# News this Week

Science  05 Aug 2011:
Vol. 333, Issue 6043, pp. 680
1. # Around the World

1 - Washington, D.C., and New York City
Courts Back Gene Patents, Human Embryonic Stem Cells
2 - Osaka, Japan
Marine Census Wins Environmental Prize
3 - London
U.K. Primate Research Is—Generally—Justified
4 - Doha, Qatar
Hidden HIV in Mideast Men
5 - Paris
Anti-Fraud Agency Puts Spotlight on E.U.'s Drug Watchdog

## Washington, D.C., and New York City

### Courts Back Gene Patents, Human Embryonic Stem Cells

Perhaps ending a long-running legal battle that has disrupted human embryonic stem cell research in the United States, a federal judge last week threw out a lawsuit seeking to stop government funding of such studies by the National Institutes of Health (see p. 683).

And biotech companies got a break 29 July when a U.S. appeals court ruled that genes can be patented, reversing a lower court's decision last year, which found that genes cannot be patented because they are “products of nature.”

The patent case was prompted by a suit involving Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City, Utah. The ruling stated that Myriad's basic patents on sequences of the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 were valid because they applied to “isolated DNA” that has been manipulated chemically, producing a molecule that is markedly different from that in the body.

However, on narrower grounds the court rejected five of Myriad's claims on ways to look at the genes' mutations, such as those that carry a high risk for breast or ovarian cancer. http://scim.ag/_genepatents

## Osaka, Japan

### Marine Census Wins Environmental Prize

A 10-year, $650 million effort to assess past and present biodiversity in the sea and determine the distribution of marine organisms (Science, 6 August 2010, p. 622) has captured Japan's International Cosmos Prize. The prize is a$510,000 environmental award given to commemorate the theme of a 1990 Japanese flower and garden exposition: the harmonious coexistence between nature and mankind. Given to the Scientific Steering Committee of the Census of Marine Life (CoML), the award usually goes to individuals; the only other group so honored was the Charles Darwin Research Station in the Galápagos in 2002. “Usually recognition comes with a considerable time lag,” notes CoML committee member Jesse Ausubel. “To have something like this happen less than a year after the completion of the first census is just thrilling.”

## London

### U.K. Primate Research Is—Generally—Justified

Research using monkeys, baboons, and other nonhuman primates in the United Kingdom produces results that justify the animal welfare costs, a new comprehensive review concludes. But scientists should be careful not to exaggerate the medical impact of such research, the review panel said.

Animal research on nonhuman primates (NHPs) is a sensitive issue in the United Kingdom. In response to scientific and public concerns, four research organizations—the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research, and the Wellcome Trust—commissioned the new review, which asked all 72 researchers who had received government funding for research with NHPs between 1997 and 2006 to answer a questionnaire about the outcomes of their work.

The panel found that most research was justified in its use of NHPs and led to peer-reviewed publications. “In general, primate research is productive and high-quality,” panel chair Patrick Bateson, a professor emeritus at the University of Cambridge, said at a press briefing in London 27 July. However, he added, the panel was concerned that “it was actually quite difficult to identify grants that had substantial medical benefits.” The panel was also concerned about the handful of projects that didn't lead to any papers. Even if experiments produce negative results, the panel says, “researchers using NHPs have a moral obligation to publish” their work to keep others from repeating it unnecessarily. http://scim.ag/UKprimates

## Doha, Qatar

### Hidden HIV in Mideast Men

In most of the Middle East and North Africa, men who have sex with men (MSM) face severe stigma and harsh laws, creating a hidden population that HIV/AIDS researchers have difficulty reaching. A comprehensive review of HIV's spread among MSM in the region reveals several hidden epidemics affecting as many as 28% of members of some groups.

