> Letter From The Editor
> Philipp Steger

> Genetically Modified Organisms: The Transatlantic Conflict Is Picking Up Speed
> Stephan Neuhäuser

> Where Change Is The Only Constant. Europe’s Response To Biotechnology Will Be Critical.
> Donal Nugent

> The Politics Of Energy
> Sylvia Pilz and Himangi Zanpure-Sattler

> Hydrogen – The Ultimate Freedom Fuel?
> Stephan Neuhäuser

> Preventing Or Curing Climate Change?
> Thomas Loerting

> Public Education Reform, Governance And The Daunting Task Of Leaving No Child Behind
> Jutta Kern

> Celebrating The 60th Anniversary Of The Los Alamos National Laboratory
> Achim Seifter

> AAAS From The Inside
> Sabine Herlitschka

> Editorial Information

		printerfriendly version (pdf)

Welcome to the 2nd English-language edition of “Voices on U.S. Science & Technology (S&T) Policy”. As evidenced by the wide range of topics that our authors wrote about in the May edition of “Voices”, we look at S&T policy in the broadest sense of the term.

Therefore, the articles you’ll find in this publication go beyond the immediate concerns of S&T policymakers and look not only at the issues that are strongly shaped and influenced by new technologies, new scientific findings and overall innovation, but also at the framework under which S&T either flourishes or withers.

Stephan Neuhäuser’s article about the different approaches and attitudes towards genetically modified organisms (GMO) in the U.S. and the EU is an example of how new technologies – in this case, the various applications of biotechnology – raise a whole new series of questions that need to be addressed by policymakers, hopefully while relying on the advice of scientists. The very recent failure of talks between the U.S. and the EU on opening Europe to GMOs shows how deep the divide over this issue is threatening to become. Donal Nugent, an Irish science journalist, takes a look at some of the more mind-boggling products of biotechnology.

Jutta Kern’s article provides a general overview of what is, without doubt, one of the most relevant frameworks out of which the S&T enterprise draws its continuing strength: the American education system and the current administration’s efforts at reform. Talking to European educators, be it on the level of primary or secondary education, one cannot fail to notice certain misconceptions and a certain lack of knowledge about the general lay-out of the U.S. educational system – this article aims at addressing this perceived deficit.

Environmental policy is the area that will likely be most influenced by the availability of both good science and new technologies. Sylvia Pilz and Himangi Zanpure-Sattler provide a very informative outline of the environmental policy issues that are currently at stake in the U.S. in what is the first in a series of articles about how the U.S. deals with the various environmental challenges. This article is complemented by an analysis of the President’s “Hydrogen Initiative”. With this new initiative, the Bush administration is laying the foundation for an innovation process, the consequences of which will likely be irreversible for a long time given the long cycles the implementation of major innovations, especially in the transportation and energy sector, require.

Achim Seifter, an Austrian scientist working at Los Alamos has also contributed to this edition of “Voices” with an article about this famous laboratory, which as the institution at the center of the “Manhattan Project,” has for better or worse shaped the history of 20th century science.

Last, but not least, Sabine Herlitschka’s contribution about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) LINK aims at informing our European audience about this truly outstanding organization. Let’s hope that this is one more step to creating an organization that is similarly beneficial to the advancement of science in Europe.

		printerfriendly version (pdf)

On May 13, 2003 the United States finally filed the long awaited suit at the World Trade Organization (WTO) to force the European Union to lift its “moratorium on the approval of biotech products.” The term “biotech products” refers to genetically engineered (GE) food and crops also known by the more general term “genetically modified organisms” (GMOs); the most common being GE-corn (maize) and soybean. “The approvals moratorium has restricted imports of agricultural and food products from the United States.” says the U.S. administration. At the outset of the looming trade dispute that will quite likely involve numerous scientists testifying as experts for either side, it makes sense to take a look at the different viewpoints on both sides of the Atlantic.

		printerfriendly version (pdf)

For the Spanish conquistadores who encountered the flourishing civilizations of Mexico in the 16th century, the diet of these new peoples was a source of some wonder. Corn (maize), in particular, they noted was held in the highest regard. Ironically for a crop that had its own god, this food is almost entirely the product of human ingenuity. From humble weedy relatives, centuries of selective breeding have created these powerful stalks crowned with golden cobs. The modification of genes has been a human endeavor since the birth of civilization but, as the ancient Mexicans knew, nature likes to take its time. Today, even at its most advanced, conventional agronomy needs between 10 to 12 years to generate a new crop variety. This is because plants need to be back-crossed, that is bred with distant relatives, to ensure unwanted genes are eliminated while retaining the desired trait. Biotechnology, as a process that facilitates the transfer of individual genes, bypasses this process and allows for the direct incorporation of traits. This is the source of both its promise and its controversy.

To date, the most commercially successful genetically modified varieties of crops have had genes added that make them either disease resistant or herbicide tolerant. There is a good reason for this. The need to commercialize crops that bring significant financial returns is a matter of business expediency, given the enormous costs and rigorous regulatory procedures involved. On-going research in universities and industry around the world points to an array of novel applications for biotechnology which will certainly impact further the food we eat but which will also bring even more dramatic developments in diverse applications from biofuels, plastics and pharmaceuticals.

Jurassic Park – Not Yet Open For Business

While the best-known biotech engineered crops are soy and corn, disease resistant or herbicide tolerant varieties of most major fruits and vegetables have also been developed. For a variety of reasons, mostly to do with consumer acceptance, the majority has yet to be commercialized. One notable exception, however, points to the future potential of the technology. The dream of resuscitating extinct species may still be the stuff of Spielberg, but a more practical success can be claimed with the resuscitation of the ailing Papaya industry in Hawaii. Papaya Ringspot Virus had put the industry into a serious long-term decline until disease resistant varieties, developed using biotechnology, were introduced in the late 90s. Europe obviously places a high value on its food security and should crops (or animals) succumb to diseases, which cannot be conventionally managed, biotech solutions could find themselves high on the agenda. At the height of the BSE crisis in Britain, American soy was imported on a large scale. The usually skeptical British raised few questions about the use of a biotech-derived crop when the alternative (feeding the animals to themselves through meat and bone meal) had proved such a disastrous course.

Whatever about the return of the dinosaur, the dream of feeding the world is one thankfully not the preserve of mad scientists. Born in Hirschberg, Germany in 1933 and gaining his doctorate at the Max-Planck-Institute in Cologne, Dr Ingo Potrykus has played a major role in developing and applying genetic engineering technology to crop plants and diseases in the Third World. Potrykus made the cover of Time magazine in 2000 with the development of GM ‘golden rice’, a variety rich in beta-carotene from which the body produces vitamin A (conventional rice has no vitamin A). The Time headline ran ‘This rice could save a million kids a year.’ The biotech element of the rice incorporates daffodil genes, which provide the golden colour and helps fortify it with beta-carotene. Commercialisation of this rice is still a few years down the line and should provide an interesting case study in consumer response to a biotech product with a significant health benefit over its conventional counterparts.

The International Food Information Council has identified a number of biotech-enhanced products at research level, which may soon find their way to the supermarket shelf. These include: cooking oils with higher stearate levels; small, single serve, seedless melons; tomatoes with increased lycopene; higher starch potatoes (which absorb less fat); and strawberries containing ellagic acid (a natural cancer-fighting agent). Developments in biotech derived foodstuffs are not limited to plants. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is currently considering a license for the first transgenic animal into the food chain, a salmon that grows at four times the rate of conventionally farmed salmon. The marketing of this food will certainly bring the debate about biotechnology to a new level. Opponents will argue that such fish will represent a real danger of transgenic gene flow into the environment and the FDA is certain to consider security and containment issues as the most important in deciding if a license should be granted. Supporters will point to more efficient energy consumption and less waste production from these animals as compared to their conventionally farmed counterparts. They will also argue from experience that farmed fish simply do not prosper in the wild.

The Third Wave

Biotechnology has been used to derive medicines such as insulin from plants and animals since the 1980s. Advanced medical applications, such as the potential for transplanting rejection-free animal organs into people, have received widespread attention and will continue to register as fascinating confluences of science and ethics.

