Eric Schmidt, Google’s CEO, and Craig Mundie, Microsoft’s chief research and strategy officer, have been named to President’s Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). According to a statement released by the White House, PCAST is an advisory group of the the country’s foremost scientists and engineers who will help the President and Vice President form policy related to science, technology, and innovation.
The council includes a who’s who in the science and technology fields, with leaders in climate change, medicine, physics, chemistry, and computer science all holding positions on the council. The group is co-chaired by John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Eric Lander, Director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and one of the principal leaders of the Human Genome Project; and Harold Varmus, President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, former head of the National Institutes of Health and a Nobel laureate.
Members of the council include Christopher Chyba, an expert on the threats of biological warfare and nuclear proliferation; Chad Mirkin, a noted nanotech researcher; and David Shaw, founder of D.E. Shaw & Co. and a computational biochemistry expert. PCAST was originally established by President George H. W. Bush in 1990.
President Obama recently named Aneesh Chopra as chief technology officer, a position that was widely speculated to go to a Silicon Valley technologist. Steve Ballmer, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, and Eric Schmidt (among many others) were named as possible candidates.
Last fall, Beet.TV sat down with Mundie for an interview. Here’s the video:
schmidt is involved in too many companies and i dont like it
Hope he can handle everything
@Amit Bhawani “Being able to Handle it is not the point.”
Personally it would’ve been nice if they had an open source guy there.
It’s going to be interesting to see how these two work together. Are they still maintaining their roles as executives? I don’t really know Mundie very well, but Eric Schmidt is a visionary leader.
@Dave:
Oops, I didn’t mean to make that a response…
Not sure what open source has to do with anything… does working with open source versus working for a public company imply one is more capable of providing sound advice? No.
Good point Allen.
But the idea is to have balance. You cannot tell me with a straight face, that these guys won’t be after the interest of their companies.
how can anyone say Eric Schmidt is a visionary leader when he reportedly said “nobody gives a shit about search”–what exactly did he do except get very lucky to be hired by Google
how can anyone say Eric Schmidt is a visionary leader when he reportedly said “nobody gives a shit about search”–what exactly did he do except get very lucky to be hired by Google
how can anyone say Eric Schmidt is a visionary leader when he reportedly said “nobody gives a shit about search”–what exactly did he do except get very lucky to be hired by Google
@Amit Bhawani That’s not the point. The point is, will there be special interest regarding the companies they represent?
Then again, it’s DC and there is always special interest…
- Not from India
I agree that Schmidt is perhaps in too many role plus he is not a techie at all. He is the wrong guy to be in there. I think that most people think that because that he is from Google, therefore he is techie, nope. Schmidt is a good businessman no doubt but for him to be a tech advisor is not his cup of tea. There is a huge difference between a good businessman and a good visionary in technology. The researchers at Google report to Brin & Page which they’re both techie, but not to Schmidt.
From IT, I would pick either Dr. Masoud Nikrvaesh a Director for Computational Science and Engineering at CITRIS (Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society) and also an Executive Director for Computational Sciences and Engineering at LBNL (Lawrence Berkeley National Lab) or Dr. Bill Joy (former Sun Microsystem Chief Scientist). Both these 2 gentlemen are outstanding in their work in information technology sector in terms of new developments, innovations and futuristic views. To be an advisor (in any field) , you need to top of your game and Schmidt is none of that. If Obama is forming a team of business people to advise him on business issues, then Schmidt should be there but not on a technical group.
I don’t see any notable or outstanding physicist in the group, so perhaps Prof. Carl Wieman a Physics Nobel Laureate – for his work on Bose-Einstein-Condensation (BEC) could be invited to join. Prof. Wieman’s work on BEC has a huge potential application in various domains, from nano-technology, quantum-computing, micro-electronics, photonics, bio-medicine, space-exploration and so forth. These domains are the future cutting-edge of technology.
I think that expertise from other domains are pretty much covered, however I think that since modern day technology revolves around IT & Physics, there should be outstanding candidates selected from those respective disciplines. Eric Schmidt shouldn’t be there because he doesn’t have a technology vision at all. He has an excellent business vision but that’s it.
While I don’t know if I agree with Schmidt’s appointment, your facts are just wrong. From wikipedia:
After graduating from Yorktown High School (Virginia),[8] Schmidt attended Princeton University where he earned a BSEE in 1976.[9] At the University of California, Berkeley, he earned an MS in 1979, for designing and implementing a network linking the campus computer center, the CS and the EECS departments,[10][11] and a PhD in 1982 in EECS with a dissertation about the problems of managing distributed software development and tools for solving these problems.[12] He was joint author of lex (a lexical analyzer and an important tool for compiler construction). He taught at Stanford Business School as a part time professor.[13]
Please, don’t spread falsehoods.
DS said…
Please, don’t spread falsehoods.
