When President Barack Obama nominated Steven Chu \u201970 to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in January 2009, the appointment of the 1997 Nobel laureate signaled a commitment to science and a sustainable energy policy.
\nIn his post, which he occupied until last month, Chu delivered a focused message: that the reality of climate change, and the role of carbon emissions in producing it, is well established; that rising energy demands, particularly from China and India, are likely to cause oil prices to spike in the coming decades; and that for this combination of environmental and economic reasons, the United States must invest far more resources in developing renewable energy sources.<\/p>\n
Chu carried out what\u2019s been called an \u201call of the above\u201d strategy, stressing that fossil fuel development would remain part of the nation\u2019s energy mix, alongside renewable power resources such as solar and wind, nuclear power, and biofuels.
\nBut behind the scenes, there\u2019s little question that his personal energies have been focused on energy innovation, particularly in the development of renewables. The department\u2019s solar energy program, a program that\u2019s existed since the department\u2019s birth in 1977, but long on the fringes of the agency\u2019s priorities, has been placed on a more solid financial and institutional foundation under Chu\u2019s leadership. And in January, Chu addressed one of the last remaining barriers to developing an economy based fully on renewable energy, with the creation of a $120 million Critical Materials Institute to develop a stable and mass supply of the rare earth metals required to produce solar panels, wind turbines, and other elements of a renewable energy infrastructure.
\nMuch of the new work in the department takes place under the auspices of the Advanced Research Projects Agency\u2013Energy, or ARPA\u2013E, an initiative to fund high-risk, but potentially high-reward, innovations in energy technology. Authorized in 2007, but not funded until 2009, ARPA\u2013E, as it exists today, is largely Chu\u2019s creation. He\u2019s shaped it in accordance with lessons he learned as a physicist at Bell Laboratories in the 1980s. That\u2019s where Chu conducted his Nobel Prize\u2013winning research, on using lasers to trap and cool atoms, as well as the birthplace of the transistor, communications satellites, cellular telephones, and other landmark technological innovations of the last century.
\nThis month, Chu returns to Rochester to address the graduates of Arts, Sciences & Engineering during the University\u2019s 163rd commencement ceremonies, where he will also receive the University\u2019s George Eastman Medal. Then, he will return to teaching and research, rejoining the faculty of Stanford, where he taught from 1987 to 2008. He\u2019ll be the William R. Kenan Professor of Humanities and Sciences and will hold a joint appointment in physics and the medical school\u2019s molecular and cellular physiology department.
\nIn March, from his office overlooking the National Mall, Chu discussed some of his work over the past four years.
\n<strong>What\u2019s the federal role, and the role of research universities, in shaping energy policy? <\/strong>
\nThe federal government has always been the main funder of basic research in science in general, and the science and engineering related to energy. Much of the science and engineering related to energy actually starts in more fundamental research in science, and then one can realize later what its applications might be. The federal government also directs funding for projects\u2014how to try to develop a better way of capturing the energy of the sun, for example. Much of what the federal government has funded is research in universities. This funding has a dual purpose in that it also trains graduate students, postdocs, and, increasingly, undergraduates who start to do research in these federally funded labs.
\n<strong>It\u2019s been written that your experience at Bell Labs has inspired much of your work as energy secretary. Is this true and if so, in what ways? <\/strong>
\nIt\u2019s a model, and it\u2019s certainly the way, consciously, I set up ARPA\u2013E. What you had at Bell Labs is a bunch of scientists who were crammed in very close quarters. You didn\u2019t just mind your own business and do your own research. You were always talking and learning about other people\u2019s work.
\nBut the most interesting part of that is, let\u2019s say you\u2019re representing your people, and you say something and I don\u2019t agree. There would be an open discussion. It keeps everybody honest. Instead of each person waiting politely to take their turn, there\u2019s an open, free discussion where everything\u2019s fair game, but it\u2019s not personal. Sometimes people ask in a not-so-nice way\u2014there was one person at Bell Labs famous for getting up at seminars\u2014this big, tall guy, and saying\u2014\u2018What the hell are you doing that kind of crap for?\u2019 This could unnerve people. What it really meant was, \u2018Tell us the importance of what you\u2019re doing. We just learned you succeeded. What\u2019s the fundamental importance?\u2019 You were always being challenged by your colleagues\u2014in seminars, in discussions after seminars, at lunch tables. It was what a friend here, whom I recruited, called \u2018constructive confrontation.\u2019 It was a very flat organization. You were judged by the value of your ideas.
\n<strong>The culture in Washington is not noted for \u201cconstructive confrontation.\u201d Have you found the transition difficult? <\/strong>
\nWell, it depends on what culture you\u2019re talking about. Within ARPA\u2013E, we created a culture of constructive confrontation. And it\u2019s the closest thing to Bell Labs that I\u2019ve seen outside of Bell Labs. It is more like Bell Labs than a university. At a university, when people say, \u2018I have a new idea and I would like to get funding,\u2019 you write up a proposal and you\u2019ll be lucky if you get it in one year. Typically it\u2019s a year and a half, two years, before you can even start. At Bell Labs and now at ARPA\u2013E, you go to a manager and talk about it. The manager might say, \u2018I don\u2019t think I believe this.\u2019 You\u2019d say, \u2018Let\u2019s go work it out on the board.\u2019 Your boss can engage with you on a fine detail. But you don\u2019t get an answer in a year. You can get an answer that day or that week. And if you don\u2019t like the answer, you can appeal it up to a point.
\nNow in terms of political confrontation, the amazing thing is, at some level, even though they have to do the theatrics in front of the camera, some of my good allies are actually across the aisle. Much of what I\u2019ve done is about science and not politics. Perhaps 98 percent of my job has nothing to do with that political sort of confrontation. Now, what the public sees, is what it sees.
\n<strong>How has ARPA\u2013E helped advance solar energy? <\/strong>
\nWe recruited Ramamoorthy Ramesh from the physics department at Berkeley to head ARPA\u2013E\u2019s solar photovoltaic program. He went off and started to revitalize the program, which Arun Majumdar, the director of ARPA\u2013E, named the SunShot program. And it turned out that a crew of four scientists transformed the solar program. All of a sudden, people from universities were coming to me, unsolicited, and saying, \u2018Your solar program is transformed. You\u2019re funding all the good stuff. You used to fund not-so-good stuff. It\u2019s very exciting.\u2019 One star professor at Caltech said, \u2018Because of this SunShot program\u2014and now the students have noticed this\u2014I have more applicants, I have the cr\u00e8me-de-la-cr\u00e8me pick of graduate students at Caltech who want to go in my group and work on solar, because the funding agent is making all the right decisions. So three to four in a division created that with constructive confrontation.
\nNow outside of that group, I have to do a lot of blocking and tackling. Behind the scenes I say, \u2018Don\u2019t hassle these guys.\u2019 Congressional affairs didn\u2019t want Arun to talk to Congress, for example. I said, \u2018No. Arun can talk to Congress. He can talk directly. Don\u2019t muzzle him.\u2019 And he turned out to be one of our best spokespeople for the program. So that\u2019s a culture we\u2019ve created within the agency. But the larger issue of how deals are not made in Congress? That part is frustrating.
\nYou\u2019ve often said that scientific innovation requires a long timeframe and tolerance for failures along the road to breakthroughs. How has failure played a role in your career as a scientist?
\nIf you plan a program where you don\u2019t fail, that tells me instantly that you\u2019re not reaching far enough. There\u2019s a quote from Michelangelo that I like to cite. He said, \u201cThe greater danger for most of us lies not in setting our aim too high and falling short; but in setting our aim too low, and achieving our mark.\u201d This is something I learned as a graduate student. I worked on three projects before I landed on a thesis. One could say they were incompletes or failures, but certainly incompletes. But I landed on a project and said, \u2018OK, this is it.\u2019 And then focused very much on that. But if you consider the overall picture, you could say, \u2018Well, you started this, you didn\u2019t finish; you started another thing, you didn\u2019t finish; what\u2019s going on?\u2019 Yet after I was a graduate student and a postdoc, the physics department at Berkeley wanted me to join their faculty. So I wasn\u2019t a total failure.
\nSo how did this happen, after only one success out of four? It\u2019s because when I failed, I moved on, and I moved on quickly, number one. Number two, what I did do was of some note. And number three, when I failed, I looked at the heart of the problem and said, \u2018If this doesn\u2019t work, the path going forward is not going to work.\u2019
\nI had a similar success rate at Bell Labs and at Stanford. At Bell Labs, there were times I would be working on a project for two or three years, and the people there would get a little anxious and say, \u2018Look, this could ruin your career if this thing doesn\u2019t work.\u2019 I\u2019d say, \u2018it\u2019s OK, I have one or two more ideas. If that doesn\u2019t work, I\u2019m out.\u2019
\nBut you have to get an inner sense of what will work and what doesn\u2019t.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When President Barack Obama nominated Steven Chu \u201970 to become secretary of the U.S. Department of Energy in January 2009, the appointment of the 1997 Nobel laureate signaled a commitment…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":19506,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[456],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19496","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society-culture"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n