Less well know is the so-called ‘third wave’ application (medicine and agriculture being the first two), namely industrial biotechnology. Dr Barry Marrs, executive director of the Fraunhofer USA Center for Molecular Biotechnology believes that the application of biotechnology to manufacture industrial chemicals is fast approaching a reality while the production of biodegradable plastics and fibers from corn is already feasible. Industrial biocatalysis could change the nature of many aspects of the industry, he says: “The drivers are very powerful. We are finding better catalysts and improving them through directional evolution.” Dr Marrs believes that molecular farming, where complex chemicals are grown as components of GM crops, could transform chemical manufacturing into a greener, cleaner enterprise and reduce costs to a fraction of current levels. The technology may be groundbreaking but applications are not necessarily so: One biochemical he had developed is processed into a plastic with short-term cohesion properties, which finds perfect use in kitchen paper. After use, the plastics break down into the same biodegradable compounds as milk. (Dr Marrs spoke on May 7, 2003, at the EPA 2003 Science Forum: Partnering to Protect Human Health and the Environment, May 5-7, 2003, Washington DC in a session entitled Emerging Technologies)

Animal Crackers

Science has long recognized spider silk to be among the strongest fibers on earth but harvesting it for industrial uses was impractical (spiders being averse to domestication). A major project at the University of Wyoming has involved inserting spider silk genes into goat DNA resulting in transgenic animals that produce the spider silk proteins in their milk. The proteins can then be processed into a material that, under the trade name Biosteel, will find applications in medical equipment in the near future.

More conventional applications of biotechnology in animals could lead to enhanced productivity, less pollution and greater disease control. The birth of Dolly the sheep raised many long-term ethical questions, but the practical application of the technology in animal breeding is fast approaching feasibility. According to the FDA, cloned animals of high genetic merit could become available for breeding in the U.S. within three years.

Handling biowaste has become one of the big environmental issues in modern intensive farming. In the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, the Enviropig is living proof of one biotech-derived solution. The pig has been engineered to produce less phosphorus in its waste and therefore introduce less potential pollution in the environment. It will require several years more testing before the Enviropig is considered for introduction to the market.

Researchers investigating biotech applications in poultry are examining the possibility of enhancing resistance to pathogens through genetically engineered vaccines, a procedure that would have application in all food animals.

The study of microbial DNA is also allowing for a better understanding of how pathogens develop and interact with their hosts, a knowledge base will almost certainly contribute to the development of future disease treatments.

Taking Stock

Biotechnology is providing European science, and the industries that depend on it, with a challenge. On the one hand, EU consumers continue to reject the use of biotechnology in food and demonstrate grave misgivings about the presence of biotech crops in their environment. On the other, European science is recognizing that biotechnology will become an important tool in the development of an increasingly diverse array of foods, medicines and chemicals. Some interesting anomalies point to the complexities inherent in the debate. In spite of consumer misgivings about genetic engineering, biotech-derived enzymes have found widespread use in the production of cheeses and beers in the EU. The EU does not require them to be identified on labeling because they are part of a process rather than actual ingredients. Golden rice, which may ultimately provide huge help benefits (by preventing blindness) in developing countries, was developed in Europe with EU funds part financing it.

Repeated scientific studies in all EU member states have come out in favor of biotechnology as safe and environmentally friendly science but receive little coverage in the media. In April this year, the British government established a citizens’ jury to examine all the aspects of the debate. By a narrow majority it came out in favor of the use of the science. On the other hand, the formal complaint by the U.S. government about the ‘de facto’ EU moratorium on biotechnology will do little to warm European consumers to the prospect of biotech foods.


Donal Nugent is a Dublin-based journalist and writer and former editor of Irish Veterinary Journal and Irish Food. He is currently Science Journalism Fellow with CAST and can be reached at dnugent@cast-science.org

The Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) assembles, interprets and communicates science-based information regionally, nationally and internationally on food, fiber, agricultural, natural resource and related societal and environmental issues to its stakeholders - legislators, regulators, policy makers, the media, the private sector and the public.
www.cast-science.org

Undeniably, energy is fundamental for economic performance. At the same time, most experts agree that greenhouse gas and carbon emissions are related to all facets of energy use in the economy. Global climate change is one of the key concerns of the 21st century, with serious implications for economies, societies and the environment. A central challenge is the integration of climate and environment policy objectives into other sectoral policy areas.

The present article is an attempt to outline the characteristic problems faced by the United States as a function of high energy consumption, growing energy needs and a lack of agreement on how to reconcile the environmental concerns. We will also take a look at the National Energy Plan of the Bush Administration and the on-going debate around the Energy Bill, currently a hot issue in Congress.

Consider These Figures……

In 2001, 3 countries – the United States, Russia and China, with a combined population of 1.71 billion out of a global 6.30 billion - were the leading producers and consumers of world energy. They together produced 38% and consumed 41% of the world’s total energy. The United States is the global leader in energy consumption. In the year 2001, it made up almost a quarter of the world’s primary energy consumption. Primary Energy includes coal, natural gas, petroleum, and electric power (nuclear, hydro, alcohol fuels, geothermal, solar, wind, and wood and waste). Out of the world consumption total of 403.92 quadrillion Btu (British thermal unit), the United States alone consumed 97.05 qBtu. To compare, Canada spent 12.51 qBtu of energy and Austria contented herself with 1.42 qBtu, France consumed 10.52 qBtu, Germany used up 14.35 qBtu and Angola and Bangladesh claimed their share of 0.09 and 0.51 qBtu repectively.

Now translate this into per capita figures and it becomes obvious that the U.S. has one of the highest per capita energy needs in the world - 341.8 million Btu. (incidentally, the per capita energy consumption in Canada is even higher - 402.6 million Btu). The average per capita in western Europe ran to about 150 million Btu. In France the per capita consumption was 177.8 million Btu, in Austria it was 175 and in Spain 141.5 million Btu. To continue with our example of Angola and Bangladesh, the per capita figures were really modest: 6.9 and 3.7 mbtu respectively. In the U.S. the transportation sector alone gobbled up over 27% of total energy, being only surpassed by the industry with a narrow margin. World-wide, the United States remains the single largest consumer of energy, matching its share of energy consumption with its share of GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in the world total.

In a move to counter America’s increasing dependency on oil imports, President George W. Bush announced the “Hydrogen Fuel Initiative” early this year. He called for investment in technologies and infrastructure that produce, store and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel-cell vehicles and the generation of electricity. “Tonight I’m proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles…. Join me in this important innovation to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy,” the President said in his “State of the Union” address on January 28, 2003. The “Hydrogen Fuel Initiative” is embedded in the wider framework of the “Energy Bill” currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate.

“Sometimes We Import Oil From Countries That Don’t Particularly Like Us”

It is a well-known fact that the United States relies heavily on foreign oil. Imports have risen to 55 % of the overall petroleum demand. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts imports climbing as high as 68% during the next two decades. Transportation accounts for nearly two thirds of the 20 million barrels of oil Americans use each day. The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that without a change in direction, the U.S. economy will face costs of $188 billion per year for oil imports of more than 19 million barrels per day by 2025. Given the importance of oil to the U.S. and the instabilities in major oil exporting regions in the Persian Gulf, Northern Africa and South America, dependency on foreign oil poses a potential risk to U.S. security. President Bush put it this way last February: “Sometimes we import oil from countries that don’t particularly like us”. At an opening ceremony for a fuel-cell test site, Senator Bob Inouye from Hawaii was recently quoted in California’s Pacific Business News as saying that oil has been at the root of most U.S. military conflicts in the last few decades.

Hydrogen: How Does It Work?

Referring to the two major energy-related issues of oil dependency and environmental protection, President Bush recently explained that “the idea is to see that a car born today – I mean, a child born today will be driving a car, as his or her first car, which will be powered by hydrogen and pollution-free.” Spencer Abraham, U.S. Secretary of State for the U.S. Department of Energy, even called hydrogen “our ultimate freedom fuel.”

To be precise, hydrogen itself will not fuel future generations of cars, but rather with the electricity produced by fuel cells that use hydrogen and oxygen to create current. The fuel cells themselves are environmentally clean and emit only heat and water. However, the environmentally crucial question remains: how should the hydrogen be produced? One of the most common methods involves reforming natural gas. Several other methods include the transformation of biomass or coal into a gas from which pure hydrogen can be generated, biological systems using microbes, thermal water splitting, solar- and wind energy, etc…It currently appears as if natural gas and coal will become the United States’ first choice for hydrogen production (cf. the announcement of the “FutureGEN” project by Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham on February 27, 2003).

