foundation. The extensive media attention that SpaceShipOne received also helped facilitate fund-raising, acting as a “Matthew Effect” for private space exploration. Since the success of SpaceShipOne, various observers of NewSpace have drawn attention to the Mojave region as the locus of a new entrepreneurial spirit and concomitant business opportunities. One could arguably make the case that Michael Melvill’s brief flights over the California desert constituted a “Netscape moment” for the private space industry.

But it would be disingenuous to claim that the isolated town of Mojave, marooned in rural California, is anywhere close to an industrial, financial, and academic “city of knowledge” like Silicon Valley with its universities, government labs, and multi-billion dollar companies. Although Mojave has no multinational firms nor major universities, the region exhibits some of the basic conditions necessary for promoting a space-friendly high-tech region. This includes available land for building, restricted airspace for testing, good flying weather, isolation which maximizes secrecy as well as safety as well as established technology-oriented entities like Edwards Air Force Base and the China Lake Naval Weapons Center.  Perhaps, more importantly, is the history of both Silicon Valley and the Antelope Valley where narratives of previous eras and founding figures is conducive to mythmaking. Just as Silicon Valley’s “creation story” rests on the accomplishments of heroic inventors (Hewlett and Packard, Moore and Noyce, Brin and Page), the deserts of southern California have been a similar place of birth, experiment, and regeneration for the aerospace industry.

Screen Shot 2013-03-19 at 3.38.48 PMIn the end, I am inclined to not see contemporary Silicon Valley as the best analog to understanding Mojave as it exists today. Instead, as I walked around the town and peeked in the various work spaces, I was reminded of something much older. I thought of the small Midwestern shops where people like Ransom Olds, James Packard, and the Stanley Brothers experimented with early automobile designs on the cusp of the Gilded Age. This comparison seem most apropos to understanding the Mojave scene. Some of these efforts succeeded; others flopped. For every SpaceShipOne, there is a Roton. But the smell of oil and feel of fine metallic grit pervaded both the small-scale shops of the late 19th century as well as those clustered around today’s embryonic spaceports.

Perhaps this parallel shouldn’t surprise us. The early automobilists and the rocket engineers at Mojave today are both geared toward creating a new form of transportation. It took years, if not decades, before the automobile became more than an unreliable toy for the wealthy. How long will it take for companies at Mojave to rocket us into the future?


  1. The last flight was piloted by Brian Binnie; I learned this fact on the tour which caused me some grief as I thought Melvill, as described in The Visioneers, piloted all three trips. I’ll fix this error when the next edition comes out. []
  2. XCOR moved its headquarters and major R&D to Midland, Texas in 2012 in response to some cushy tax breaks from Gov. Rick Perry. []
  3. I recently published an essay that explores this further called “From L5 to X Prize.” []

Technological Bi-Partisanship

Screen Shot 2013-03-14 at 2.36.32 PM

There has been a lot of debate and media coverage lately about the potential use of drones to surveil – perhaps even to kill – American citizens located on U.S. territory. The highlight of this was Sen. Rand Paul’s 13 hour filibuster on March 6. Ostensibly, Rand’s speech was to oppose the nomination of John Brennan as the new head of the CIA. He started his “filiblizzard” by stating “that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.”

Screen Shot 2013-03-14 at 2.37.54 PM

Rand Paul, looking a little peaked after 12 hours on the House floor

But Rand’s “dumb publicity stunt” (as labeled by a scholar at the Brookings Institution) received some interesting coverage not just for what the senator said but also for the reaction it prompted from both the left-wing and right-wing. As one New York Times headline described it, the current debate over drones “scrambles politics both left and right.” The images Sen. Paul put forth of drones hovering over American backyards and city streets armed and legally permitted to either spy or kill touched nerves across the political spectrum. (However, the legality as well as potential blowback for drone killings in general were not explored nearly enough) “How soon are we going to have drones overhead with tasers on them,” asked the Florida-based owner of the right-wing Whether one is a civil libertarian or a Tea Partier, images of this possible future stirred fears of governmental overreach and the menace of an unrestrained government. Over on the right, the Times reported, “defenders of the Constitution” welcomed Paul to their “less-is-better government club” while members of Code Pink sent Rand a liberal helping of flowers and chocolate.

