>> very possible. when i talk to my colleagues in iceland, iceland is actively thinking about how do they become the singapore of that century? this becomes a very different ocean and a very different world for our navy to operate in, so this is just one example. i could talk about sea level, i could talk about ocean acidification. in the interest of time, sir, i'll stop here. but you're exactly right. this is looking at what we -- not guarantee, but is likely to happen and looking at consequences times possibilities and planning for those kinds of situations, and that's what we've embarked on, sir. >> that's a very, very helpful summary. a context of that, also, is not with infrequency people here on the committee will hear a suggestion that all the money that has been spent on climate change research has been wasted.

well, a fair bit of the instrumentation that has been used to gather the data that leads to the analysis came from defense applications whether it's satellites in the air, sensors on equipment. and certainly my hunch would be that down the road you folks will be mighty glad to have those seven -- sensors and the data they've given you as you make your planning. >> yes, sir. the data are useful. i'm sure you know, sir, the submarine missions we had run in the cold war and 1990s, they provide valuable observations of how thick is that ice so we can calibrate or basically tune our sat title. s. i'd -- satellites. the department of defense is a big user of the civil structure that, in part, is appropriated from your committee. we work very closely with noaa. i have a great relationship with the doctor, and one of the

things on the practical adaptation side we are jointly looking at between the navy, noaa and the air force, also have department of energy and nasa involved, is how do we look at a next generation of weather, ocean, ice coupled prediction model so that by roughly 2020, in about ten years from now, we can predict that system as a couple -- as a whole and really going spanning between weather time frames, say hours to days, out to, say, roughly about two or three decades. because as we're planning for our infrastructure or let's say if you're the port of new york and new jersey, you're planning for your infrastructure. you want to be looking at that. there are for very, very good reasons there are boundaries in the science community between the weather folks, the oceanographers, the climatologists. but if you're a decision maker, if you're running a business or a government agency, you know, with all due respect you don't really care what those

boundaries are. you need an answer. and your answers span these time frames. the words of the former directer of the national center for atmospheric research, he said, hey, typically what you're trying to do is go between a force forced by conditions to one forced by today's boundaries. open science questions. big challenge. but i think it's a great challenge for this nation of ours and one that will help us as we, as we adapt in a cost-constrained environment. >> thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. mr. lopez, i'm intrigued by this issue of mitigation and adaptation, particularly as things apply to, perhaps, disadvantaged communities. and it seems there are two -- well, there are multiple factors, but one is not only domestically in the u.s., but globally a lot of the folks who are going to get if there are the impacts which are projected which seems more probable than

not in many cases anyway, if those impacts happen, they're going to impact some of the people who had the least to do with causing the problem and the fewest resources to cope with the problem. can you elaborate on that domestically within our own sociodemographic span, but also if you have insights into globally how that impacts the worldsome? well, i think that's absolutely correct. i think that's of particular concern for us at hud as we implement our programs and policies. we want to make sure that the populations that we serve are, we are thinking through adequately about the future stresses that might be imposed on those populations knowing that the more stresses you have today, the more likely you are impacted to be tomorrow. i think there's a couple of points of insight focusing more on the domestic side of things that i'd like to make. and first is as the admiral point t out, you know, these decisions, they're being made today.

it's not like we can wait. moving beyond the military example, the 100-year flood plan, management of goods and services, agricultural/economic development, build the infrastructure which is what we deal with at hud, we have to make decisions now about the future. and those decisions can't wait. so our challenge is how do you take that, that fact and build a system or a process that helps to mainstream or integrate the climate change variable? and i would suggest a couple of things. one -- and i think it's endemic to these grants we put out, is is to find the triggers. there are those communities that are aware of the assumptions of climate change, but there are opportunities that happen, planning opportunities like the challenge grants that we have put out. disaster recovery is an opportunity where you open up and start to say, okay, what does the future look like when we have to rebuild? infrastructure investments. when you have to spend a billion