The main reason hydrogen fuels are not widely used today is because of the high costs associated with them. In the 1960s, power produced by fuel-cells cost $600,000 per kilowatt-hour. This only paid off in the U.S. space program. Hydrogen is still considerably more expensive than the fuels it would be meant to replace. Commercial systems available today average prices up to $4,500 per kilowatt-hour (United Technology Corporation’s “commercial phosphoric acid fuel-cell power plants”). In comparison, one kilowatt-hour produced from conventional sources is currently available for an average price of 7¢ in the United States. However, at a briefing on “Alternative Hydrogen Futures” on March 28, 2003, Robert Olsen, Research Director at the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Alternative Futures, said that costs for hydrogen-based fuel-cells are predicted to drop significantly by the end of this decade, which will make them competitive for most types of power applications.

Demonstration Projects And First Steps Towards Commercialization

Nevertheless, small fleets of fuel-cell powered cars are already on the road today for demonstration purposes throughout California. Also, North America’s largest commercial fuel-cell power plant was added to the power grid by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power on March 14, 2003. The $3 million “John Ferraro Building Fuel-Cell Power Plant” uses natural gas to produce hydrogen and provides power to only 250 homes at costs five times higher than traditional power. However, the project is seen as an investment in the future, forging the way for ultra-clean energy production in Los Angeles. A second fuel cell power plant currently under construction in Los Angeles will supply renewable power by utilizing digester (is this the correct word? I don’t know it.) gas from a nearby wastewater treatment plant.

How Much Money? Who Will Be In Charge?

The “Hydrogen Fuel Initiative” proposed by President Bush to develop the technologies and infrastructure to produce, store and distribute hydrogen for use in fuel-cells. It is part of the “Energy Bill” that is currently on the docket for consideration and approval in the U.S. Senate (see this issue's article The Politics of Energy
by Sylvia Pilz and Himangi Zanpure-Sattler)

The “Hydrogen Fuel Initiative,” which includes $720 million in new funding over the next five years, adds to the $500 million research program “FreedomCAR Program” announced in January 2002 by the Bush Administration to develop fuel-cell powered vehicles. “FreedomCAR” (CAR stands for “Cooperative Automotive Research”) is a research partnership between the government and car manufacturers including Ford, General Motors and Daimler/Chrysler. It replaces an earlier initiative – the Partnership For The Next Generation Vehicles (PNGV) – begun under the Clinton Administration. Both the “Hydrogen Initiative” and the “FreedomCAR program” will be run by the Department of Energy (DOE) over the next five years.

The Ideal Scenario: Full Transition To A Hydrogen Economy by 2040

In 2001, the Department of Energy began working on a hydrogen vision and road mapping effort. It led to the release of the “National Hydrogen Energy Technology Roadmap” in November 2002. The roadmap describes the steps required to make a successful transition to the “hydrogen economy.” In his testimony before the House Committee on Science, David K. Garman, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy at the DOE, outlined four phases the Department of Energy believes are necessary for the United States’ eventual transition to a “hydrogen economy:”

Phase 1 is already underway with government and private organizations completing research on hydrogen-related topics. The results should enable industry to make a decision on commercialization of hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2015. Transition to the marketplace during Phase 2 could begin as early as 2010 for portable and some stationary applications. Wide-scale marketing of fuel-cell vehicles might start around 2020. Phase 3 would allow the U.S. government to further supportmarket growth by taking the role of an “early adopter” (meaning that government agencies would switch to fuel-cell technologies as early as possible) thus stimulating the market. Phase 4 should begin about 2025 whenglobally competing industries would begin receiving adequate returns on their investments. Ideally, the DOE hopes America’s transition to a full hydrogen economy would be complete by 2040.

“People Aren’t Going To Buy Many Cars If They Can’t Refuel Their Car.”

Despite the DOE’s positive scenario, there is a very real possibility that these benefits might not be achieved, as Robert Olsen from the Institute for Alternative Futures points out. The creation of an adequate infrastructure for hydrogen distribution and storage could be a major obstacle on the way towards the hydrogen economy.

“There would be nothing worse than developing a car and having no place for somebody to find the fuel. People aren’t going to buy many cars if they can’t refuel their car,” President Bush recently explained. The Department of Energy supports this view and DOE’s David Garman warns of this possible stumbling block: “Our current gasoline/hydro-carbon infrastructure has been forged in a competitive market. It is ubiquitous and remarkably efficient. It can deliver refined petroleum products that began as crude oil half a world away to your neighborhood for less than cost of milk, drinking water, or many other liquid products you can buy at the supermarket. We are currently bound to that infrastructure. We have no alternative. Eventually replacing it with something different will be extremely difficult. But that is what we must do if we expect to achieve success with the FreedomCAR partnership. Drivers must be able to go anywhere in America to refuel their hydrogen-powered vehicle before they will be comfortable purchasing one”. Coincidentally, California has already begun developing plans for a “hydrogen highway” of refueling stations from Mexico to Oregon (see Fuel-Cell Caravan In Central Valley - Hydrogen Car Rally Promotes Technology, The San Francisco Chronicle, May 15, 2003).

A Dirty Energy Plan?

“As we act on President Bush’s National Energy Policy, we are focusing on next generation technologies that expand the diversity of America’s supply of energy and ‘leap frog’ the status quo,” Spencer Abraham said in the preface to the National Hydrogen Energy Roadmap. It is precisely this “leap-frogging” that skeptics are criticizing about the Bush Administration’s “Hydrogen Fuel Initiative” and the “FreedomCAR Program”.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), the Ecological Society of America (ESA) and other environmentally-aware organizations see the hydrogen-related activities of the Bush Administration as a diversion from short-term measures that could make a big difference right away. A $1.5 billion initiative by the Clinton Administration aimed at making cars fuel-efficient, raising fuel economy standards and setting tougher emission standards was abandoned by the current administration. Indeed, increased funding for hydrogen-related initiatives comes largely at the expense of other energy-efficiency and renewable energy programs. Robert Olsen thus perceives a certain danger of hydrogen losing political support “by the way U.S. efforts to promote it got off on the wrong foot with environmentalists.” This would especially be the case if the hydrogen R&D programs are denounced as a “dirty energy plan,” provided that much of the research is focused on methods of producing hydrogen from oil, coal and nuclear power.

Transatlantic Cooperation

A means to avoid losing support for research on “hydrogen fuel” is to take a global view and embark on international cooperation. After all, geologists estimate that global oil production will begin to decline somewhere during the period from about 2015 and 2030. Formalized international research cooperation on hydrogen technology would indeed create a fait accompli.

“Hydrogen is certainly one of the most important and promising areas we must develop in the coming years. I believe this is an area where both the U.S. and the E.U. would benefit from cooperating notably on our research programs and demonstration projects,” the European Commission’s Vice President Loyola de Palacio said after meeting with U.S. Secretary of State for the U.S. Department of Energy Spencer Abraham on May 1, 2003 in Madrid. Like the United States, the European Commission has also named research on hydrogen fuel technology one of its main priorities in its energy and transport policies. The E.U. has thus begun to implement a project called Clean Urban Transport for Europe (CUTE). CUTE is aimed at supplying 10 major European cities with fuelcellpowered buses for public transport. It is the first project of its kind worldwide. Another world premiere will be the launch of German-built “U 31” – the world’s first fuel-cell powered submarine – in July 2003.

As a direct result of all this varied activity, the transatlantic dialogue on hydrogen research has increased in the recent months. After a meeting with the European Research Commissioner Philippe Busquin on March 6, 2003, Spencer Abraham announced that the European Commission and the United States would shortly be signing an annex to the current cooperation agreement in order to formalize research cooperation on hydrogen fuel technology. During their meeting on May 1, Loyola de Palacio, who is responsible for energy and transport policy within the European Commission, and Spencer Abraham agreed upon increased transatlantic cooperation in policy development, research cooperation and coordination, common positions in international fora and common evaluation criteria for demonstration projects – all in the field of hydrogen fuel technology.