Epidemiologists Ghina Mumtaz and Laith Abu-Raddad, both of Weill Cornell Medical College in Qatar, led the study, which spent the past 8 years gleaning the highest quality reports from scientific publications, government documents, and surveys by nongovernmental organizations. “The data suggest these epidemics are recent,” says Mumtaz. As the researchers detail in the August issue of PLoS Medicine, about 2% to 3% of males in the region have anal sex with men, which is similar to global levels. In most locales, fewer than 25% of MSM reported consistent use of condoms, and exchanging sex for money was common, as was sex with females. While MSM generally knew about HIV, many did not think they were at any risk of becoming infected. http://scim.ag/MideastHIV

## Paris

### Anti-Fraud Agency Puts Spotlight on E.U.'s Drug Watchdog

The European Anti-Fraud Office is investigating alleged conflicts of interest at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in London. Michèle Rivasi, a French Member of the European Parliament for the party Europe Ecologie Les Verts, says the inquiry was triggered by her pressure to investigate EMA's role in a scandal involving the French antidiabetic drug Mediator.

Mediator was widely prescribed in France as a weight-loss drug for nondiabetics, despite warnings that it caused heart valve problems, until it was banned in November 2009. Now, the drug is estimated to have caused between 500 and 2000 deaths. Rivasi claims that EMA should have intervened, for instance when Italy and Spain pulled the drug from the market in 1998, and that possible conflicts of interest among its experts may have prevented it from doing so.

EMA, created to harmonize drug regulation systems the European Union, says it has done nothing wrong. It can recommend banning drugs only when asked by a national government, says a spokesperson, and EMA acted swiftly when France asked it for an opinion on Mediator in 2009.

http://scim.ag/_OLAF

2. # Newsmakers

## Polar Bear Researcher's Suspension Still Mysterious

Prominent polar bear researcher Charles Monnett was suspended by his employer, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE), on 18 July, pending an Inspector General's investigation that an employee advocacy group labeled a politically motivated “witch hunt.”

Public disclosure of the suspension last week ignited a firestorm: Climate change skeptics speculated about scientific misconduct in regard to Monnett's polar bear work, while Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) on Monnett's behalf, suggested the investigation arose because Monnett's research threatens the government's ability to drill in the Arctic. PEER noted that in February, a DOI inspector interviewed Monnett about his 2006 paper in Polar Biology, stating that the office had received “allegations of scientific misconduct.”

But on 29 July, in an e-mail sent to BOEMRE's Alaska regional office employees, BOEMRE Director Michael Bromwich stated that the suspension was not politically motivated and was unrelated to questions about Monnett's scientific integrity. PEER also released a 29 July letter from DOI to Monnett indicating the investigation is related to the scientist's management of an ongoing polar bear tracking study.

http://scim.ag/Monnett

## John Marburger (1941–2011)

John Marburger, a physicist and science adviser to President George W. Bush, died last week of cancer at the age of 70. Science advocates say that their respect for the man far exceeds any criticism of his boss.

“What a wonderful career he had, as president of Stony Brook University and then director of Brookhaven National Laboratory before being named science adviser,” says Sherwood Boehlert, a fellow New Yorker and longtime Republican congressman who chaired the House of Representatives science committee during part of Marburger's record 8-year tenure as head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “The challenge he faced was serving a president who didn't really want much scientific advice, and who let politics dictate the direction of his science policy.”

Marburger's most lasting legacy may be as midwife to the science of science policy. The emerging field looks at factors that shape a nation's ability to foster innovation and to reap the benefits from it, from tax and immigration policies to training the next generation of scientists and funding their research adequately. Marburger also defended the value of international scientific exchanges after the September 2001 terrorist attacks, when many politicians demanded curtailing the free flow of people and ideas.

