The art and science of advising Obama: Aide discusses priorities, principles, pitfalls

What does it actually mean to be the presidential science adviser?

The president's science adviser has the responsibility of making sure the president gets the advice about scientif ic and technological matters that bears on policy matters on his plate, and that's a very broad terrain. It includes the relation of science and technology to economic recovery and growth, the relation of science and technology to our challenges in public health and biomedicine, national security, homeland security, energy, climate change, other environmental issues, the space program. . . . I typically see him a couple times a week.

What kinds of questions does he ask?

Penetrating. He's a great president to work with because he's both engaged and fully capable of dealing with the complexity he's confronted with.

You've always been an advocate for forceful action on climate change. Do you have to navigate a line between being an advocate and presenting scientific information as you work to translate science into policy?

I always think I've been an analyst first and an advocate of particular policies second, and I like to think my advocacy of particular policies has been based on an understanding of what the analysis implies. Obviously, when one is in the government serving in a policy capacity, you need to take pains to distinguish your portrayal of what the facts are and your preference for what the policy should be.

A cap-and-trade system that requires companies to pay for the right to emit greenhouse gases is likely to increase prices for businesses and consumers. How is the Obama administration balancing environmental goals with the current economic realities?

Number one, the approach to dealing with the clean energy climate challenge is one that is going to bring benefits as well as costs. There are going to be new jobs created, investments and profits made in deploying the energy options that are going to deliver the goods and services people want without wrecking the climate. As in any transition, technological or otherwise, there will be some sectors in which jobs will be lost and other sectors in which jobs will be gained. The president takes the position - and I agree with him - that in the long run, the economy will be stronger for dealing with this set of challenges rather than not dealing with them.

The stimulus research investment was a one-time injection of money, and scientists are concerned about what will happen after that money is gone. Are there plans to follow that up with greater investment in research?

We share the concern. You want to avoid a boom and bust in funding for science and technology. There are a number of ways to do that - one of them is to invest a substantial part of the stimulus money in facilities and equipment whose benefits extend beyond the period in which the money goes out the door. Another approach is to spend some of it in grants that can be used over longer periods than in which the money is committed. And another, of course, is to try to ramp up the budgets over time in the various agencies. . . . It's a big challenge.

What concrete steps could or should be taken to encourage young people to pursue science and engineering?

Clearly, using the podium of the presidency and other opportunities to reach out and talk about the challenges and the excitement in science, engineering, and math is an important part of the effort. But I think the most important part is improving the teaching that we do. All you can do to initially inspire [young people] with how interesting and exciting science can be and how big the challenges are and how important it is we can get them right - all that will amount to nothing if you don't have teachers who help convince the kids they can succeed, that this is interesting and fun and exciting.

Carolyn Y. Johnson can be reached at cjohnson@globe.com.