dollars on a waste weather treatment facility, you want to make the best decision you can, and it's really about learning as much as you can right now about what you need to know about the future. so i really think, mr. chairman, it comes down to better decisions. and for us it's the populations in large measure that you identified. so it's about scenario planning, and it's really about how do you help communities make a decision most compatible with uncertainty? we know there's uncertainty. local governments, governments at all levels make decisions with uncertainty every day. it's about making those, the assumptions about climate in those decisions transparent, understanding them better and making decisions in uncertainty. and one guiding he lesson we learned and my perspective coming from local government to the federal government is to think on the margin. it's about the marginal cost of

what you need to do next. it's not necessarily about building a new system. it's about the marginal cost to the billion dollar investment you already made. and when you reach that point, you can do a cost benefit analysis based on the mar gyps to see how much -- margins to see how much you know, how much you understand about the future and whether or not the investment is worth it. and the final point i make is you always have to consider the co-benefits. for us, we are acutely aware of where you build, how you build, how you help communities prepare for the future. that's what we do. green roofs, green space, energy efficiency, water, it's reused, it's conservation. all of these things are co-benefits to decisions that have to be weighed in, i think, when you're analyzing the marginal costs of the decision. >> very well put. i have the privilege of riding on a cross-country flight with secretary sims who i have great respect for and has served our

region very well. you mentioned the co-benefits. one of the things i was so impressed with was the secretary's analysis of things like health benefits from healthier communities. if we do it right, there's a positive synergy to this. if we preserve green space, if we change how roofs are colored, that can produce greater reflections, etc. and more -- and reduce temperature inside homes, etc. one of the things i would hope we don't do as a body is those who are, who are antagonistic to the climate change scenario, that they don't say anything that was ever done in the name of climate science we're going to reverse, sort of analogous to taking the photovoltaic panels off the white house as a statement. well, if we do that, we're going to roll back a lot of things that have co-benefits in and of themselves, and i think that would be really unfortunate for all the interests we've heard today.

briefly, particularly directed to rear admiral titley but if others want to comment as well, and then i'll get back to specific questions. we've had significant discussion whether or not a climate service is needed, if so, what would its benefits be? what are your thoughts on whether or not a climate service would be useful to you, and what would be useful about it if it existed? this. >> first, thanks very much for the question. a climate service, i believe, would be very useful for the navy. it provides, almost hate the phrase, but a one-stop shop, if you will, or at least a source of both coherent and authoritative data. it would be ideally staffed by people who would be conversant with those data as well as, of course, machine to machine ways of pulling these. we have lots of different places with very good quality that produce various types of climate models, national centers for

atmospheric research, department of energy has some tremendous programs, academia, etc. as the dod i do not want to replicate or duplicate. we cannot spend our taxpayers' dollars doing things that have already been done well, but i need access. >> but you need that data. >> but i need access, and i need to be able to get it without sort of the hunt and peck method or whatever we call google now on the hunted. back when you and i were growing up, it would be hunt and peck. >> yeah. [laughter] >> so having that, you know, probably in one agency, i know noaa has looked at this and, you know, that would make sense to us. whatever the committee and the congress and the administration ultimately decide, but the concept of of a climate services would be very, very use l. >> and the model of that would interface with a number of others areas like agriculture, hud, obviously, the defense

applications. that's the model that we had in mind, and gather the best, you know, it's not a one-way street. it's not that the climate service tells you what's happening. ideally, the climate service gathers mftion from your expertise and data sets, and it's a synergistic model. mr. lopez or any others want to comment on that issue? mr. geer? >> yes. first of all, we support heavily the establishment of a national climate service. we feel that as additional information becomes available on a scientific basis, we need to have that information to make intelligent management descriptions on specific places around the country geographicically. what's pertinent in the intermountain west which is a relatively air rid environment may still be different than the southeastern u.s., and what we need is geographically specific information, the best prediction we can get so the strategies we put on the ground are the ones that are pertinent and applicable to that particular area so we don't waste the money either. for them to be effective, we

need information-central kind of area where we can store the information and retrieve the information. we can find out where the it comes from, we consult with others. we are better informed as professionals, and we can do a more effective job. we think that the effective climate service ought to be coordinated among the state and federal agencies so everyone can -- this is a worldwide issue. we can all participate in the data gathers rg -- gathering, sharing and information. >> with regards to service, i think the fundamental need is really the information system. for example, the sea ice issue that was raised earlier, which of the 12 data sets should we be looking at? there's a bunch, the average user doesn't know which one to use, there's no air assessments, and then they look at it and see sea ice in the mediterranean, and how are they supposed to interpret that? >> no sea ice in the