The Mysterious Island

If all the challenges and obstacles are overcome, then Jules Verne’s prophetic words in The Mysterious Island (from 1874) might well come true in the near future:

“Without coal there would be no machinery, and without machinery there would be no railways, no steamers, no manufactories, nothing of that which is indispensable to modern civilization!”
“But what will they find?” asked Pencroft. “Can you guess, captain?”
“Nearly, my friend.”
“And what will they burn instead of coal?”
“Water,” replied Harding.
“Water!” cried Pencroft, “water as fuel for steamers and engines! Water to heat water!”
“Yes, but water decomposed into its primitive elements,” replied Cyrus Harding, “and decomposed doubtless, by electricity, which will then have become a powerful and manageable force, for all great discoveries, by some inexplicable laws, appear to agree and become complete at the same time. Yes, my friends, I believe that water will one day be employed as fuel, that hydrogen and oxygen which constitute it, used singly or together, will furnish an inexhaustible source of heat and light, of an intensity of which coal is not capable. Some day the coalrooms of steamers and the tenders of locomotives will, instead of coal, be stored with these two condensed gases, which will burn in the furnaces with enormous calorific power. There is, therefore, nothing to fear. As long as the earth is inhabited it will supply the wants of its inhabitants, and there will be no want of either light or heat as long as the productions of the vegetable, mineral or animal kingdoms do not fail us. I believe, then, that when the deposits of coal are exhausted we shall heat and warm ourselves with water. Water will be the coal of the future.”


Resources:

People:
Spencer Abraham, U.S. Secretary of State for the U.S. Department of Energy
Loyola de Palacio, European Commission’s Vice President
Senator David Inouye
Robert Olsen, Research Director at the Institute for Alternative Futures

Organizations:
The U.S. Department of Energy (Energy Outlooks)
The U.S. Department of Energy (Forecasts)
The U.S. Department of Energy (Hydrogen, Fuel Cells & Infrastructure Technology Program)
Ecological Society of America
Institute for Alternative Futures
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
Union of Concerned Scientists
United Technology Corporation (“commercial phosphoric acid fuel cell power plants”)

Further Links:
President Bush announces the "Hydrogen Iniatiative"
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative Can Make "Fundamental Difference", Remarks by the President on Energy Independence
Pacific Business News
Spencer Abraham's remarks at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory ("freedom fuel")
Remarks of Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham at the announcement of the FutureGen Power Plant of the Future Project
FreedomCar Fact Sheet (Department of Energy)
FutureGen
National Hydrogen Energy Technology Roadmap
White House Fact Sheet on the “Hydrogen Fuel Initiative”
President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address on January 28, 2003
Energy Bill
David K. Garman’s (Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy) testimony before the House Committee on Science
Fuel-Cell Caravan In Central Valley - Hydrogen Car Rally Promotes Technology, The San Francisco Chronicle, May 15, 2003
Loyola de Palacio meets Spencer Abraham for a further energy dialogue between EU and the USA (Press Release of the European Commission. May 1, 2003)
U.S. Global Climate Change Policy

In order to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to the understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP). In 2001, the IPCC released its third and latest assessment report (avalaible at www.ipcc.ch) summarizing the cutting-edge work of numerous leading scientists. The report summarizes which climatic changes have already occurred, how well past and present climates are understood and which changes could lie ahead. It also mentions how over the past 50 years there has been an increase in the Northern Hemisphere’s average surface temperature of approximately 0.7°C (1.3°F). According to tree ring and ice core reconstruction, as well as thermometer observation, this increase is unprecedented in the past millenium. Along with the increasing temperature , the hydrological cycle has been accelerated; there is 10% more water vapor per decade in the lower atmosphere since the 1980s and almost 1% more precipitation per decade on land. Furthermore, there is also strong correlation between the increasing temperatures and a loss of 10% of snow-cover and land-ice extent, including deglaciation, and Arctic Sea ice. The global sea levels have risen during the 20th century by 100-200 millimeters according to tide-gauge data.

Since all of the climatic changes observed in the last few decades are more intense than the natural variations observed in the last millenium, an anthropogenic influence is surmised. The world population was less than one billion people for more than 800 years during the last millenium. It has only exploded in the last three quarters of a century from less than two billion in 1927 to aaproximately 6.3 billion by January 2003. During the same period, countless technologies evolved and a great deal of the Earth’s natural resources were consumed. Large amounts of energy were also generated. As a result, most of the energy produced in the world comes from burning carbon-based fossil fuels. The end-product, carbon dioxide or CO2, is emitted into our atmosphere in huge quantities.

Earth´s atmosphere is very thin in comparison to its diameter. It is like the skin of an apple. Therefore, it is understandable that the composition of the atmosphere is changing as a result of human influence. The mixing ratio of the trace gas CO2 in our atmosphere was constant at 280 parts per million volume (ppmv) in the period from 1000 to 1900 A.D., After this period, a steep increase of 30% to the present level of 366ppmv has been recorded. CO2 has the ability to hold back a portion of the infrared radiation coming from Earth´s surface and for this reason is referred to as a greenhouse gas. Without an atmosphere that can contain greenhouse gases, our Earth´s average temperature would be –18°C/0°F, which is similar to the average mean temperature on the Moon, rather than the actual average of +15°C/59°F. All oceans would be frozen and life as we know it would never have evolved. An increase in greenhouse gases, such as the man-made increase in CO2 we now have, causes an additional warming effect and is most likely responsible for the modest warming we have seen in the last few decades. Aside from CO2, other greenhouse gases have accumulated in our atmosphere per research that indicates that these other gases remained at approximately the same levels for many hundreds, and even thousands, of years. These include methane (130% increase), nitrous oxide (15% increase) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The latter have almost no natural sources and were not found in the atmosphere before the Industrial Revolution.

Computer models have been used to predict future global average surface temperatures. However, using these models as tools assumes that the scientist has foreknowledge of all the ‘climate forcings,’ especially the mixing ratios of all greenhouse gases in the future, of ‘forcings’ related to clouds and aerosols in the troposphere, and also assumes that the solar energy output remains constant. According to various scenarios for population growth and economic development, especially in the developing world, the IPCC predicts an increase of the global average surface temperature of between +1.4°C and +5.8°C (2.5-10.4°F) by 2100 compared to 1990. Sea levels are expected to rise between 0.2 and 0.7 meters in the same time-frame. Considering that the last Ice Age was only 5°C colder than current temperatures, and North America was covered by an ice layer that was miles thick, these changes can certainly not be dubbed minor. Of course, no scientist is a fortune-teller and there are uncertainties in some of the assumptions underlying these predictions, as was recently pointed out in the news. However, the predictions represent the current voice of the scientific community.

The question of how to react or, indeed, whether to react at all to the current situation and these future projections does not fall within the realm of science. This is a question every person needs to answer alone. In particular, it needs to be answered depending on how much time, effort and money one is willing to spend in order to mitigate climate change for future generations. On an individual level, the focus is on using energy efficiently and thereby not producing unnecessary CO2. There is a huge potential for reducing CO2 emissions if individuals make an effort to reduce their reliance on cars and when possible find alternative modes of transportation, such as biking, walking, or using public transportation. Carpooling or shutting off the engine when the car is idling can help in situations where there is no alternative to using a car. Other simple energy-saving measures inlcude insulating your living area to reduce the energy necessary to heat or air-condition your home, putting a lid on a pot when boiling water, buying locally produced items rather than products that travel hundreds of miles on the highway to reach you or to buy products causing less waste or food and beverages in reusable containers.

In addition to every individual, governments and industries all over the world have to decide what action to take. A set of potentially effective measures was put forward in the Kyoto Protocol by the “The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change” (UNFCCC) in 1997. It was designed to control the emissions of six greenhouse gases, especially CO2. The commitment to reduce the collective emissions by at least 5% compared to 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012 is intended to stabilize the current trend of steeply increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As of April 28, 2003, the protocol has been ratified or accepted by 108 nations accounting for 43.9% of world´s carbon dioxide emissions. The protocol will enter into force 90 days after countries accounting for at least 55% of emissions have ratified the agreement. The most prominent members of countries not on the list of current signees are Australia, the Russian Federation and the United States of America, the latter accounting for one quarter of world´s CO2 emissions alone and more than any other country in the world per capita and per year. Ratification by either Russia or the US would render the consensus legally binding. Russia has indicated willingness to back the protocol in the near future.

