I am quite often asked, in some form or another, “What can [STATE][LOCAL] government do to spur on an innovation-based economy in [SEATTLE][WASHINGTON]?”

Well, as I said on a panel at the Technology Alliance meeting in Leavenworth on Tuesday, the single biggest correlate to the strength of an innovative biotechnology industry in any geography is the quality of the major research institutions. The two heavyweight biotech hubs are Boston and the Bay Area.  No surprise there:

• In Boston, there are Harvard, MIT, Tufts, Boston University, and various smaller but world-renowned research institutes such as the Whitehead and the Broad;
• Iin the Bay Area, there are Stanford, UC Berkeley, and UCSF.

In my previous post, I focused my attention on what I perceive to be the problems facing our public school system. They are varied and complex, but I believe they can be solved. I’d now like to briefly highlight a few of the solutions I propose in my book, Outrageous Learning. Before I do so, I want to reiterate that my criticisms are primarily directed at the system. I know there are many talented teachers and administrators that are doing their best to educate our children within a broken system, but there is a shocking absence of common sense and it only seems to be getting worse.

[ view Scott's site here ]

Our nation’s schools are in trouble. I’m sure that isn’t news to anyone who’s reading this. I’m a product of the public school system and, while the system wasn’t perfect back then, it served me and my family well.  In the decades since my graduation, however, things have steadily become much worse. The problems are now so deeply ingrained, the outcomes are now so appalling, and the costs so astronomical that we, as a society, can no longer afford to accept the status quo.  I’m fortunate to be able to send my three children to private schools, but I understand this isn’t an option for many families. The public education system in our country is failing us and we need to take action. This is precisely what motivated me to write my book, Outrageous Learning: An Education Manifesto, which was recently published by the Washington Policy Center.

As we think about healthcare reform in this country, it might be a good time to contemplate the question of who really deserves to get healthcare paid for by others. (I have already, in a previous post, proposed the idea that much of the system remain the same and that those who cannot afford health insurance be supplemented through something akin to “Healthcare Stamps.”)

What I mean by this is: How much personal responsibility and accountability should we demand?  For instance, if someone gets drunk and gets behind the wheel of a car, and gets into an accident in which he is injured, should the cost of that person’s medical treatments be borne by that individual or should tax dollars paid-in by others cover the costs?

Immigration policy is an issue that causes much debate in this country, particularly on the West Coast. It is a complex subject that has many component parts that tend to be lumped together. I’d like to focus upon one aspect of U.S. policy that needs to be looked at in isolation: H-1B visas. H1-B’s are temporary visas of up to 6 years in duration primarily used by U.S. corporations to hire skilled foreign nationals. Prior to 1990, Congress placed no limitations on the hiring of skilled foreign nationals. The Immigration Act of 1990 changed the rules entirely with the establishment of a new H-1B visa category and created an annual cap of 65,000. Recently the cap was raised to an additional 20,000 for foreign nationals who graduated from a U.S. university with an advanced degree.

Why is this an issue? Here are some interesting facts that shine a light on it:

Who's running the show?  On March 9, 2009 and again at the National Academy of Sciences, President Obama called for government scientific policy to be developed on the basis of scientific facts, not politics or ideology.

With that declaration he called for a lifting of the ban on federal funding of research on embryonic [pluripotent] stem [ES] cells imposed by President Bush on August 9, 2001. Bush had banned funding of both new ES lines, but also producing pluripotent stem cell lines by SCNT. In SCNT, the nucleus from a body cell of an adult individual is transferred into an egg that had its own chromosome removed, stimulating the NT egg to divide, and rescuing the pluripotent cells from that entity. SCNT has been done tens of times in mice, and a few times with nonhuman primates. In mice, if the donor has a genetic disease, the pluripotent stem cell line has those genes, and if these stem cells are incorporated into a developing mouse, the cells and the mouse may get that disease. So the science says one can capture a disease in a pluripotent stem cell line, and have the expectation that the disease can be understood and eventually treated; the cell line is the basis for both, including drug screening.

Don't worry, I'm not about to propose that we should all invest in personal space travel, although some of our colleagues apparently have.  No, what this is about are the unintended consequences of pushing the boundaries of science.  Space as the final frontier may be one of the most sexy of these, but this article could easily be written about most any area of technological advancement.

Every time someone talks about the next great challenge in space, the nattering nabobs of negativism talk about how much it costs, and couldn't those dollars be better spent on the problems right here on earth?

Health care is not a "right."  Health care is a collection of products and services, offered for sale by a diverse group of individuals, partnerships, and corporations. Healthcare is no more a right than food. In fact, both healthcare and food fall into the category of “necessities.” But necessities are not rights. These two categories are dealt with very differently by our federal government. As an example, necessities like food are often subsidized in programs like Food Stamps.