mediterranean. [laughter] >> i know. but some data sets give it to you there. >> is that true? >> oh, yeah. >> i know that's not a data set. >> certain satellite products, they will mistake clouds for sea ice, and you can get sea ice in the mediterranean. [laughter] okay? my point is we need to establish authoritative climate data records where people sift through the information, look at the uncertainties and give somebody one data set that they can use. >> with some error boundaries. >> >> with some error bounds on it, and it's also an issue of accessibility. people need to be able to search and use the data sets, and otherwise trying to even for somebody like me sometimes trying to get the climate data i need is like, it's torture, okay? >> yeah. >> compared to somebody who's not even a climate researcher, who's just trying to use the data set. this is, we have a very fundamental need for climate

data information -- >> so some kind of combination of open source, but with a qualitative filter to it. >> the open source would be an interesting route to go. >> mr. lopez? >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think i'd like to stay within the confines of the task force report, part of our charge and what we're calling is a national climate change adaptation strategy. i think a lot of the principles we've discussed the need to get information out, the need for a dialogue with the scientific community, a process by which we can evaluate that information and embed it into our mission of each agency and across the federal government and down through the states and local governments would be -- is part of that process, and i think moving forward we hope to continue a dialogue with you as we work on that. >> okay, thank you. mr. geer, i want to ask you specifically, i represent an area where hunting and fishing is huge. southwest washington people love to hunt. i grew up as a hunter. we literally fed our family by hunting and fishing. that was our main source of protein was antelope or rabbit

or duck. if it moved, we shot it, if we shot it, we ate it, and we ate all of it. [laughter] and that's the case in a lot of my district. the recreational pursuit is tremendously important to people. i had the opportunity to talk to one of the ongoing fights back home is gill nets versus sports fishermen, and i had a lot of conversations with fishermen concerning gill netting, and i think it's a legitimate and important debate. at the beginning of it, we began to talk about ocean acidification, and these folks hadn't heard much about it. we're focusing so much on one issue sometimes, what impact do you see to if we have ocean acidification as you heard dick feely testify to earlier and you lose the basic food chain and if you increase the temperature of the water -- back home we go nuts providing shade, etc., for

streams and other tributaries so that the salmon can spawn in cool water. what do do you see as a come biuation with more asissic water -- acidic water and high temperature water? >> well, i think it's a fairly simple prediction in some regards. if you have less food, smaller population base, perhaps, of less healthy fish who are able to go upstream and spawn. then you have an environment upstream that's not particularly inviting for them in the first place. there are some questions to be asked, for example, will the chemical makeup of the water change it to the point where you do not recognize the stream anymore which will upset the spawning behavior, and if they do find the correct stream, will they have a physical environment that enables them to spawn -- it's not just the act of spawning, you also have to have a catch. if you've worked if fish hatcheries, we work with things called a degree day. a degree day is one center grade

for one day. if you have a species that's spawning in spring and is tied to the flow, you have shorter -- fewer number of days with warmer water. but the cycle of time not only when the eggs hatch, but what physical environment for the younger fish exists at that time is is a side water for younger fish which are not muscular, they're small, they're prone to be washed away and preyed upon by big fish. are there areas of flow at the time of year they can escape to so you have successful recruitment spanning, hatching of young egg fish? it's a whole series of factors, but if you start with the fact you have fewer fish to move upstream because you have a smaller body of fish in the ocean, and if they're poor in health, physiologically less suitable condition, you have a

smaller population going up, you have a reduced spawn size, perhaps a less favorable environment. >> what you've hit upon is so important to me. when we talk about this issue, sometimes people say to themselves, i hear it a lot, wait a second, you're talking one degree, two degrees. my understanding of the biology of many species is that many of them live fairly near the upper bounds of their temperature tolerance. and a one-degree change in water temperature over a period of of time can be lethal. a change in ph level can be lethal. integrated, they can have a terribly negative synergy, and now you're adding in the variables of stream flow, other has habitat issues, nutrition supplies, etc. even small changes can produce those impacts? this. >> yeah. depending on where they are on the tolerance curve.