The current Bush Administration is reluctant to ratify this protocol and chooses instead to invest in research and development. It would rather wait until scientists have an even better understanding of our changing Earth before signing a protocol of this type and to negotiate for the right to buy emissions from developing countries. This is of course a legitimate point of view. Similarly understandable are fears of yet another slow-down in economic growth caused by the initial investment needed to change infrastructure after ratification. However, the fact remains that the Earth is currently at risk, and in my opinion, action should be taken as soon as the possibility of these changes becomes apparent – waiting for certainty could be more harmful than the consequences of the present concerns. And regarding these concerns, there is a previous example when industry was faced with the challenge of phasing out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) according to the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987. Despite the initial reluctance of industry lobbyists, in a short time industry came up with new, better and even less costly alternatives to using CFCs, which ultimately will save our protective stratospheric ozone layer.

There is evidence that the potential already exists for a shift to sustainable and renewable energy sources. A fleet of hydrogen-powered cars and buses is on the road in California, laptops and cellular phones can be powered by hydrogen fuel cells, and techniques to harness solar and wind energies are at our disposal. However, without the encouragement of law or governmental incentives, this potential remains untapped to a great extent. When forced by the Montreal Protocol to find an alternative to using CFCs, mankind proved itself to be creative, and the same would be true if we were forced to cut CO2 emissions. These climatic challenges present a great opportunity to establish new and better technologies that could ultimately revive the market and help developing countries grow in a more sustainable way than the presently developed countries did.

In 2001, after only three days in office, President George W. Bush announced that education policy would be "the cornerstone" of his Administration. One year later, on January 8, 2002, hoping to tackle the public school system’s reform head-on, the President signed the "No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) Act of 2001 into law. The NCLB Act mainly assumes to close what is referred to as the "achievement gap" in mandatory education for children in grades 1 through 12, also known as “K-12” education. Considering that K-12 public education is provided free-of-charge, the NCLB Act is aimed at enacting measures to promote equality in educational opportunities for all children regardless of their (financial, racial or other) backgrounds. The NCLB Act re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, albeit with fundamental changes (“Overview of Programs and Changes Included in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001”).

While Republicans and federal education officials praise a new era of education in the U.S., the Democratic support of this bipartisan bill is withering with its implementation. Opponents worry that the main pillars of the Bush Administration’s education reform – the concepts of “accountability”, “flexibility” and “choice” – are not as adequate as presented in the beginning to achieve the demanding goal of “leaving no child behind” in public education. Critics believe that rather than improving the existing public school system, the NCLB-Act steers federal money towards religious and private institutions, while substantially withdrawing federal responsibility from the public school system, thereby leaving the responsibility of selecting appropriate provision of basic education to parents but still assuming strong federal governance all the same.

One of the most touted benefits among all the federally financed measures under the NCLB Act is the expansion of choice options for parents. In the case that a public school fails to meet set performance criteria, parents are issued “school vouchers” that allow them to choose among different schools in which to enroll their children. School vouchers literally represent the amount of money in public per-district spending on education appropriated per pupil. If parents decide to exercise their right of school-choice, the public dollar, in the form of a voucher, goes to wherever the pupil chooses to enroll. This means that the money is directed away from the public school to which the pupil was originally assigned. Therefore, school vouchers can be seen as an instrument for allocating federal funds in a public education system that is predominantly financed by the states and local entities.

A school's performance is referred to by the term of "accountability" under the NCLB Act of 2001. Every state is required by the new law to annually submit an accountability plan to the U.S. Department of Education that summarizes the performances of all students enrolled in public schools. The White House issued a presidential statement on June 11, 2003 on the progress of this far-reaching reform initiative for America’s public education system. The statement conveyed to the public that all 50 states and the District of Columbia, as well as the commonwealth of Puerto Rico have now submitted their required accountability plans (President's Remarks). Together with the new possibilities presented by a more flexible utilization of federal money across different U.S. government-authorized programs, vouchers play a pivotal part in the overall endeavor of reforming the U.S. public education system by making public schools accountable for their student’s performances.

School Vouchers And The Freedom To Choose

Overall, about 89% of America's children attend public schools for their K-12 education. Enrollment in private schools remained stable at 9-11% between 1993 and 1999. Private schools have long been the only other choice parents have had in determining their offspring's basic education. Which school to attend is determined by the school district the family lives in. Apart from choosing to pay high tuition fees for private schooling, relocation to a different school district has been the only other option parents have to get children enrolled in a different public school. Considering that the U.S. public school system is to a large degree financed through property taxes, and to a lesser amount through income taxes, it is no surprise that high-performing public schools are mostly found in wealthier districts. The National Center of Educational Statistics’ (NCES) report, "Trends in the Use of School Choice 1993 to 1999," shows that the percentage of students enrolled in public schools they chose increased from 11% in 1993 to 14% in 1999, while the percentage of students enrolled in public schools to which they are assigned decreased from 80% to 76% during the same period. The trend of enrollment in chosen public schools was most evident in low-income families, which are characterized by an income below $10,000. The link between poverty-ridden neighborhoods and low-performing schools is obvious.

Beginning in the late 1980s, public school choice began to spread as a reform movement across the U.S.. There are still suggestions lingering for the total de-regulation of the schooling system according to a free-market model based on vouchers. This model was conceived by economist Milton Freedman and suggests transferring all educational funding into vouchers to be issued to the individual; at the same time, institutions would no longer be funded directly at all.

School-choice options, or voucher programs, were implemented for a variety of reasons among the 50 states. For example, Vermont implemented a voucher program to counteract the states' inability to provide public schools in every community due to its sparse population. Vermont’s school vouchers provide about $6,000 per child for education. Maine has instituted a similar kind of program while the city of Cleveland/ Ohio endorses vouchers for children in the amount of about $2,500. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, a full educational choice program is in place and school vouchers are issued to students at the amount of the state per-pupil expenditure.

Most of the voucher programs already implemented before the enactment of NCLB have been challenged in the courts for including religious schools in their school choice options. The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution upholds a strict separation of church and state and thus usually is interpreted as a prohibition of federal funding for religious matters. Non-religious schools account for only 2% of the total enrollment in private schools. However, in June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the school voucher program in Cleveland, Ohio does not infringe upon the constitutional separation of church and state. The NCLB Act of 2001 fully integrates religious and sectarian schools in the school-choice program.

The U.S. Education System: Decentralization And Governance As Cornerstones

Laws and regulations of the individual states and local districts predominantly are responsible for organizing education in the United States. The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits federal laws such as the "No Child Left Behind" Act of 2001 from prescribing curricula. Federal education policy provides, however, a framework to foster and enhance certain educational goals and endeavors. Despite having no authority to establish a national education system, the federal government must safeguard the right of every U.S. citizen to have equal access to, and equal opportunity for, education. To do so, federal money is assigned to special programs and the maintenance and improvement of educational quality. Beyond this requirement, the U.S. Department of Education defines the federal government’s role as the one of an "emergency response system." The Department of Education currently oversees the attendance of about 53 million pupils nationwide in the U.S. of which 92,000 are enrolled in public schools, 27,000 are enrolled in private schools throughout nearly 15,000 school districts.

Despite this highly decentralized system, education in the 50 states and the District of Columbia is characterized by many similarities. National accreditation procedures and testing systems guarantee minimal shared standards in the provision of curricula and the educational goals that must be achieved. In most states, a State Board of Education, run under the leadership of a Chief State School Officer and the state-level Department of Education, determines the main education requirements. Additionally, schoolbook publishers have a strong interest in streamlining curricula, since the U.S. education market is characterized by a high concentration: As few as four states, namely California, Texas, New York and Illinois, represent almost 30% of the market. Moreover, certain cohesion is achieved through educational policy on the federal level. Congress mandates the conditions under which federal funds are assigned to local and state institutions and programs. The concept, by and large, is meant to exercise governance by setting financial incentives, and also by creating penalties. In NCLB Act-speak, this means encouraging improvement in under-achieving districts by using the NCLB Act of 2001. Within this new market-oriented approach, school vouchers bear strong leverage in the U.S. elementary and secondary public education system.