3. # Random Sample

## Dawn Spies a Messed-Up Vesta

Two weeks after settling into orbit around Vesta, the ion-propelled Dawn spacecraft is returning stunning images of the 530-kilometer-wide asteroid. And boy is it in rough shape. An image presented 1 August at a NASA press conference is the first whole-asteroid portrait returned from a distance of 5200 kilometers. The broad, relatively smooth expanse covering much of Vesta in this view is part of a 460-kilometer-wide crater formed after the impact of an 80-kilometer asteroid nearly shattered Vesta. Having been created relatively recently in solar system history, this impact basin has accumulated fewer of the smaller craters that roughen the surface to the north (top of image). More mysteriously, the region in the north is banded by parallel grooves running around Vesta's equatorial region. Planetary scientists modeling a huge impact on Vesta had warned that rocky debris could pile up in some odd shapes, but nothing like this showed up in their models.

## They Said It

“Does it go, you know, anywhere close to the climate-change debate that's under way here on Earth? I mean, if the moon had erupting volcanoes … it's not as if we've been up there burning fossil fuels.”

—Fox News anchor Jon Scott, asking Bill Nye the Science Guy about the significance of the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter's discovery of 800-million-year-old extinct volcanoes on the moon.

## Australia and Africa: Arguing Over Acacia

Every 6 years, when the International Botanical Congress meets, it tackles a backlog of problems related to the naming of plants. At the Congress in Melbourne, Australia, in July, one longstanding debate finally got closure: who gets the acacia.

To two different continents, the acacia is more than just a tree—it's an icon: the flat-topped thorn trees silhouetted against a red African sky; the golden wattle of Australia, whose green and gold colors inspire the garb of the country's Olympic athletes. For hundreds of years, since Swedish botanist Carl Linnaeus first described the type species of the genus Acacia in Africa in 1773, both continents could lay claim to acacia trees. But in the past 30 years, anatomical and genetic analyses demonstrated that Australian and African acacias do not belong in the same genus at all.

So which trees—Australian or African—should be known as actual Acacia? Africa has prior claim since the first type species, Acacia nilotica, was found there, but Australia has the overwhelming majority of species: more than 1000, compared with Africa's 80. The issue was seemingly resolved at the 2005 botanical congress in Vienna, when the delegates decided that the acacia would belong to Australia. But another 6 years of debate ensued.

The debate drew to a close when delegates to the 2011 botanical congress voted to uphold the 2005 decision. Australia's acacias will retain the genus name, and the new type species will be the Australian Acacia penninervis. African species would be assigned to the genus Vachellia.

“This closes a difficult chapter in international botany,” says Kevin Thiele, a botanist from the Western Australian Herbarium in Kensington. “The vote was very clear and supported by a cross-section of the international community, not just Australians.”

## By the Numbers

42,000 — Number of children in the world that die of celiac disease, according to a PLoS ONE study.

## A fresh take on quantum conundrums

Weak measurements seem to resolve some of the apparent paradoxes of quantum theory. For example, it might seem obvious that a particle has a position even before its position is measured. But quantum mechanics forbids that commonsense notion. In 1992, Lucien Hardy of Durham University in the United Kingdom dreamed up a “thought experiment” to drive that point home.

Imagine firing electrons one by one through an interferometer, a device that lets a particle in through a single entrance and then sends it down two diverging paths (see figure, below). Before the exit, the paths merge again and the quantum waves describing the electron recombine. If the paths have the right lengths, the waves will interfere so that the electron always exits through one of two “ports.” Imagine further that you have an identical setup for antielectrons, or positrons, right next to the first device.

Finally, suppose one of the paths for the electrons overlaps with one for the positrons so that the particles can collide. The particles' interaction would muddle the interference of the wave in the electron's interferometer so that the electron would sometimes come out of the wrong, “dark” port. So would the positron. In fact, if the interferometers overlap, then quantum mechanics predicts that sometimes both particles will emerge from their dark ports.

But that's crazy. To emerge from the dark ports, the electron and positron had to interact. But in that case, as particle and antiparticle, they should have annihilated each other and disappeared. Nevertheless, quantum mechanics predicts that when both particles come out the dark ports, a standard measurement would reveal with certainty that the electron passed through its overlapping path. The same is true for the positron. So quantum mechanics seems to demand that both particles go through their overlapping arms, even though that leads to their destruction.