if you have something, for example, like rainbow trout they have an optimal temperature of 55 degrees fahrenheit. you have some wiggle room on either side where you can still have either good growth or slower growth on a viable population. but when you get up five degrees, you're seat getting ino smallmouth bass range, suddenly you have lower reproductive success, and you have the opportunity for what we're calling invasive species, species that are intruding on their territory which is what's happening in yellowstone river and some other areas. you have species that operate in the higher temperature range. when you get on the upper range of the thermo tolerance, that's when you get the higher level of risk. one of the things i've noticed over the years, as humans we tend to think we're the center of the universe, and we tend to think what we understand is really what's important. we confuse lack of understanding with lack of importance. we don't understand how a small

temperature difference can make a large difference with something else. we're in an integrated environment, we're in a comfortable room, thermostat-controlled, comfortable. if you're outside in the environment living without a thermostat, things are different. and they don't respond to the same stimuli that we respond to. we can debate, for example, whether or not the science is exactly right, whether or not they're at the upper end of the thermal tolerance or whatever, we can debate the policy outcomes and even the range of the economy. but the animals don't get that vote. they go where the environment is within their life history and their tolerance, and if habitat's not there, they'll go to where it is. some of them will not enjoy that advantage. they're already at the limits of their tolerance, and there's nowhere else to go. if you're a mountain goat, where do you go? they go to the habitat where it suits them. >> and they don't have time to evolve to adapt to the pace of

change. >> no. we're talking evolutionary changes, maybe hundreds of years or perhaps thousands of years. but we're talking things that are going to change much more rapidly, and they similarly haven't -- simply haven't got time to adapt to the physiological changes. and i hope that we're all wrong, actually, and that we've overestimated that, but the odds aren't looking good. >> yeah. dr. curry, i was intrigued by one of your observations, i thought it was very telling and important. it's not just co3, there are other -- 2, there are other fact factors, population and land use. those are also integrated, however, with co2 output. can you elaborate? they combine to have combined effects. can you elaborate on that? >> well, our as a vulnerabilityo global warming is is largely associated with increase in population, where we choose r choose to build and what we do to our ecosystems and how we

engineer and, you know, get rid of some of our barriers. at the same time, as population increases this is, you know, a big part of the carbon dioxide problem. so it's a big, complex, wicked problem that's coupled in very complicated ways. and, again, i tried to make the point that there's no silver bullet solution, and there's all these intersecting problems. i mean, the climate problem doesn't stand alone. it's coupled to population, it's coupled to energy, increasingly the ocean acidification, and we need to look at the broad solution space, possible solution space for all these issues and try to figure out what makes sense. >> this population issue seems so important to me because if each individual has their own personal carbon footprint, if you will, but what it takes to live your lifestyle, add a lot more people, you magnify the impact. >> okay. and where the population is

growing is in central and south asia. that's where the rapid, rapid, rapid population is growing, and this is where economic development is huge. and what's going on there is going to totally dominate -- well, it's already dominating the co2 story, and it's going to explode, really, many terms of dominating the carbon dioxide situation. so that becomes a whole political issue about, you know, what india and china does and how we deal with the risks. and the whole issue of who's a winner and loser, again, north china looks a lot more favorable in a warmer climate, potentially, okay? with more water and a nicer climate, you know? during part of of the year. and so what is going to be their motivation, you know? we haven't really looked at, you know, the winners and losers part of the story in the way that we should and really understood vulnerabilities. i mean, in the u.s. we have a fairly good sense of it, but in a lot of the developing world that are either very vulnerable

or, like, india and china, south asia that are going to be the big powerhouses in terms of emissions and populations, we just really haven't done a lot of the analysis that we need to do to really sort this out. >> what about the argument that, well, you know, there are so many chinese, so many people in india, indonesia, etc., they're going to pump out so much co2 that what we do here doesn't matter. >> well, superficially it doesn't, but the chinese have already poisoned their environment in serious ways, so their big motivation for doing something about it is really trying to stop the poisoning of their soil, water and air, okay? so that's their motivation. and on one hand it doesn't, but everybody's going to need -- there's no way that the developing world is going to be able to compete for, like, petroleum, you know, in terms of dollars, especially when we see what, you know, peek oil or -- peak oil or whatever. so there's going to have to be