Financing K-12 Education: Property Assets, Pork Barrels And The States’ Troubled Budgets

Since public education is a responsibility of state legislation, its funding comes predominantly out of the states' budgets. More than 90% of the estimated overall $770 billion spent on education for the 2002/2003 school year came from State, local and private sources. The federal share in financing the U.S. education system is less than 7% of the overall expenditure. President Bush's 2004 Budget assigns $53,137 million to be administered by the Department of Education. In 2003, the Department of Education's budget is about 2.9% out of the overall U.S. budget. Not included in the Department of Education's budget are programs run by other federal agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture's “School Lunch” program. In the Department of Education’s budget, $75 million are included for the new “Choice Incentive Fund” that finances the voucher program. Another $25 million are reserved for “Voluntary Public School Choice” grants that encourage states and school districts to establish statewide and inter-district public school choice programs. A major part in the education reform is reserved for charter schools. Charter schools operate independently of the state school system, but do receive public funding. They are designed and operated by educators, parents, community leaders or educational entrepreneurs. Sponsored by designated local or state educational organizations, they are monitored in quality and effectiveness. The federal budget reserves $320 million to support charter schools.

Funding systems across the states (Description of Funding Systems arranged by State) vary, although most of them operate with earmarked tax revenues. That means - bluntly stated - that taxes not earned cannot be redeemed by the education system. If K-12 education is not recognized as a fixed expenditure in the budget, but rather is financed through earmarked revenues, missing funds cannot be substituted with other financial sources out of the States' budgets. Thus, U.S. elementary and secondary public education highly depend on the overall development of the federal and state's economy.

The State of California, for example, has seen a substantial shift in financing away from the local level to the state level in the last 20 years. In the 1999/2000 school year, the state's share amounted to 60%. Additionally, California has a specific regulation ("Proposition 98" passed in 1988) that guarantees minimum state funding for K-12 education that amounted originally to about 40% of the overall general fund. In 1990, a new formula was invented to adjust the allocation to education in years when there were large changes in the state revenues. Out of the overall Californian education budget, 55% of funds are reserved for general purposes and 45% are earmarked for special programs or groups of students. The latter share has steadily increased over the past few years. On the local level, property taxes are the main source of financing. Generally, one fourth of the state and local revenues are generated by local property taxes. However, California exercises a system that bases taxation of property mainly on the date of purchase. This serves the 6 million students currently attending public schools. School districts do not receive money garnered from income or sales taxes.

In 1999, California spent an overall amount of $40.095 billion on the public K-12 school system. Weighed to the Average Daily Attendance (ADA), this amount appropriates $5,752 to each of California’s 5.44 million pupils. About $120 in funding per pupil is generated through the California State Lottery, which is required to stipulate a minimum of 34% to education funds. Lottery revenues never exceeded 2% of the total school revenues.

In the State of Maryland, Governor Robert J. Ehrlich, the first Republican to hold that office in a long time, is trying to lure lawmakers into passing legislation that would legalize slot machines with the decoy of earmarking a portion of its revenues earned to the financially challenged public education system. Ever since Ehrlich took office in 2002, legalizing slot machines has been one the centerpieces of his first legislative agenda. So far, Gov. Ehrlich has not yet succeeded in this endeavor. California numbers show that the funds possibly generated by such a measure could not really safeguard Maryland's educational system with its estimated 846,000 public school children.

The State of Texas, in turn, runs a financing system, which is predominantly based on property taxes. Texas does not at all impose personal or business income taxes. On the state level, the education budget is primarily financed through the General Revenue funds, which is supported by many different taxes and fees, such as motor fuel taxes, natural gas and oil taxes and "sin" taxes. However, 55% of the funds are provided through collected sales tax. Generally speaking, Texas' funding system is a multi-tiered system that defines state and local funding levels through a system of formulas known as the "Foundation School Program" (FSP). Forty-seven percent of the public education is funded on the local level. Texas is also one of the states that runs many charter schools. In 1999, there were 66 charter schools in operation, and by 2000, another 80 opened up. In the 2002/2003 school year, almost 185 charter schools are operating. Texas’ public schools currently serve an estimated 4 million pupils.

As the home-state of President Bush, Texas has in many respects become a model state for education reform policy as picked up by the Bush Administration's "No Child Left Behind" initiative. Pro-school choice, charter schools, alternatives to affirmative action university admission policies and, of course, the voucher system were all implemented at an early stage. However, questionable conduct in the Lone Star State's charter school development was recently discussed by the New York Times (Re-educating the Voters about Texas' Schools, NY Times, June 3rd 2003): nepotistic staffing, false academic records and unchecked criminal backgrounds completed the portrait of educational reform in Texas with a charter school's principal leaving town in the middle of the night while taking the school’s furniture with him. Pupils, suddenly without learning facilities, had to be accommodated back in the public school system. Under rigorous testing requirements imposed on schools under the NCLB Act, forty-six schools in Texas were classified for improvement. Significantly, about two thirds of those were charter schools, initially invented to improve the public school system.

The State of Florida is a good example to show that funding for public education received from the state fluctuates annually depending on revenues earned and the state's expenditures. Nonetheless, in the 1999/ 2000 school year, Florida's public education was financed almost at 50% through state funds. The system is based on the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP) of 1973/74, which allocates funds, by and large, on the basis of the number of pupils participating in a particular educational program multiplied by cost-factors. On the level of school districts, which are congruent with counties boundaries, revenues for the school system are almost exclusively based on property taxes. On the state level, Florida also utilizes 38% of the gross income of its lottery for the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. In 1999, legislation set the base student allocation (BSA) at $3,223. The concept of this system already takes the per-pupil cost ratio into account, which is necessary to exercise a school-choice system on the basis of vouchers. Florida currently has 2.3 million children enrolled in its public schools.

Interestingly, Florida’s Gov. Jeb Bush, brother of President Bush, was the first one to base the choice-program on a rating system for schools in 1999. Students of under-performing schools were eligible to attend higher-rated schools on the basis of vouchers and "over-performing" educational institutions received financial incentives of about $100 per pupil.

With funding based on earmarked tax revenues, the public school system is immediately affected in case a state’s budget falls short. This can be observed all over the U.S. in the current fiscal year. The outlook for the upcoming year is not rosy either. Schools either had to shut down earlier than usual this year or impose furloughs so that at least basic programs could be maintained until the end of the school year. California's education system had to deal with severe shortfalls in the state's budget. Gov. Gray Davis (D) proposed to cut about $1.6 billion in direct financing for the state's 1,000 school districts. The massive shortfall is attributed to the high-technology crisis and the overall sluggish economy in the U.S.. In April 2003, an estimated 25,000 teachers received pink slips, as required by state law if school districts are considering letting teachers go. Since most districts have not yet settled on their upcoming budgets, it is unclear how many of those teachers will actually lose their jobs. Some annual teacher's recruitment fairs in California’s school districts have been canceled.

President Bush's federal budget proposal for 2004 went along with a massive tax cut that according to critics favors the wealthy. The child tax credit, saving a poor family $1,000 per child per year, was eliminated at the last moment from the bill by the Republicans and could only after major partisan arguments be passed by Congress. However, most of the financial pressure seems to rest on the middle-class. Taxes will decline for all income groups, except for those earning more than $28,000 and less than $337,000. The “middle-income” groups falling within these income brackets will end up paying an even greater share of taxes than they did before. In addition, already troubled state budgets have to make up for the federal cuts.

An analysis by the "Chronicle of Higher Education" projects that "even if states experience normal economic growth over the next eight years, all but a handful of states will find it impossible, given their existing tax policies, to continue funding their current level of public services" (State Shortfalls Projected Throughout the Decade).

The Specific Case of the U.S. Capital Washington, D.C.: Taxation Without Representation

When members of the educational community wish to express the problematic sides of the public school system in the U.S., they usually sum up the array of challenges in one phrase: inner-city schools. Whether it be low performance, poverty-ridden or unsafe schools, or drug-abuse, these factors seem to be ever-present in the struggle of inner-city schools' administrative and academic lives. The case of the capital’s inner city schools is particularly interesting. Washington, D.C. is neither a state nor part of one. Because of this specific designation as a political district and not a state, D.C. does not send a congressperson with actual voting rights to the U.S. House of Representatives or a Senator to the U.S. Senate. D.C. lately added the slogan "taxation without representation" to its license plates to express this political under-representation in spite of full taxation. Additionally, the District's tax base is impacted by the presence of the federal government which creates tax exemptions such as the one on federal real estate buildings that cut down the effective levies on property tax by 42%. The District is partly offset by the federal government for this loss. In education, the teacher retirement fund is financed federally.