Standard quantum theory resolves this paradox in an iron-fisted way: It forbids “counterfactual” arguments about measurements that weren't actually made. Detecting the electron in its overlapping path collapses the quantum state describing the two particles so that the positron is not in its overlapping arm. By obliterating the original state, the measurement renders invalid any speculation about what would have happened had the experimenter also looked for the positron in its overlapping arm. If you didn't look to see if the positron was there, then you can't assume that it was—even if that's what a measurement surely would have shown. Thus, Hardy argued, quantum theory won't allow you to talk about a particle's position before it's measured.

Or will it? Weak values offer another way around this problem, as Aharonov and colleagues explained in 2002. The trick is to post-select the events in which both particles come out the dark ports and make weak measurements of which paths the particles go down. Simultaneous weak measurements will then show that the probability of finding the electron in its overlapping path and the positron in the nonoverlapping path is 100%. Likewise, the probability of finding the electron in its nonoverlapping path and the positron in its overlapping path is 100%.

Once gain, the mind strains. A total probability of 200% seems to suggest that there are two pairs of particles inside the apparatus when only one pair went in. Not to worry: Weak measurements also show that the probability of finding both particles in the nonoverlapping paths is −100%, reducing the total probability to 100% and the number of pairs back to one.

That analysis resolves the paradox with no ban on counterfactual reasoning and what you can talk about—if you're willing to accept negative probabilities. “Weak values have this consistency that standard quantum measurements don't,” says Lundeen of Canada's National Research Council. “If you're comfortable with negative probabilities, then you're happy.”

This might seem like a moot point, except that 2 years ago, Toronto's Steinberg and Lundeen performed the experiment. They used weak measurements on photons instead of electrons and positrons, mimicking the electron-positron annihilation with a phenomenon in which a crystal will absorb two photons that pass through it simultaneously, but not one photon at a time, as they reported in January 2009 in Physical Review Letters. Three months later, Nobuyuki Imoto of Osaka University in Japan and colleagues reported similar results in the New Journal of Physics. The results conform to predictions, negative probabilities and all.

## A new quantum reality?

Not surprisingly, weak measurements have been controversial from the beginning, although not in the way one might expect. The very idea of a negative probability seems nonsensical, but Vaidman quickly points out that the weak measurements are not true probabilities. Rather, he says, the negative value indicates that the pointer used to make the weak measurement moves in the direction opposite to the direction experimenters would expect if a particle were present. In the end, negative probabilities aren't so hard to live with, other researchers say.

Instead, the real debate focuses on the claim that, in a sense, weak measurements pull back the veil imposed by standard quantum theory and allow physicists to begin to say something about the exploits of individual particles. Vaidman and Aharonov assert that weak measurements are “elements of reality” that reveal the true states of individual particles. So, for example, in Hardy's paradox, the weird probabilities apply to each pair of particles going through the apparatus, and, to a certain extent, physicists can begin to talk about how a quantum particle gets from one end of it to the other—something that is generally forbidden by standard quantum theory.

Not so, says Ruth Kastner, a philosopher of science at the University of Maryland, College Park. To make a weak measurement, physicists must study scads of identically prepared particles in an ensemble. So by definition, a weak measurement is a statistical average that has little to do with reality so construed. “These values do not apply to any particular particle,” Kastner says. In claiming they do, Vaidman and Aharonov “pushed something a little farther than it would go,” she says.

Aharonov responds: “I think she's totally confused.” As weak measurements do not disturb a system's wave function, they necessarily characterize each particle in the preselected and postselected ensemble, he says. “You can't say it's not a real property of each of these,” he says. “Then there is no other way to explain what's going on.”

In fact, Aharonov goes further. When developing the concept of postselection, he and Vaidman imagined the preselected state evolving forward in time and colliding with the postselected state evolving backward in time. Such backward-evolving waves are more than a trick for making calculations, Aharonov argues; the future really can affect the present. “I believe you have to think about [the backward-going wave] as a real thing,” Aharonov says.