That was the past (long long time ago in the 1970s), not the present. He’s been out of R&D for so long so his knowledge is not up to date (ie, rusty).
He’s not at techie? Whatever…
Corporate Government… just more of the same… this really sucks…
I thought Obama would know/be better than that.
Mundie and Schmidt?? Nice….
They both would try their best to have their voice heard, I wonder who would Obama actually listen too…good luck!
http://www.livbit.com
I wish Steve Gods was there from Apple, He could have changed the world with another Mac Wheel device, and then there is one common factor between these two.
Both Govt and Steve Gods love super control, irrespective of privacy.
Don’t even talk about open source, you are not going to get an software that can directly interface FBI wiretaps
Sounds like pretty decent choices to me, I wonder what the ‘Great wall of GOP’ has to say about this?
Well, for one, I don’t care for non-elected corporate executives helping shape legislative policy that affects me. Ridiculous opportunity for rent-seeking behavior, especially in an administration as authoritarian as this one.
Thanks, but I like dealing with companies voluntarily.
edit: “will help the President and Vice President form policy related to helping executives at Google and Microsoft make money”
So would you prefer they invite some Joe that works behind the iPod counter at Best Buy? They chose people that have worked for successful companies – and that is not subjective. I would like to see a broad representation of the technology space, but you can’t have too many people or you won’t get squat done.
My preference would be to appoint no one. Want to boost technology research? Reduce or eliminate the Federal income tax for technology corporations. Done. No wasteful, PR-driven appointment necessary. Want to “fix” the rest of the economy? Follow suit in every other industry.
I don’t think that cutting corporate income tax is the way to go – that’s been tried for a lot of years now and has apparently produced no benefit what so ever. Sure, we haven’t gotten rid of it, but it’s so far below what it should be it’s a joke.
Here’s a better idea. Fix the corporate definition of “fiduciary duty” so that companies are not as beholden to making sure their shareholders make a penny this quarter, at the expense of R&D departments whose work often doesn’t pay out for years, if ever.
Or create a tax benefit for not off shoring R&D to other countries, or, even better, let companies write off their R&D divisions costs 100%.
And here’s another one – any company that earns over a billion dollars a year shouldn’t be allowed to partake in the R&D funds that are being talked about to help boost the economy. I fully understand that many huge R&D efforts require a tremendous amount of backing that these large companies can underwrite to a degree, but they should be spending their own money on them if they think that the ideas are worthwhile (and then they could write off 100% of the cost – see above). Smaller companies, inventors and independent researchers need to be included in the distribution of these funds, and indeed should make up the lions share of the recipients.
Aj – that’s an oversimplistic aka college student view of the world, isn’t it?
@Andras “or, even better, let companies write off their R&D divisions costs 100%.”
They do. It’s called expenses.
“Smaller companies, inventors and independent researchers need to be included in the distribution of these funds, and indeed should make up the lions share of the recipients.”
It’s common to bash VC as vultures etc… so I’m sure government bureaucrats making $30K a year will even better at deciding who gets funding.
@Andy
I must be suffering from a brain cloud again. Expenses are indeed deductible. Though given the way that most companies seem to treat R&D you have to wonder.
Point taken on the funding, though I don’t consider VC’s as vultures. Other things perhaps, but not vultures
My thought isn’t that a very low level government employee will be the one deciding where the funding goes (though I’ve seen stranger things), rather that the huge companies that use off shore bases to get out of paying taxes, cut R&D to improve their stock value by $0.0001 a share and make billions in profit be limited in the share that they can take in R&D. Hard to accomplish? Yes. A perfect solution? Absolutely not. But at least a step in the right direction (at least as I see things – your mileage may vary).
You actually bring up a good point, though in a round about way. The government needs good people to do good things, but for the most part they are either unable to recruit or retain the good people. I’ve seen far too many very smart, hardworking people burned out very quickly working for the government. That’s far off topic for TechCrunch, but something else that needs to be considered at some point.
@ambert
Let’s eliminate Google’s Federal taxation.
What would they do with all that money? Burn it? Bury it?
No, they’d reinvest it a good portion of it. More jobs, more innovation. Even if they gave half of it to their employees as comp, the Googlers would remodel their houses, buy Teslas, etc…thus creating jobs.
This above true. It’s not nuanced or sophisticated, merely true.
Schmidt, et al., would do their shareholders and society more good if they lobbied for reduced taxes and gov’t spending. But they’d rather get wined and dined at DC cocktail parties and feel really important.
Strangely, there is no Steve Jobs. Each of the company bring different perspective to the table and having Apple representative will make it more “complete”.
I wouldn’t doubt he got a call or invitation, but Apple is pretty busy of late. He seems like the kinda guy that would say “thanks, but no thanks” so he could focus on his company and health.