Washington, D.C. collects income and sales taxes, but in contrast to other financing systems, no specific D.C. tax revenues are earmarked for schools. Instead, D.C. operates with a “D.C. Public Schools” (DCPS) budget that is subject by law to a public hearing before it is placed into effect. The annual appropriations are made from the general fund to DCPS, public charter schools, teacher retirement funds and school transportation.

In his second term, Mayor Anthony Williams (D) even caught his own staff off-guard when he agreed in May 2003 to adopt the voucher program for the District of Columbia's public schools (DCPC). Parents of an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 of 77,000 children in D.C.’s public schools will be eligible to receive school vouchers. Senior officials of the Board of Education confronted Williams with opposition to this move and accused him of selling-out home rule with the goal of receiving additional funding from the federal government for the city's budget.

Arguments opposing the voucher system included that Washington already has enough school-choice options with its growing charter school movement. In the District of Columbia, more than 14,000 students are currently enrolled in charter schools. The voucher system gives parents the right to choose for their children not only among charter schools, but also among religious and parochial schools. Private schools in Washington, D.C. usually charge five-figure annual tuition rates. The new school vouchers to be endorsed to parents will be far from covering those costs. Consequently, observers expect that the biggest beneficiaries will most likely be those who want to attend Catholic schools, which typically ask lower tuition fees. Currently, in Washington, D.C., 7,924 of the 67,500 students are enrolled in Catholic schools. According to a Washington Post report (Washington Post, May 2, 2003; Page A01), the Archdiocese of Washington can offer another 1,200 slots in those schools.

However, in presenting the city's 2004 $5.6 billion budget request to a U.S. House Appropriations Panel on June 5th – one month after welcoming vouchers to his city – Mayor Williams warned that the city's fiscal future is in jeopardy. The District has cut services and capital spending and has rolled back tax cuts to close a budget gap of approximately $457 million for fiscal year 2003. Even if the economy improves, the District will need federal financial aid of several hundred million dollars. During the hearing, Mayor Williams explicitly demanded that any money the District receives through the Bush Administration's school voucher initiative should be in addition to, and not in place of, other federal aid. How large D.C.'s share of the $75 million financing for the school voucher pilot initiative will be is still uncertain. Opponents to the mayor's voucher decision earlier this year clearly see the trade-off taking shape on the city's financial horizon. Federally-funded school vouchers for the District had already been approved by the Republican-controlled House years ago, but were vetoed by then-President Bill Clinton.

Despite all the different methods to allocate funds for public education across the U.S., property taxes remain the predominant source of funding. If revenues are collected and distributed on the local school district level and are not subject to re-allocation on a county or state administrative level, then educational provisions would correlate with the geographical distribution of wealth. Such a system creates largely homogenized school districts in terms of the available funding for schools. As a consequence, low funding creates magnets for poverty-ridden educational institutions not capable of providing sufficient, quality education. According to the No Child Left Behind Act, this is exactly the eligible target group for school enhancement and school voucher programs.

Education Reform With NCLB: Closing In On The Achievement Gap With Flexibility and Accountability

The interdependence among poverty-ridden districts and students' poor performances was already recognized by the “Elementary and Secondary Education Act” (ESEA) of 1965, NCLB’s predecessor with provisions under “Title 1.” This legislation is now referred to as "the foundation of the NCLB reforms" in the education budget proposal for 2004 and requests funds of $12.4 billion. Being ESEA's and now NCLB’s largest program, Title 1 grants federal money to local school districts based on their enrollment of poor students. Title 1 is especially popular because it allocates federal funds to almost every Congressional district. However, studies showed that in some cases, Title 1 funds defeated their purpose because they were used to supplant, instead of supplementing, local funds. The NCLB Act of 2001 bases the entire school-choice program, and therefore its voucher system, on the definition of low-performing schools and poor students.

American education relies throughout the system on standardized testing instruments to assess performance. One of those instruments for K-12 education is the National Education Assessment Program. Its results showed in 2001 that only 32% of American fourth-graders could read proficiently or better, whereas 63% of African-American fourth-graders, 58% of Hispanics, 60% of children in poverty and 47% in inner-city schools have tested "below basic" in reading comprehension. Results like those lead many policy-makers to assume that the school system has not improved a lot since the famous "A Nation at Risk" report of 1983. Critics of this much-debated report complained in the aftermath of its release that increasing tests would make schools rather tougher than better.

Gerald Holton, Professor Emeritus at Harvard University and one of the accomplished authors of “A Nation at Risk,” reminded readers of the Chronicle of Higher Education that it was then-President Ronald Reagan who, during his first year of the Presidency, made the political mission for the report-to-be clear to the authors at the inaugural meeting: “Bring God back into the classroom. Encourage tuition tax credits for families using private schools. Support vouchers. Leave the primary responsibility for education to parents.” (An Insider's View of 'A Nation at Risk' and Why It Still Matters). With its 20th anniversary, the concussive report “A Nation at Risk”, which was based on two years of research across schools throughout the United States, bears witness to the fact that priorities in Republican education policy apparently have remained unchanged since President Reagan’s time in the White House.

The NCLB Act requires statewide “accountability systems” covering all students and public schools. It rates schools' performances using the annual standardized test results of students in grades 3 through 8 in reading and mathematics (in the future, also science). The standards are based on annual statewide progress objectives set to ensure that all pupils reach proficiency in the tested areas within 12 years of public education. Schools and school districts that fail to meet those objectives will be subject to improvement, corrective action and also restructuring. The law requires every state to release a list of its schools classified for improvement before the start of the school year. A school remains on this list for two years. Since schools are held accountable for their performances, parents of children enrolled in under-achieving schools are eligible to choose a different school within the same district. If the school fails to make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) as determined by annual testing performances, parents are given enlarged choice options through school vouchers and supplemental teaching programs. The school district will be responsible for providing transportation to that new school. Twenty-five million dollars are assigned for ‘Voluntary Public School Choice’ grants to build new intra- and inter-school district choice options within states. Moreover, the NCLB Act explicitly encourages the founding of charter schools by reserving an additional $320 million for that purpose alone.

In the school year 2002/2003, almost 2,700 charter schools are operating in 36 states, including the District of Columbia, and about 685,000 students are enrolled in them. A recent study titled "Impact of Charter Schools on School Districts" analyzed the challenges and opportunities of this system. The results showed that charter schools forced public schools to become more competitive in the services they offer. However, it seems interesting that the opening of charter schools mainly had a positive impact on public schools in districts that already showed a decent performance in their school system. Conversely, school districts that were already troubled by declining enrollment, increasing class-sizes, lay-offs, school closings and having to downsize their central offices reported that charter schools had a very negative impact on their budgets. Charter schools in these challenged districts are meant to supplant public schools rather than enlarge the options parents have to send their children to better performing schools, as promised by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Voucher options are complemented by additional incentives through "State-Flex" and "Local-Flex" mechanisms that allow States, local educational agencies and schools to consolidate federal funds. This new flexibility allows federal funds that were originally dedicated to specific programs to be used for other authorized purposes in exchange for a broader commitment to improving student achievements. Additional flexibility in the use of federal money is granted through the new "transferability" provisions, which allow the use of up to half of the amount received through different programs or under Title 1 provisions.

With the NCLB Act, the Bush Administration takes a highly individualistic and market-driven approach towards tackling the education systems' weaknesses and challenges. In his educational reform, George W. Bush chose to bring the leverage to bear on the general concept of how to federally finance public education. Rather than creating sustainable and reliable base financing systems to prevent the immediate reflection of a state’s economy on the public school system and integrating measures of equalizing local disadvantages, NCLB takes the approach of holding individual schools accountable and parents responsible. Vouchers, and the increase in choice by substantially promoting charter schools, are key elements of President Bush’s education reform. One concern about this putative freedom of choice for families who come from disadvantaged backgrounds still remains: How will these families be adequately provided with sufficient information on their choices, and how will they be brought to make suitable decisions about their children’s educational future when federal policy indicates it will take on less responsibility for public education?