Again, Kastner objects. In an actual weak measurement, everything is calculated after postselection. “It's all in the past,” Kastner says, so there's no need for quantum waves coming from the future. However, Steinberg, among others, says Aharonov's proposition deserves consideration, as it suggests there's more information available than standard quantum theory allows with forward-evolving waves alone.

## Rewriting the textbooks

Even as the philosophical debate continues, experimenters are using weak measurements to perform feats recently considered impossible. For example, Steinberg and colleagues have used weak measurement to put a new spin on the “two slit” experiment: the most famous thought experiment in quantum mechanics and a classic demonstration of so-called wave-particle duality.

In the experiment, light shines through two parallel vertical slits in a thin plate and onto a distant screen (see figure, above). The waves emerging from the slits overlap on the screen to create bright stripes where the waves reinforce each other and dark stripes where they cancel each other in a bar-code-like pattern that is a hallmark of wavelike behavior.

Bizarrely, that “interference pattern” appears even if the photons pass through the slits one by one. So each particle literally must go through both slits at once and interfere with itself. Only if the experimenter tries to determine which slit the photon went through—perhaps by alternately closing one slit and then the other—do the stripes disappear and the photons act like particles. Among other things, the experiment shows that one cannot know both exactly where the photon is (which slit it's going through) and what its momentum is (at what angle it emerges from the slit), making it impossible to define its path.

However, Steinberg and colleagues found a way to measure the average trajectories of many photons going through the two slits. To do that, they used a weak-measurement scheme that slightly altered the polarization of the photons depending on the angle at which they emerged from the slit. The polarization, in turn, allowed the scientists to determine the average momentum of the photons hitting each point on the screen. That was enough information for the researchers to reconstruct the average trajectories as they moved the screen farther from the slits.

The experiment, reported recently in Science (3 June, p. 1170), doesn't violate quantum mechanics, Steinberg says; each individual photon still goes through both slits. But it eases slightly the prohibition against talking about particle trajectories. “The textbook explanation has always been, if you don't ask [experimentally] about the photon's position in the apparatus, then you shouldn't even discuss it,” he says. “I think some people are starting to reconsider that.”

Similarly, in June, Lundeen and colleagues reported in Nature that they had used weak measurement to measure directly the wave function of photons emerging from an optical fiber. That's something that generations of physicists have learned cannot be done, as standard measurements reveal only the size or “amplitude” of the wave function and not its full mathematical complexity. “People have these hand-waving ideas of what you can and can't do,” Lundeen says, “and I'm kind of surprised that they haven't been taken to task earlier for some of them.”

Such results must gratify Aharonov and Vaidman, the pioneers of the field. “It looks like time has shown that we were right and that [weak measurement] is completely universal,” Vaidman says. The growing body of experimental work will force physicists to rethink what it means to make a measurement, as it is no longer the simple matter taught in textbooks. That may disturb some of us who learned quantum mechanics the old-fashioned way.

6. Newsmaker Profile

# Wayne Clough Wants Smithsonian Science to Escape Its Shadow

1. Jeffrey Mervis

Domestic politics compete with his billion-dollar plans for a global expansion of research to bolster the Smithsonian Institution's famed museums and collections.

An impressive record as a researcher, university president, and fundraiser made G. Wayne Clough an obvious choice to become the 12th secretary of the venerable Smithsonian Institution in June 2008. His reputation as a consensus builder and a genuinely nice guy was also seen as a plus after his predecessor, banker Lawrence Small, was forced to resign when his management and spending practices created a furor at the quasi-governmental agency and within the halls of Congress. “If you find anybody who doesn't like Wayne, there's something wrong with them,” says Charles Liotta, a former vice president of research under Clough (pronounced “cluff ”) at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta and chair of the search committee that recommended him for the presidency in 1994.