Oh FFS. Didn’t think it would be long until Jobs’ followers weighed in with their pointless, irrelevant “opinions”.
F*ck, and indeed, off!
Google stock will trade at $700 within 18 months because it’s immune to media generated recession. Schimitt is very smart. http://iamned.com/blog/ stock market still provides compelling value
You, sir, need your head read.
I’ve already set myself a reminder to come back here in 18 months and laugh in your face. Have you ever left a thoughtful, reasoned comment on TC? I haven’t yet seen one.
As much as I’d like to see Steve Jobs on that panel, I think he’s busy working on the next iphone.
This stinks of a PR stunt. What’s next, an Evan Williams invitation to the White House to brainstorm ways out of the recession? Oh wait, that already happened…
Safe but solid choices. Remember that this is much “political” as it is about getting good advice. One of the values these guys will bring will be to promote the development of home grown talent by supporting better K-12 and higher education and by being an alternative voice on immigration from the stuck-in-the-70’s unions. Schmidt and Mundie are additions to the panel of already brilliant people. Having Jobs there would be a distraction since he is socially backward anyway, in poor health and as a poster said above, working on what he does best–new products that people like and buy.
Tough luck, Obie already shut down the improvements in the DC school voucher program, so education improvement is just not an option. Education spending though, that will go through the roof some more.
Both Microsoft and Google are not really innovative now. Wrong choice.
I think Google is very innovative. green energy, google earth, open agenda, the cloud, and they are putting money up for start ups.
OK, then who is?
Seconded.
The guys in the tinfoil hats will not appreciate…
Schmidt and Mundie are not bad choices.
The web and software, what about Vint Cerf and or Larry Roberts?
I love that Obama isn’t afraid to get the guys who so obviously know about tech to advise on tech. Most would just do a favor and put in some politician that has no clue.
Met Craig Mundie his first week at Microsoft and have followed him from time to time since. He’s a smart guy and I think an excellent choice.
Fight content piracy.
OMFG
Excellent choices and the haters need to STFU. Our president and his administration definitely knows what’s up.
Let’s see what he will do in ‘actions’ and not just in words. It seems that he got the best of the best in terms of advisors.
–
http://armin-va...-1.blogspot.com
Two largest and most unethical Tech monopolies each in its field, now senior advisers to the second consecutive idiot.
GL, US.
why schmidt? why not sergey or larry?
Now that he has got the right advisors, lets see the deliverabilities in about an years time … stay tuned.
And to add to that, please keep in mind this is not only about technology.
“One of the values these guys will bring will be to promote the development of home grown talent and higher education and by being an alternative voice on immigration. Schmidt and Mundie are additions to the panel of already brilliant people.”
@Leena – PCAST is appointed by every President. This is nothing new – so please preface is as such so your auidence understands – most don’t seem to take a minute to learn the details. Former members include among others Michael Dell, Carol Bartz, and Floyd Kvamme of Kleiner Perkins.
You know what I seriously love about Obama? I love that he’s appointing truly smart, dynamic and interesting people to oversee the technological future of the country, not just some business major with little IT knowledge.
I’m waiting for Obama to appoint a council on grocery shopping, that plastic stick used for turning blinds, and the staples used to hold a teabag’s string to the label/holder.
Asking huge companies for advice on innovation is like asking a sumo wrestler for advice on sprinting.
This is an insult to Vint Cerf. Obama needs Tech Advisors and not Business Advisors.
Eric Schmidt will leave Google before the end of the year anyway…
Again, why would you put two guys from Microsoft when you are promoting change? Change what? Change from bad to worse?
How about a couple of guys from Apple and Twitter?
The laughs never end.
What difference does this make anyway? The schmucks that write the laws couldn’t care less about the future. They are much too happy making money from those invested in the status quo.
Obama can’t deliver “Change.
“We the people” need to replace the Congressional dead weight to achieve it.
What a stodgy, corporate answer to what should be an innovation problem.
Let me be more clear. Experts are joining the Executive branch. Sure, execution looks great compared to last 8 years.
Congress writes laws. Same old idiots. Same corruption.
Notice the pork in the bills? Pretty hard to change the way that Congress works from the Executive branch.
I been knew Schmidt was going to be in President Obama’s cabinet
I think this is a bad idea. Just think of what you would do if YOU were selected as CTO and were CEO of a big company, your decisions and advice would probably be influenced by the possible benefits you could give to your company. The consequence for this action taken by Obama could mean a more Googlized world. Perhaps jurisdictions that don’t allow something like a Google maps vehicle to just come in and start snapping pictures everywhere (random example but you get the idea) will now have to permit the vehicle no matter what because Schmidt has convinced Obama that it’s important to map the streets in such detail in all of US.
It’s like the beginning of commercialization of the government. I guess that’s why it has taken so long for Obama to make a decision on this.