alternative energy sources of some sort, and the people who take the leadership in that area is going to be less vulnerable to prices -- price swings and global security issues, so there's a lot of motivation on being out there in front and taking a leadership position on all of these alternative energy strategies. >> one final question for you, and then i'll bring it to a close, i suppose. i had the opportunity in almost every case here to look online and other things you had done, and you mentioned the blogosphere. i'll tell you, i was pretty troubled by it. i went on a few climate sites on both sides, and it was not the scientific dialogue that i'm trained in. it was snarky, it was nonsubstantive, it was ad hominem, it was juvenile and unconstructive. >> a lot of it is, okay? but there's what i would call the technical climate blogs that have spun up, and these are people who have an interest in

analyzing the data and looking into the science and people from both sides of the debate show up. so some of the more high-profile ones are very snarky and polarizing, but the blogosphere has sort of developed the sort of lukewarmer, technical blogging community where people are actually looking at the data, debating scientific papers, people from both sides, in a fairly civilized way. so i view this as something that it's important to tap into and acknowledge this interest, and that there's potential for reducing polarization. >> somehow there's got to be -- and i mentioned at the outset and i know you've written on this -- i mentioned this issue of science and integrity. you can't get an nsf grant, but you can blog with nothing. how do we -- it's an important point, and the reason it's so important and the reason we're having this hearing is to try to say, look, this idea of science

by ad how ad hominem attack, byl itization, by conspiratorial theory, by labeling things hoaxes, that ain't science. >> i know it's not. it's going to happen whether the blogosphere is is there or not. so many people distrust climate scientists and climate science. i mean, they view them as arrogant and whatever, and they were worried about u.n. policies taking over, and they were sort of scared. and then when climategate struck with the e-mails, people really had more of a concrete reason that they felt not to trust scientists. >> would you say that that, though, obliterates all the legitimate data -- >> oh, it doesn't at all, but it's an issue of the public trust, and a lot of things like the ipcc assessment report, there's a heavy dose of expert judgment in those conclusions, and if you don't trust the experts, you know, what are we

to make of their judgment? this so the data and the fundamental research is there, it's how it's assessed, communicated and by whom then becomes an issue. >> this is helpful. you know, i thank you all. i'll share an anecdote occurs to me. some years ago i was climbing mount rain year, and we were going up in the spring, and it's early. if you've never been in a whiteout, it's really quite an experience. we're walking with ski poles in front of us so we don't walk off something. you literally start probing because you can't see the earth, it's bizarre. and i had had the good fortune and maybe good sense when we left to actually take my come pass out, take a compass reading. so we follow this compass reading -- everybody else is just walking the way they think we should walk. and i had the compass reading. and at some point i said, you know, i don't like the feel of this. we haven't come back across the

path i think we should have, and if we're wrong, i knew from many climbs previously, there's about a 1500-foot drop down to the glacier. now, i said, you know, maybe what we ought to do is gather together and check our instruments. i happened to have an altimeter with me and a tote map. it was mighty hannity. [laughter] i -- handy. i had the compass reading from where we'd gone. everybody else in the party pretty much was saying, we're going to go this way, we're sure it's this way. i said, well, here's the point on the map where my instruments tell me we are. if we walk another 200 meters this way, i think we walk off a 1500-foot cliff as many others have done in equal conditions. the alternative, unfortunately, because we had gone this way this far was unpleasant. we had to actually go uphill, and when you've climbed all day and you've got a heavy backpack and it's deep snow and it's spooky, you don't want to go pack uphill. you hate it. it's hard work.

you're tired, it's not what you want. relative to a 1500 downhill -- [laughter] well, we trusted the instruments because we had 'em, and i've never been so happy in my life to see some spilled gatorade on the snow about half hour later. we had to, literally, almost change direction, walk uphill. the instruments gave us the data, and we could have gone where we wanted to go, where it seemed easy to go, where our intuition and our experience seemed to suggest it would go, but the data suggested something otherwise, and we followed the data, and i i probably wouldn't be here because i was on the lead, the sharp end of the rope. the point of our hearing today, and i think the point of this committee, i hope, which i am loathe and sad to leave, is that we have an obligation to approach decision making in a constitutional, democratic republic with rational, empirical judgment and information. imperfect and uncertain. but the best we can do.