This rare and probably short-lived confluence of political agreement made me wonder about other examples of particular technologies eliciting some political agreement from both sides of aisle…

Short for “transitional human,” the word transhuman was suggested decades earlier by Julian Huxley, a British evolutionary biologist and brother of Brave New World’s author, to reflect what would happen when humanity as a whole decided to “transcend itself” through the “zestful but scientific exploration of possibilities.”1 An essential idea among transhumanists is that new technologies might enable individuals to augment their physical and mental powers and thereby transcend inherent biological limitations. As one early advocate told a journalist in the early 1990s, “I enjoy being human but I am not content.”2

Over the next several decades, the valence of the term shifted. A key difference was that a Bernal or a Huxley imagined transformations occurring throughout society or even the entire human species. In contrast, the new transhumanism favored improving the individual via mind and body enhancement (and maintaining a legal right to do so). By the late 1990s, some transhumanists began to embrace a radical unifying concept called the “Singularity.” Its proponents gathered together a wide range of technological ideas – space exploration, nanotechnologies, life extension, artificial intelligence, biological enhancement – into a broader vision for the technological future.

Liberal as well as conservative critics of transhumanism have spoken out against it. Jonathan Moreno examines this in his recent book The Body Politic. Moreno quotes three scholars from the left who argue that the new posthumans will view the old models – that’s us – as “inferior, even savages, and fit for slavery or slaughter.” As a result, transhumanism will open the door to a “genocide that makes species-altering experiments” serve as “potential weapons of mass destruction.”3

Over on the right, as I described in The Visioneers, political philosopher Francis Fukuyama claimed that human enhancement technologies posed a grave threat to democracy – he called it, in one forum, “the world’s most dangerous idea” – while conservative bioethicist Leon Kass warned that “human nature itself lies on the operating table.”4 In response to Fukuyama as well as leftist critics, libertarian writer Ronald Bailey responded by saying “bring on those genetic bulldozers and psychotropic shopping malls to help people live healthier, smarter, and happier lives.”

Screen Shot 2013-03-14 at 2.58.32 PM

Transhumanism as depicted by Time, 2011

I guess the happy news is that much of the technologies central to transhumanism don’t exist yet. This stands in stark contrast to drone technology. However, what’s interesting in both cases is the centrality of democracy and equality. Opponents of transhumanism claim that it will eliminate equality or, as Fukuyama says, “what rights will these enhanced creatures claim and what rights will they possess when compared to those left behind?” The use of the term “left behind” is curious and I couldn’t help but wonder if this might be a reference to the “Left Behind” novels by Tim LeHaye and Jerry Jenkins that are so popular with evangelical Christians. Of course, one can always rebut Fukuyama by asking about the state and distribution of equality in today’s pre-posthumanist world. Hmmm…not looking so good. By the same token, we certainly haven’t needed transhumanism as an excuse or a goad to annihilate tens of millions of our fellow unaltered humans (who presumably were seen as inferior too) in the past century alone. But, as with these left/right critiques of transhumanism, debates about drones revolve around questions of legality, equality, and democracy as well as the potential they have reaping death.

The bipartisan coalescence of support against drones also reminded me of the ways in which the political left and right came together c. 1980 around a different technological issue. Instead of standing together in opposition, however, a small coalition of lefties, libertarians, and conservatives stood together to support an enhanced program of human space exploration coupled later on with calls for the militarization of space.

Stirred by Gerard O’Neill’s ideas for the humanization of space” and his depictions of space colonies free-floating in the inky blackness of space, devotees of O’Neill started the L5 Society in 1975. The name came from O’Neill’s proposal to put a space colony at one of Lagrangian points where gravitational forces are balanced so that objects there remain in relatively stable positions. L5’s membership was relatively small, never more than 10,000 people or so. But it was a vocal – at times argumentative and prone to internal disagreements – group with a strong California-based membership bolstered by local chapters in the Bay Area, San Diego, and Los Angeles. “L5 in ‘95” was an unofficial slogan the group adopted to express its determination to settle space and end their group with a mass disbanding in orbit.

L5 members weren’t shy about getting involved in the political process. During its eleven year existence, L5 members debated a range of space-related topics including lunar mining, space colonies, missions to Mars, and the Strategic Defense Initiative. The group played a role, for instance, in defeating U.S. senate support for the Moon Treaty in 1980.5

Screen Shot 2013-03-14 at 2.44.04 PMThe pro-space movement produced unusual political bedfellows. For example, Republican politician Newt Gingrich displayed considerable support for space, especially its private business opportunities, as did libertarian outlets like Reason magazine. One sign of the pro-space movement’s struggle over its agenda can be seen in a report put together in advance of Reagan’s 1981 inauguration by the “Citizens Advisory Council on National Space Policy.” This informal group, led by science-fiction writer Jerry Pournelle who served on L5’s board of directors, first met in Tarzana, just outside Los Angeles. It eventually assembled a membership that defied traditional political boundaries – Freeman Dyson (Princeton physicist), Barbara Marx Hubbard (spiritualist and futurist), and Larry Niven (science fiction writer) were on the membership list with former astronaut Walter Schiarra and Lowell Wood (physicist, Edward Teller protégé, and Star Wars advocate). The committee’s report advocated a “vigorous space program” that combined exploitation of space-based resources with entrepreneurial activities in space and space-based weaponry.6

Screen Shot 2013-03-14 at 2.51.42 PM

Article by liberal author/educator John Holt reprinted in the L5 News

Pournelle’s enthusiasm for military and corporate-backed space ventures was resisted by some left-leaning space enthusiasts and L5 members who still supported the original idea of communal space settlements and space-based solar power. Many other space buffs supported the Reagan space agenda in the hopes that military activities might jumpstart more peaceful citizen initiatives, much in the same way that 19th century military forts preceded civilian settlements.

Screen Shot 2013-03-14 at 2.43.41 PM

Image from 1979 L5 News article

These disputes presaged 1990s-era debates about Silicon Valley’s cyberculture and its libertarian leanings when left and right wing writers and political leaders united briefly in support of the electronic frontier’s new opportunities.7 Like space commercialization in the 1980s, enthusiasm for the internet and the World Wide Web a decade later was tinged with similar utopian and libertarian aspirations as well as hopes for profits. Social critics once described the internet and dot-com inspired “California Ideology” as “promiscuously combin[ing] the free-wheeling spirit of the hippies and the entrepreneurial zeal of the yuppies…a profound faith in the emancipatory potential of the new information technologies. In the digital utopia, everybody will be both hip and rich.”8 Where else but in the go-go years Clinton years would you find ex-hippies like Stewart Brand and Timothy Leary sharing bandwidth with Kevin Kelly, Esther Dyson, Newt Gingrich and George Gilder?

What’s interesting in all of these cases is that the discussion and debates didn’t break along traditional party lines. When the smoke and fog from Rand’s filibuster had dissipated, Sen. John McCain dismissed him as just one of the “wacko birds of the right and left that get the media microphone.” I’m curious to see how the drone debate continues and whether any sort of coalition forms around the issue. Perhaps this is all just a flash in the Rand…er, pan. Or maybe we’ll see more cases where a shared political nest is built by other wacko birds.

  1. Julian Huxley, Religion without Revelation. 1967 ed. (London: Harper & Brothers, 1927).195. []
  2. Ed Regis. “Meet the Extropians.Wired, October, 1994 []
  3. G. Annas, L. Andrews, and R. Isasi, “Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations.” American Journal of Law and Medicine 28: 2&3, 2002: 162. []
  4. Francis Fukuyama, Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution (New York: Farrar, Strauss & Giroux, 2002); Leon Kass. “Preventing a Brave New World: Why We Should Ban Human Cloning Now.” The New Republic, May 21, 2001, 30-39. []
  5. The United Nation’s plan declared that “the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind” and claimed that “neither the surface nor the subsurface of the moon, nor any part thereof or natural resources in place, shall become property of any State, international intergovernmental or non- governmental organization, national organization or non-governmental entity or of any natural person.” From the “Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies.” These phrases struck some private space development enthusiasts possibly preventing opportunities for private space manufacturing and settlement. []
  6. Pournelle later claimed that this group’s activities helped catalyze Reagan’s SDI initiative; see Andrew J. Butrica, Single Stage to Orbit: Politics, Space Technology, and the Quest for Reusable Rocketry (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003). []
  7. My thanks to Peter Westwick for stimulating discussions about places in which the left and right coalesced around particular technologies. Peter also kindly shared a paper he presented at a conference on Envisioning Limits that we attended together last year in Berlin. Titled “From the Club of Rome to Star Wars: The era of limits, space colonization, and the origins of SDI,” Peter’s paper digs deep into some of the left-right space connections I glossed over here []
  8. Richard Barbrook and Andy Cameron, “The California Ideology,” Science as Culture, 1996, 6, 6: 44-72. []

Making Connections

Screen Shot 2013-03-08 at 3.49.43 PM

Recently, I’ve been interested in the announced plans to have a major federally-funded initiative to map the “active brain” (otherwise known as the Brain Activity Map or BAM Project). I’ve been especially intrigued about points of contact and comparison between the BAM project and other recent big-technoscience efforts like the Apollo program and the Human Genome Project. With regards to the BAM Project, one advocate states “We are trying to learn from the Human Genome Project, the mistakes they made.”1

With that in mind, this recent article in Nature caught my eye. It gives a behind the scenes view of the “brain-mapping moon shot” (Nature’s title kindly made the link between two techno-programs for me here) by focusing on the role of Tom Kalil, deputy director for policy at the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).2

According to Nature, the idea for the BAM project originated in September 2011 at a meeting in the UK that Miyoung Chun, a vice-president of science programs at the Kavli Foundation, helped convene. Chun and Kalil had already been in touch about a big neuro-focused project. Kalil and other OSTP officials encouraged Chun and her colleagues to “think bigger” which helped lead to the BAM Project’s ambitious goals to map the active brains of various organisms including, perhaps one day, us humans. It certainly opens up interesting questions about the nature of the mind.

(It also led to speculations by a few folks that this might be the Obama administration’s first steps toward mind control…but let’s leave that nugget pass us by just for now…)

But what caught my attention most about Kalil’s role in helping spur the BAM Project was that this was not the first large scale federal technology initiative he helped midwife. In the late 1990s, officials from the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies met with Kalil to discuss a possible national initiative in nanotechnology. Kalil had previously worked as a trade specialist for Dewey Ballantine, a now-defunct “white shoe” law firm that counted the semiconductor industry among its clients. Kalil (he majored in political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison where his father is – yes – a neuroscientist) understood the needs of companies connected with information technologies and their interest in future technologies.  After moving to his White House post, one of major initiatives he worked on was the Next Generation Internet which aimed to improve business and citizen access to information technologies.Screen Shot 2013-03-08 at 3.20.05 PM

Kalil recognized that nanotechnology, like the Internet, could create jobs and benefit the overall U.S. economy.3  Kalil also knew that funding for biomedical research had soared throughout the 1990s while support for research in the physical sciences had stagnated. A national nanotechnology program presented an opportunity to redirect money into areas of research that were less well-funded. Finally, Kalil, whose college degree was in political science, saw nanotechnology as the “first critical technology after World War Two where the United States did not start out with a clear advantage.” Global leadership in nanotechnology, he told me in 2006, “was up for grabs.” As Roco’s plans began to take shape, Kalil solicited letters of support from semiconductor manufacturers, the only major industry group that lobbied directly for the National Nanotechnology Initiative.

As speechwriters worked on President Clinton’s final State of the Union address in 2000, for example, Kalil recalled they kept removing references to nanotechnology but the president kept reinserting it. On 21 January 2000, President Clinton gave a major speech on federal technology policy at Caltech’s Beckman Auditorium. What would happen, Clinton asked, if “we could arrange the atoms one by one the way we want them?” Consider the possibilities, he said, of “materials with 10 times the strength of steel and only a fraction of the weight” or “shrinking all the information at the Library of Congress into a device the size of a sugar cube.” Similar imagery appeared in his State of the Union address a week later. To make these and other technologies happen, Clinton asked Congress for $3 billion dollars that would help build a path to “the next industrial revolution.”4 This opened the door to what now amount to about an $18 billion national nano program.

At the end of the Nature article, Ron Kalil reflected on what his son told him he did at OSTP. “His answer was simple: ‘I’m the make-it-happen guy.’” Twice, Tom Kalil helped shepherd large government technology initiatives into existence. He’s apparently trying for the hat trick.

As a historian of science and technology, what’s really interesting to me are the connections between things like the Apollo program, the Human Genome Project, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, the Next Generation Internet, and now the Brain Activity Mapping Project. This isn’t just the personal connections exemplified and fostered by people like Kalil. I’m also quite curious and intrigued by the larger linkages between these massive federal initiatives. How do they build on one another or use past experiences as templates for future action? Is there a typology of such initiatives? Do they foster that much sought after yet barely graspable grail of interdisciplinarity? What can we see about the private-public interactions inherent in such efforts? And – perhaps most germane to the topic – do these efforts establish “neural pathways” between various government agencies and the mid-level science managers who work there that leads to new projects and bigger dreams?

Just so long as I don’t need to wear an aluminum hat to keep my dreams from being read…

  1. Statement in the Nature piece by Rafael Yuste, a biologist at Columbia University in New York and co-director of the Kavli Institute for Brain Science. []
  2. Disclaimer: I know Kalil somewhat…I interviewed him years ago for a research project and he served on the national advisory board of UCSB’s Center for Nanotechnology in Society which I’m involved with. []
  3. The NSF’s Mike Roco, for instance, frequently cited studies suggesting nanotechnology could be a $1 trillion annual market, the realization of which would require some “2 million nanotechnology workers.” From M.C. Roco. “Government Nanotechnology Funding: An International Outlook.” JOM, September 2002: 22-23. []
  4. William J. Clinton; January 21, 2000 speech; John Markoff. “A Clinton Initiative in a Science of Smallness.” New York Times, January 21, 2000, 2000, C5. []