Clough's winning ways—this fall Georgia Tech will dedicate a new student learning center that bears his name—are enhanced by a south Georgian accent and a trim white beard that could land him a movie role as captain of an ocean liner. But behind that genial appearance is a strong vision—and a thick skin. Three years into his tenure, the 69-year-old seismic engineer is waging an aggressive campaign to end what he calls the Smithsonian's “near invisibility” on Capitol Hill and throughout the scientific community.

He says its reputation as the nation's “attic”—the 137 million objects in its far-flung collections at 19 museums are unparalleled—has overshadowed the work being done at its nine research facilities. To bolster that research, he is one-third of the way toward raising more than $1 billion in the Smithsonian's first-ever capital campaign. He's using a$10 million gift from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to seed interdisciplinary research collaborations that he likens to start-up companies. And to spread the word, he's broadening the Smithsonian's already extensive outreach efforts by digitizing its collections and striking a deal with Comcast to quadruple the audience for its television programs.

A new strategic plan groups the Smithsonian's activities into four grand challenges: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Universe, Sustaining a Biodiverse Planet, Understanding the American Experience, and Valuing World Cultures. He says the exercise prodded the institution's 6000 employees to rethink their priorities; it also arms him to defend a $1.2-billion-a-year budget (65% from the federal government) in what Clough anticipates will be tough times ahead. Clough has already hit some bumps in the road since coming to Washington. His most publicized battle followed his removal last fall of a 13-second video from an exhibit, titled Hide/Seek, exploring sexual identity in American portraiture. Although many in the art community accused him of kowtowing to conservative politicians, he defends the decision as necessary to avert a potentially serious fiscal backlash from Congress. Although Clough seems to have weathered that storm, he remains in the midst of a less visible but no less acrimonious fight with archaeologists over an exhibit, which just closed in Singapore, containing artifacts from the Belitung shipwreck off the coast of Indonesia that were commercially salvaged and exploited. Scientists say the exhibit, which the Smithsonian helped to design, violates ethical guidelines and international treaties aimed at halting treasure hunting. Clough says that the exhibit's plans to come to Washington in 2013 are under review in the wake of the controversy. But he chides the scientific community for placing academic purity above pragmatism. Clough visited Science on 14 July to discuss his plans for the Smithsonian, which marks its 165th anniversary this month. Here are highlights of that conversation. A longer version is available online. On science's low profile: W.C.:People referred to the Smithsonian as “the nation's attic,” so they thought of it as a dusty place not going anywhere, looking backwards as opposed to looking forward. That hurt us a great deal when I went up on the Hill and spoke to Congress about the possibilities for funding [research]. They tended to view us as a Washington-based institution that was a museum, … and sometimes that was a pejorative term. … Certainly, science is clearly one of the most dynamic pieces of the Smithsonian, but it wasn't visible. It extended to the science community itself. … And the Smithsonian itself didn't put its pieces together. On the grand challenges: W.C.:It was an amazing, natural process. … We started out with maybe 20 areas of potential focus, and we ended up with four that we call our grand challenges. … They give you a set of umbrellas under which the Smithsonian's work takes place. That's not to say that you won't have something taking place that's outside of that. But you have to think very hard about why you're doing that. We have enough collections, fundamentally, in size—we have 137 million objects and specimens—so, now, we only want to grow our specimens if they meet this test of fitting within the grand challenges. … We have a process now where our directors meet regularly to make those joint decisions as to what we will not do anymore. Some of those decisions may get a lot harder, if, in fact, our federal budget is cut severely. We've been fortunate not to fall victim to that yet. On the Belitung shipwreck exhibit: W.C.:I'm told there are, perhaps, up to 1000 shipwrecks in shallow waters in and around Indonesia and other countries that cannot afford to undergo a thorough salvage exercise. And so somehow you're going to have to find a way to protect these shipwrecks, because otherwise, while you're standing there talking about the most pristine way to do it, somebody's going to come in and loot it. So I think the people in these professions need to sit down together and say, ‘What can we do about this?’ Because, as this shipwreck was discovered, it was in shallow waters, and, I was told, it could have been looted any day. So the Indonesians contracted with a company who did, at some point, get serious about curating the objects from it, and, therefore, there was some science base to the curation. … It explained a great deal about the trade between the Chinese and the Arab nations, which was very little understood. As it stands now, that exhibition will not come to the United States, and people who otherwise would have learned a great deal about this trade will not. … I think the curator, Julian Raby, and his staff felt, when they were working with the Singaporean government, which had, in fact, bought these artifacts for the express purpose of helping educate people, that they were doing something that was useful and productive. Now, certainly not everybody agreed with that, but that's the way these things are. … I think the Smithsonian tried to do it right. On removing a portion of the Hide/Seek exhibit: W.C.:I thought [the exhibit] was fantastic. It was based on scholarship; it was based on a careful choice of the objects, by and large. We had a review process. It turned out that particular video was not part of the review process, but that's another story. After the exhibition had been up for a while, a group obviously chose that [video] as a point of contention and exploited it, and it came in at a time when there was an election cycle, and so there was a lot of controversy in that sector. So I felt we ran the risk of losing the entire exhibition. The Smithsonian has been forced in the past to take exhibitions down … by Congress and by the public. Folks tend to forget we're funded 65% by the federal government, which means every person in America owns the Smithsonian, and part of our job is to be bridge builders, not divide builders. … Our objective is to engage as many people as possible in what we do, not simply show an object for its shock value. … I also had to step back and think, I'm in charge of the fate of 6000 people at the Smithsonian, and we have lots of ideas and plans going forward. We were clearly going to be going into a period of very difficult budget circumstances. And so, from that point of view, I didn't think we needed to be in a longstanding debate about religious desecration. And so to keep the exhibition up, I decided to remove the video. I think I made the right decision. On accepting a donation from philanthropist David Koch, who supports efforts to cast doubt on climate change, to fund a$15 million Hall of Human Origins:

W.C.:We don't take into account a person's political view. We would take a gift from George Soros, and we would take a gift from the Kochs, if they meet the criteria of philanthropists; that is, they make a gift without the intention of dictating content of what the gift is used for. Mr. Koch was, in fact, a perfect donor. He gave us his money. He never, at any time, interfered with the exhibition or the content of the exhibition.

On its upcoming fundraising campaign:

W.C.:The Smithsonian has never had a campaign before. It's always raised money, but it's done it sort of [on] a museum-by-museum basis and not in the sort of coherent, professional way that universities do it. And so we are gearing up to do something like that. … [Our] donor base is very generous, but it's small. We don't have an alumni base, and so we need to do everything we can to increase our donor bank. … At the end of the campaign, we hope to have raised a certain amount of money—well over \$1 billion—but, particularly, we hope to have increased, for the long haul, people who are willing to give to the Smithsonian.

On federal support for large scientific facilities:

W.C.:You know, sadly, the federal government probably is out of the game [for the James Webb Space Telescope], and that's a loss, I think, for our country. Astronomy and astrophysics has been one of the great strengths of this country, and for our country to sort of withdraw from that, I think, is a mistake, and we see this happening in a number of places in our national endeavors now. We don't seem to be able to build big infrastructure projects anymore. We're not supporting the National Science Foundation like I think we should be. Some of the big international collaborative science initiatives are going elsewhere or are being initiated elsewhere and not here. China, particularly, is investing enormously in their science infrastructure. We're not. So I think there are a lot of signs that suggest that we have problems.

On the Gates collaborations:

W.C.:They're sort of like start-up companies, and not all of them will succeed. But that's okay because you have a lot of fun doing them, and people get to know each other. What we're doing is really a culture change at the Smithsonian. They're talking to each other and collaborating with each other, and so even if that particular idea does not pan out in the long run, it's not a failure. … Out of that set of 20, maybe only five will be able to sustain themselves for 10 years.