and the hope today was we had a model of how that can happen. we won't reach any conclusions, i don't think anybody's going to say, dang, i was a complete skeptic before, now it's turned. maybe some will go the other way. but the process that we try to follow and the process of science is what's going to get us there. and i would hope that that process, that legacy on this committee if no other is is one based on empirical decision making, mutual respect, critical analysis, objective analysis, and i'm grateful for the witnesses on all sides that have helped us put this forward, and i hope for the sake of the two 5 and a half-year-old boys on which i make every fundamental decision in my life and countless others that are dear to you that we will weigh the consequences of inaction or inaccurate action against the consequences of acting in responsible, reasonable, ration

always for the broader good of not only our society, but the globe itself. and the stakes are pretty darn high, and can we've really got to get it right, and i thank thl of you for being here today and all of you in the audience for your perseverance and your patience and your expert input, and with that, this hearing stands adjourned. oh, sorry, they always remind me. there will be two weeks allowed for anyone who wishes to enter extraneous comments in the record, and with that -- and i would like, finally, to thank the staff for their participation in making this hearing and this last session of congress so successful. thank you. with that, the hearing stands i journaled. adjourned.

>> like all men of great gifts, when they give up power even though they may give it up for principled reasons, they're going to hanker for it the moment they give it up. >> in the final volume on theodore roosevelt, edmund morris examines the final years of t.r.'s life. sunday night at 8 on c-span's q&a. >> this year's student cam dock unit ri competition is is in

full swing. your documentary should include more than one point of view along with c-span programming. upload your video before the deadline of january 20th for your chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. there's $50,000 in total prizes. the competition's open to middle and high school students grades 6-12. for all the rules and how to upload your video, go online to student cam.org. >> president obama presented the national medals of science, technology and innovation at the white house this week. ten researchers received the nation's highest science award, and three individuals and one team received the technology and innovation award. the national medal of science has been awarded annually by the president since 1962. the national medal of technology and innovation has been awarded annually by the president since 1985. the 25-minute ceremony took place on wednesday in the east room of the white house.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you! thank you so much, everybody. thank you. wonderful to see you. please, everyone sit down. sit down. we've got a lot of work to do here. [laughter] have a seat. welcome to the white house. it is a great honor to be joined by so many leading researchers

and innovators. i want to give some special thanks to a few members of my cabinet, members of congress who are here today. secretary gary locke, our commerce secretary, is here. members of congress, we have arlen specter of pennsylvania and bart gordon of tennessee, please give them a big round of applause for their great work. [applause] we also have nasa administrator bolden who is here. [applause] dr. suresh who's the directer of our national science foundation is here. [applause] mr. dave campos is the directer of the patent and trademark office. [applause] he was here. he may have had some work to do.

dr. patrick gallagher who's the directer of our national institute of standards and technology. [applause] and dr. gary strickland, administrator of the national telecommunications and information administration. [applause] now, the achievements of the men and women who are on stage today stand as a testament to the ingenuity, to their zeal for discovery and to the willingness to give of themselves and the sacrifice in order to expand the reach of human understanding. all of us have benefited from their work. the scientists in this room helped develop the semiconductors and microprocessors that have propelled the information age. they've modeled the inner workings of the human mind and

the complex processes that shape the earth's climate. they've conducted pioneering research for mathematics to quantum physics into the sometimes strange and unexpected laws that govern our universe. folks here can also claim inventions like the digital camera which has revolutionized photography as all these folks back here will testify. [laughter] as well as super glue which in addition to fascinating children has actually saved lives as a means of sealing wounds. and the men and women we celebrate today have helped to unlock the secrets of genetics and disease, of man no technology and solar energy, of chemistry and biology. breakthroughs that provide so many benefits and hold so much potential from new sources of electricity to new ways of diagnose mosting and treating illness. along the way many of these

folks have broken down barriers for women and minorities who have traditionally been underrepresented in scientific fields, but obviously are no less capable of contributing to the scientific enterprise. just as an example, at the start of her career decades ago, esther cornwell was hired as an assistant engineer. but soon after she was told that this position wasn't open to a woman. she had to serve as an engineer's assistant instead. of course, that didn't stop her from becoming a pioneer in semiconductors and material science. it's no exaggeration to say that the scientists and innovators in this room have saved lives, improved our health and well being, helped unleash whole new industries and millions of jobs, transformed the way we work and learn and communicate. and this incredible contribution serves as proof not only of their incredible creativity and skill, but of the promise of

science itself. every day in research laboratories and on proving grounds, in private labs and university campuses, men and women conduct the difficult, often frustrating work of discovery. it isn't easy. it may take years to prove a hypothesis correct or decades to learn that it isn't correct. off the competition -- often the competition can be fierce whether in designing a product or securing a grant, and rarely do those who give their all to this pursuit receive the attention or the acclaim they deserve. yet it is in these labs often late at night, often fueled by dangerous combination of coffee and obsession -- [laughter] that our future is being won. for in a global economy, the key to our prosperity will never be to compete by paying our workers

less or building cheaper, lower quality products. that's not our advantage. the key to our success, as it has always been, will be to compete by developing new products, by generating new industries, by maintaining our role as the world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation. it's absolutely essential to our future. and that's why we're here today and why i look forward to events like these. i believe one of the most important jobs that i have as president is is to restore science to its rightful place. that means strengthening -- [applause] that means strengthening our commitment to research, it means insuring that our government makes decisions based on the best evidence rather than politics, it means reforming and

improving math and science education and encouraging the private sector to inspire young people to pursue careers in science and engineering. and it means fostering a climate of innovation and entrepreneurship. from incentives in clean energy to tax breaks to start-ups. i'd also point out that it's not just a job for government. creating this climate depends on all of us including businesses and universities and nonprofits. one of the most important ways in which we can restore science to it rightful place is by celebrating the contributions of men and women like all of you. because that's how we'll excite a new generation to follow in your footsteps, that's how we can spark the imagination of a young person who just might change the world. i was reminded of how important this is just a few weeks ago. we held a science fair here at the white house. some of you may have heard about it. we welcome all the time championship sport teams to the white house to celebrate their victories.

i thought we ought to do the same thing for the winners of science fairs and robotic contests and math competitions. because those young people often don't get the credit that they deserve. nobody rushes on the field and dumps gatorade on 'em when you win a science award. [laughter] maybe they should. [laughter] so i got to meet these incredibly talented and enthusiastic young men and women. there was a team of high school kids from tennessee that had designed a self-powered water purification system. we had robots running all over through the state dining room. [laughter] the last young person i spoke to was a young woman from texas, she was 16 years old. she was studying biology as a freshman, decided she was interested in cancer research so taught herself chemistry during the summer, then designed a science project to look at new cancer drugs based on some experimental drugs that are activated by light.

they could allow a more focused treatment that targets the cancer cells while leaving healthy cells remain unharmed. she goes on to design her own drug, wins the international science competition, and she told me that she and her high school science teacher are being approached by laboratories across the country to collaborate -- [laughter] on this potential new cancer treatment. this is a true story. 16 years old, taught herself chemistry. incredibly inspiring. and at a time of significant challenge in this country. at a moment when people are feeling so much hardship in their lives, this has to give us hope for the future. it ought to remind us of the incredible potential of this country and its people as long as as we unlock it, we put resources into it, we celebrate it, we embrace it. carl say begin once said science is a way of thinking much more

than it is a body of knowledge. that way of thinking, that combination of curiosity and skepticism, the sense of wonder and the willingness to test our assumptions, it's what at root we areoringoy. it's what has spurred countless advances and conferred untold benefits on our society, and it's an idea that has driven our success for as long as we have been a nation. and i'm confident that the spirit of discovery and invention will continue to help us succeed in the years and decades to come, and our country owes every one of our laureates with us today a big measure of thanks for nurturing that spirit and expanding the boundaries of human knowledge. so it is now my privilege to present the national medals of science and the national medal of technology and innovation. all right. [laughter] >> yakir aharonov.

the 2009 national medal of science to yakir aharonov for his contributions to the foundations of quantum physics and for drawing out implications of that field ranging to the theory of wheat measurement. [applause] steven j. benkovic. the 2009 national medal of science to steven j. benkovic, pennsylvania state university. for his research contributions in the field of bioorganic chemistry which have changed our understanding of how enzymes

function and enhanced the target of drug design. [applause] esther m. conwell, the 2009 national medal of science to esther m. conwell, university of rochester, for her broad contributions to understanding electron and hold transport in semiconducting materials which help to enable commercial applications of semiconductor and organic electronic devices and for extending her analysis to studying the electronic properties of dna. [applause]

mary ann fox, the 2009 national medal of science to mary ann fox, university of california san diego. for her research contributions in the areas of organic photochemistry and lek ro chemistry and enhancing our understanding of charged transfer processes with interdisciplinary applications in material science, solar energy conversion and environmental chemistry. [applause] susan lee linquist, whitehead

institute, massachusetts institute of technology. for her studies of protein folding demonstrating that alternative protein aggregations can have profound and unexpected poi logical influences facilitying insights in human disease, evolution and biomaterials. [applause] mortimer mishkin. the 2009 national medal of science to mortimer mishkin, national institutes of health, for his contribution to understanding the neurobasis, perception in primates, notably, the sensory processing systems especially audition and the organization of memory systems

in the brain. [applause] david b. mumford. finish the 2009 national medal of science to david b. mumford, brown university. for his contributions to the field of mathematics which fundamentally changeddal yes brayic geometry and for connecting mathematics to other topics such as neurobiology. [applause] stanley b. prusiner.

the 2009 national medal of science to stanley b. prusiner, university of california san francisco. for his discovery of pri ons, the causative agent of neurodegenerative diseases and his continuing efforts to develop effective methods for detecting and treating prix ondiseases. [applause] warren m. washington. the 2009 national medal of science to warren m. washington, national center for atmospheric research for his development and use of global climate models to understand climate and explain the role of human activities and natural processes in the earth's climate systems and for his work to support a diverse science and engineering work force.

[applause] >> amnon yariv. the 2009 national medal of science to amnon yariv, california institute of technology. for foundational contributions to foe tonics and quantum electronics including the demonstration of the semiconductor distributed feedback laser that underpins today's high-speed optical fiber communications. [applause]

harry w. hoover. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to harry w.coover, eastman chemical company, for his invention of novel adhesives known widely to consumers as super glues which today play significant roles in medicine and industry. [laughter] [applause]

>> helen m. free. the 2009 number medal of technology and innovation to helen m. free, miles laboratories, for her seminal contribution to diagnostic chemistry through development of dip and read urinallal sis which gave rise to a technological revolution in convenient, reliable point-of-care tests and patient self-monitoring. [applause] >> steven j.sasson. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to stephen j. sasson, eastman kodak

company, for the invention of the digital camera which has revolutionized -- [laughter] which has revolutionized the way images are captured, stored and created. creating new opportunities in commerce, education and global communication. >> [inaudible] [laughter] [applause] >> federico fagin and stanley massor. the 2009 national medal of technology and innovation to federico fagin and stanley

massor, intel corporation, for the conception, design and application of the first microprocessor which was commercially adopted and became the universal building block of digital electronic systems significantly impacting the global economy and people's day-to-day lives. [applause] [cheers and applause]

>> well, let me make two closing points. number one, i feel really smart just standing up here with these folks. [laughter] i think it kind of rubbed off on me. [laughter] number two, i want to congratulate our military aide for being able to read all those names. [laughter] [applause] i want to, i want to assure you, he practiced a lot. [laughter] and finally, let me just once again say to all the honorees who are here tonight, you have truly revolutionized the world in ways that are profoundly important to people many their day to today lives -- in their day-to-day lives but also helped to create those steps in human progress that really make us who

we are as human beings. and so we could not be prouder of you, could not be more grateful to you for your contributions. please, give them one last big round of applause. [applause] [applause] >> all right. everybody enjoy the party. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, please remain at your seats until the president and recipients have left the floor. thank you.

[laughter] >> there's a whole big crew here. are these all yours? [inaudible conversations] happy birthday. is that grand pa out there? cool. how about that? >> thank you very much. >> she's being a little shy. [laughter] [inaudible conversations]