Eugene W. Hickok, Under-Secretary of Education, who recently announced his resignation, called the No Child Left Behind Act a non-regulatory guidance in his statement of witness to the House Subcommittee on Education. However, it substantially de-regulates, privatizes and de-institutionalizes the U.S. public education system by setting massive financial incentives. In doing so – as contradictory as it may sound – the NCLB Act and, therefore, the federal government assumes strong governance for K-12 education, despite the Bush Administration’s narrow reading of the Tenth Amendment.

Political observers predict education policy will remain on top of the political agenda in the President’s 2004 election campaign. It also seems that in 2004 President George W. Bush will most likely begin work at reshaping what follows K-12: it will be the year when the Higher Education Act comes up for re-authorization.


Resources:
o President's Remarks on the progress in Education Reform
o In Focus - Education
o Education Reform per State
o Department of Education (DOE): Office of Non Public Education
o Department of Education (DOE): FAQ's for NCLB
o Glossary Term Index at the Department of Education website
o President's 2004 Budget: State Fact Sheets
These fact sheets highlight what President Bush's $53.1 billion budget request for the Education Department in 2004 means for your state.
o The State Education Office of the District of Columbia
o The Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) provides an excellent source of studies and research papers ready to download
o Assessment and Accountability Systems: 50 State Profiles
o The Federal Role in Education: Overview
o Graph: the structure of education in the United States
o Progress of Education in the United States of America: 1990 through 1994
o Department of Education: Policy Overview
o Trends in the Use of School Choice: 1993 to 1999
o Description of Funding Systems arranged by State
o Re-educating the Voters about Texas' Schools, NY Times, June 3rd 2003
o 2004 education budget
o Families See Two Sides to Tax Cuts: Oregon. 'How do we think it's OK to make our children second-class citizens...?'
o State Shortfalls Projected Throughout the Decade
o Supreme Court affirms school voucher program. June 27, 2002
o www.uscharterschools.org
o Challenge and Opportunity: The Impact of Charter Schools on School Districts
o A Nation at Risk
o Middle Class Tax Share Set to Rise - Studies Say Burden Of Rich to Decline. Washington Post, June 4, 2003; Page A01
o Williams Pushes for Aid. City's Fiscal Future in Jeopardy, Mayor Tells House Panel. Washington Post, June 5, 2003; Page B01
o Mayor Endorses Vouchers in D.C.. Norton Criticizes Statement as 'Selling Out' Home Rule. Washington Post, May 2, 2003; Page A01.
o National Center for Educational Statistics: Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary Education
o Brown Center on Education Policy
o An Insider's View of 'A Nation at Risk' and Why It Still Matters

In 1938, nuclear fission was accomplished by German scientist Otto Hahn. As a result of his success many physicists immediately realized the enormous energy stored in the atomic nucleus, and the potential this energy had if it were to be applied to weapons. As it became evident that Germany was collecting all the uranium that was available during World War II, Leo Szilard together with Edward Teller, both outstanding physicists of Hungarian origin, urged Albert Einstein to write his famous letter to U.S. President Roosevelt to warn him about the dangerous situation which Adolph Hitler would present if Hitler possessed nuclear weapons. Roosevelt took Einstein’s letter to heart and embarked on exploring the feasibility of such an “atomic weapon.” He put J. R. Oppenheimer, then a leading expert in nuclear physics and a professor at UC Berkeley, in charge of the so-called Manhattan Engineering Project. Together with the military leader of this project, General Leslie R. Groves, Oppenheimer decided to locate the main facility of this project in Los Alamos in the mountains of northern New Mexico. Hence, the Los Alamos National Laboratory was born in April 1943.

Oppenheimer recruited the best-and-brightest minds available, including Hans Bethe, Enrico Fermi, Richard Feynman, Leo Szilard, Eugene Wigner and Edward Teller just to name a few. After two years of intense work, the $2 billion dollar top-secret project’s outcome was the first atomic bomb which was successfully tested at the Trinity test site in southern New Mexico on July 16th, 1945.

In the meantime, Germany capitulated and lost the war on the European front, but the war was still in motion in the Pacific Theatre with no end in sight. A multitude of reasons existed in support of ending the war there as fast as possible: to save the lives of U.S. soldiers fighting Japan, to prevent the Soviet Union from expanding their influence in the Far East, etc… President Roosevelt’s successor, Truman, decided after much deliberation to drop the first atomic bomb over Hiroshima, Japan. The bomb was a uranium-powered, gun-type bomb nicknamed “Little Boy.”

On August 6th 1945, approximately 140,000 inhabitants of Hiroshima were killed while thousands more were severely injured in a city that was laid to waste. Japan’s refusal to surrender resulted in a second bomb, a plutonium-powered, implosion-type bomb nicknamed “Fat Man,” being dropped on August 9th, 1945 over Nagasaki. Another 70,000 people were killed.

The decision to drop two bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki finally effected Japan’s surrender. World War II was officially over, but another war began: the armament race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union known as the “Cold War.” Just four years after the first successful U.S. nuclear test at Trinity, the Soviet Union exploded their first nuclear device on August 29th, 1949 at their test site. The “Cold War” was fought under the imminent threat of nuclear disaster. Again, Los Alamos scientists were urged to develop better and more powerful nuclear weapons.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990s, the Cold War ended, but there were other challenges to the scientific community. For example, how was it possible to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and how could the use of nuclear weapons by terrorists or dictatorial regimes be prevented? Now, one of the great challenges is how to guarantee the effectiveness of the nuclear weapons stockpile without being allowed to perform live nuclear tests. This challenge, in particular, is mitigated by running computer simulations of the behavior of nuclear weapons. To do this properly, outstanding computer hard- and software needs to be developed and improved. Only then can the necessary material data be effectively measured. These developments and measurements will take a significant amount of time before they come to full fruition. As work continues, it is necessary to consider other projects tackled by the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the last 60 years.

The Los Alamos National Laboratory has not been idle, and it does not only stand for big contributions to modern weapons technology. Many other scientific achievements have been made including the development of nuclear rocket propulsion systems as well as the ability to generate short, powerful light pulses by excimer lasers. Another main effort was (and still is) to explore alternative sources of energy like geothermal-, solar- and nuclear fusion energies. Geological studies to predict earthquakes and computer models to understand the Earth’s climate change have been performed and developed. When the LANSCE linear particle accelerator was built in 1972, the results of this facility did much to contribute to ‘particle physics’ ever since.

Other major contributions to science have been made by various Los Alamos scientists. For example, the first experimental proof of the existence of the “neutrino” was delivered in Los Alamos by Fred Reines. He was awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in this matter. From the beginning, Los Alamos scientists including J. von Neuman and R. Feynman, later followed by Stan Ulam and Nick Metropolis, led the way in developing computers and performing computations of complex mathematical problems. Other scientific disciplines besides physics and mathematics, such as biology and medicine, have been explored. The best example that illustrates Los Alamos’ broad scientific identity is the human genome project which was recently completed. It was largely conceived in 1986 in Santa Fe by Los Alamos scientists. Since then, the human genome project came to signify the dedication of the Lab to modern science.

These days, systems and techniques to detect explosives, nuclear, biological, and chemical hazardous materials are being developed in Los Alamos in support of the Department of Homeland Security. The intent is to prevent further terrorist attacks like that of September 11th, a day which will never be forgotten.

Today almost 14,000 people, including contractors from all over the world, are working at, or in conjucntion with, the Los Alamos National Laboratory. With an annual budget of approximately $2 billion dollars to support the Los Alamos population and its facilities, modern science can be assured of its progress through an intense and consistent effort. When of the 60th anniversary celebrations commenced on April 7th, 2003, this effort was best summarized by interim director Pete Nanos: “Science is the value the Laboratory brings to the nation.”

The author would like to thank Dr. Konstantinos Boboridis and Dr. Andrew Obst for their helpful comments in reading this article.


Achim Seifter conducts research at the Department of Neutron Science and Technology at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He can be contacted at seif@lanl.gov

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is the world's largest general scientific society and also publishes its own magazine, Science. AAAS and its magazine report to nearly 140,000 individual and institutional subscribers, including 272 affiliated organizations in more than 130 countries. It is estimated that a total of 10 million individuals benefit from AAAS.

AAAS seeks to "advance science and innovation throughout the world for the benefit of all people." To fulfill this mission, the AAAS Board of Directors has set the following (broad) goals with the intent to: