Cutting Edge

Marten Mickos, surrounded by inflatable MySQL dolphin mascots.

(Credit: Benchmark Capital)

Marten Mickos, the one-time chief executive of MySQL who left about a year after Sun Microsystems acquired the open-source database company, has joined Benchmark Capital as an entrepreneur in residence.

"Why I like @benchmark: They consistently ask 'What's best for the entrepreneur?' and they think big," Mickos said Tuesday on Twitter.

The admiration is mutual. "Marten Mickos builds global disruptive businesses. As CEO of MySQL AB for seven years, Mickos grew that company from a garage start-up to the second largest open-source company in the world," Benchmark said on its Web site.

Mickos joined MySQL in 2001, stayed through Sun's 2008 acquisition, and left earlier this year. Mickos also is on the board of cloud computing start-up RightScale and Thunderbird e-mail software backer Mozilla Messaging.

Clearwire Communications has created a sandbox more than 20 square miles in size where developers can play with WiMax.

Clearwire announced on Tuesday the launch of the largest test area yet for its 4G WiMax service in Silicon Valley. Covering a wide area from Santa Clara to Mountain View to parts of Palo Alto, the company's Clear 4G WiMAX Innovation Network will let developers test the mobile broadband network on a large scale.

First announced in April by Clearwire, the Clear 4G WiMAX Innovation Network is seen as a testbed to prepare for the launch of commercial WiMax service in the San Francisco Bay area next year.

The 20-square-mile service will hit the campuses of Intel and Google, two investors of Clearwire's 4G WiMax network who've already begun their own own internal 4G testing. Cisco Systems, which will provide equipment to Clearwire, will get coverage in a few months as the network grows.

To play in the new WiMax sandbox, developers must register with Clearwire's development program and describe the WiMax ideas they'd like to pursue. Developers would also need to buy a Clearwire WiMAX USB modem for $49.99. Clearwire says it will provide the service for free to a limited number of qualified developers prior to the commercial launch.

Clearwater will also join and help sponsor the Sprint Open Developer Conference running October 26 to 28 in Santa Clara. The company encourages developers working with Clear 4G WiMax to attend the conference to learn more about the service.

Clearwire touts its Clear 4G WiMax service as offering peak download speeds of up to 10 Mbps, with an average of 3 Mpbs to 6 Mbps. As a comparison, the company says that today's 3G networks can only reach speeds of about 600 kbps to 1.4 Mbps.

WiMax has faced tough competition from LTE for the battle to become the wireless 4G standard. Backed by AT&T and Verizon Wireless, LTE is sometimes forecast as the ultimate victor with potentially the more dominant share of the market. But WiMax is also expected to grow as deployments ramp up.

Editors' note: This guest column was originally published on Bill Gurley's blog. See his bio below.

Many are speculating that the year 2009 represents a fundamental turning point for the venture capital industry. Some are arguing that the industry is in dire straits after years of poor performance. Others have argued that the math simply does not work for the industry's current size.

You could say it's slimming down.

(Credit: NBC)

Another theory suggests that permanent challenges with the market for initial public offerings call into question the fundamental economics of the VC industry. Lastly, some credible authors have suggested that things are so bad that a federal bailout may be in order.

What is really happening in the VC industry? It is indeed quite likely that it is in the process of a very substantial reduction in size, perhaps the first in the history of the industry. However, the specific catalyst for this reduction is not directly related to the issues just mentioned. In order to fully understand what is happening, one must look upstream from the venture capitalists to the source of funds, for that is where the wheels of change are in motion.

VC firms receive the majority of their money from large pension funds, endowments, and foundations that represent some of the largest pools of capital in the world. This "institutional capital" is typically managed by active fund managers who invest with the objective of earning an optimal return in order to meet the needs of the specific institution and/or to grow the size of their overall fund.

These fund managers have one primary tool in their search for optimal returns: deciding which investment categories (referred to as "asset classes") should receive which percentage of the overall capital allocation. This process is known in the financial field as "asset allocation."

Asset allocation is the strategy an investor uses to choose specifically how to divide up capital among asset classes such as stocks, bonds, international stocks, international bonds, real-estate funds, leveraged buyouts (LBOs), venture capital, as well as other obscure classes such as timber funds.

Some of these asset classes, such as stocks and bonds, are known as "liquid assets" because these instruments trade on a daily basis on exchanges around the world. For these assets, investors can be quite sure of the exact value of their holdings, as the price is set continuously in the market. Also, if they need to sell, there is a ready market to accept the trade.

Illiquid assets, also known as alternative assets, include all the other investment classes that do not trade on a daily exchange. These "private" investments (as compared to "public" liquid investments) are considered higher-risk due to their illiquidity, but also are expected to earn a higher return. Some hedge funds are included in alternative assets either because they themselves invest in illiquid investments or because they put strict limitations on the trading capability of the institutional investors, rendering themselves "illiquid."

Asset allocation is a well-studied area within the field of finance. A prototypical United States-based asset allocation model might allocate 25 percent to U.S. stocks, 30 percent to U.S. debt, 25 percent to international equity and debt, and let's say 20 percent to all alternative assets. Within alternative assets, LBOs might be 60 percent, and venture capital could be as low as 10 percent (of the 20 percent). As a result, venture capital could be as low as 2 percent of an institutional fund's overall capital allocation. Most people fail to realize just how small venture capital is in the overall scheme of things.

Very generally speaking, experts and academicians have considered it "conservative" to have a smaller allocation to all alternative assets reflecting the risks of illiquidity, the inability to ascertain price, and the higher difficulty in analyzing the nonstandard vehicles. It is a fairly straightforward, conservative investment approach to favor liquidity and certainty over absolute potential upside (this is the same argument for holding bonds over stocks).

Over the past decade or so, a large number of very influential institutional funds have substantially increased their allocation in alternative assets. In some extreme cases, these investors have taken this allocation from a conservative amount of, say, 15 percent to 20 percent to well more than 50 percent of their fund.

Many people suggest that David Swensen at Yale was the original architect of a strategy to adopt a much higher allocation to alternative assets. Regardless of whether he was the leader, several funds simultaneously adopted this higher-risk, higher-return model. (For a more detailed look at how this evolved and why, see The Wall Street Journal's "Ivy League Schools Learn a Lesson in Liquidity" and Forbes' "How Harvard Investing Superstars Crashed." For an even deeper dive, including comparative asset allocation models, see MoneyShow.com's "Tough Lessons for Harvard and Yale.")

Contributing to this dynamic on the field, the early movers to this model were able to post above-average returns.* Also, due to the high disclosure policy of most universities, these above-average performances were often touted in press releases. This "public benchmarking" put further pressure on competing fund managers who were not seeing equal returns, which, as you might guess, led to them mimicking the same strategy.

As a result, alternative assets have grown quite substantially over the past 10 years. This is perhaps best seen in the size of the overall LBO market. The included chart shows the money raised in the LBO market over the past 30 years. As you can see, the amount of dollars pouring into this category over the past five years is nothing short of breathtaking.

The market contraction of late 2008 and early 2009 severely compromised the high-alternative asset allocation strategy. The liquid portion of the average portfolio contracted as much as 30 percent to 40 percent, which had two resulting impacts. Initially, this resulted in most fund managers having an even higher portion of their funds in illiquid investments. Ironically, this was largely an accounting issue.

Most likely, the illiquid pieces of their portfolio had declined just as much, but as illiquid investments are not valued on a day-to-day basis, they simply were not properly discounted at this point (over time, they would and are eventually coming down). But with one's fund already down 30 percent or so, no one is eager to further decrement the value.

Despite that this may have only been an "accounting" issue, it presented a problem nonetheless, as many fund managers have triggers that force them to reallocate capital, if they go above or below a certain asset allocation. This is one of those policies that encouraged selling at a point that may be the exact wrong time, contributing to further declines.

A second and more complicated problem also emerged. It turns out that when an institutional investor "invests" in an LBO fund, it doesn't actually invest the dollars all at once. Rather, it commits to an investment over time, which is "drawn down" by the LBO manager (venture capital works in the same way, but once again is a much smaller category).

As these funds substantially increased their commitment to the LBO category, they were de facto increasing a guaranteed negative cash flow in the future to meet these draw-downs. Now, with portfolios out of balance, and lack of new liquidity events from the markets for mergers and acquisitions and IPOs, these funds have cash needs (to meet the draw-downs) that are not offset by cash availability. If anything, the universities and endowments these managers represent want more cash now to deal with the difficult overall economic environment.

To meet these new liquidity needs, an institutional investor could:

1. Sell more of its liquid securities. This is problematic because it further compromises the target asset allocation.
2. Try to sell the LBO commitments on the secondary market. As you might suspect, the secondary market is extremely depressed. Some have even suggested that due to the forward cash need on an early LBO fund, an institution might have to "pay" to get out of the position and to encourage someone else take on the future cash commitment.
3. Default on the commitment. While this does have penalties in most cases, it would not be out of the realm of possibilities for this to occur, if the investor has lost faith in the manager, and it is early in the fund (with more cash needs in the future).
4. Try to raise more capital. Not surprisingly, donations to foundations and universities are down dramatically due to the overall decline in the capital markets. This makes this strategy unlikely.

As you can see, none of these options is overly compelling.

If this is not bad enough, many institutional fund managers and the groups to which they report (such as a board of trustees) are now second-guessing the high-alternative asset allocation model. As a result, they may desire to return to the more conservative and more traditional asset allocation of 10 percent to 20 percent allocated to alternative assets.

Ironically, they are in no position to rebalance their portfolio precisely because they lack incremental liquidity. Think about it this way: it is very easy to shift a portfolio from liquid assets to illiquid. You simply sell positions in highly liquid securities, and buy or commit to illiquid ones. Going the other way is not so simple, as there is no ability to conveniently exit the illiquid positions.

This is a very long explanation, but the punch line is that as these large institutions adjust their portfolios and potentially abandon these more aggressive strategies, the amount of overall capital committed to alternative assets will undoubtedly shrink. As this happens, the VC industry will shrink in kind.

How much will it go down? It is very hard to say. It would not be surprising for many of these funds to cut their allocation in the category in half, and as a result, it shouldn't be surprising for the VC industry to get cut in half also.

One could argue that poor returns in the VC industry comprise the primary reason the category will shrink and that, as a result, the VC industry could be cut even further--or perhaps even go away. There are two key reasons that this is highly unlikely. First, one of the key tenets of finance theory is the Capital Asset Pricing Model. The CAPM model argues that each investment has a risk, measured as beta, which is correlated with return versus that of the risk-free return.

Venture capital is obviously a high-beta investment category. As of August 3, the S&P 500 has a negative 10-year return. As a higher-beta category, no rational investor could reasonably expect the VC industry as a whole to outperform in a catastrophic overall equity market. In fact, the expectation would be for lower returns than the equity benchmark.

This multiplicative correlation with traditional equity markets is the exact same reason that venture capital outperformed traditional equities in the late 1990s. The bottom line is that no institutional investor should be surprised by the recent below-average performance of the entire category, all things being equal.

The second reason the category will not be abandoned is contrarianism. Most students of financial history have read the famous quote attributed to Warren Buffet, "We simply attempt to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful."

One of the biggest fears of any investor is to abandon an investment at its low point, and then miss the corresponding recovery that would have helped offset previous poor returns. While this mindset will not guarantee the 100-year viability of the VC category, it should act as a governor on any mass exodus of the category. The more people exit, the more the true believers will want to double-down.

So when will this happen? One thing for sure is that it will not happen quickly. The VC industry has low barriers to entry and high barriers to exit. Theoretically, a fund raised in 2008, where all the limited partnerships (LPs) have no plans to commit to their next fund, may still be doing business in 2018. VC funds have long lives, and the point at which they decide to "not continue" is usually when they go to raise a new fund. This would typically be three to five years after they raised their last fund, but could be expanded to five to seven years in a tough market.

In some ways, the process has already started. Stories are starting to pop up about VC funds that were unable to raise their next fund. Also, some entrepreneurs are starting to discuss favoring VCs in whose longevity they can be confident. All in all, one should expect a large number of VC firms to call it quits over the next five years.

How should Silicon Valley think about these changes? It is important to realize that there are approximately 900 active VC firms in the United States alone. If that number fell to 450, it is not clear that the average Silicon Valley resident would take much notice. Another interesting data point can be found in the NVCA data, outlining how much money VCs are investing in start-ups (as opposed to LPs committing to VC firms).

VC firms invested about $3.7 billion (PDF) in the second quarter of 2009. Interestingly, this number is about half of the recent peak of about $8 billion per quarter. It is also quite similar to the investment level in the mid-1990s, prior to both the Internet bubble and the rise of the aggressive asset allocation model. So from that perspective, this, meaning the investment level we see right now in the second quarter of 2009, may be what it is going to be like in the future.

There are many reasons to believe that a reduction in the size of the VC industry will be healthy for the industry overall and should lead to above-average returns in the future. This is not simply because less supply of dollars will give VCs more pricing leverage.

We have seen over and over again how excess capital can lead to crowded emerging markets with as many as five or six VC-backed competitors. Reducing this to two or three players will result in less cutthroat behavior and much healthier returns for all companies and entrepreneurs in the market. Additionally, at a stabilized market size of well more than $15 billion a year, there should be plenty of capital to fund the next Microsoft, eBay, or Google.

* To date, it is unclear if these "above average" returns were a result of the liquid half of these portfolios or the illiquid half. As we mentioned earlier, it is extremely difficult to ascertain the actual value of an illiquid investment. In many cases, the institutional fund manager relies on the investment manager of the asset in which the firm invested to prescribe a value to the investment, even though it may be highly biased. If it turns out that a large portion of the "above average" returns of these early adopters of this more aggressive strategy were on the illiquid side, we may have yet another example of the dangers of mark-to-market accounting.

IBM will buy analytics and information forecaster SPSS for $1.2 billion in cash, the companies said Tuesday.

IBM is paying $50 per share for the publicly traded company, which closed Monday on Nasdaq at $35.09. At 6:45 a.m. PDT, the stock had jumped to $49.16.

Chicago-based SPSS makes predictive-analytics software and solutions. Its products tap into vast amounts of customer information that companies can use to try to stay competitive.

Predictive-analytics software is used to gather opinions from customers, forecast future demand, and package the information into business analytics. By capturing and analyzing trends, the software tries to help companies develop products and services better targeted to their customers.

Big Blue has already tapped into the market for predictive-analytics software with its Information on Demand services and its new Business Analytics and Optimization Consulting operation.

IBM said it believes SPSS will provide new solutions for specific industries, such as customer acquisition for financial service companies, patient care for the health care industry, crime prevention for the public sector, and ideal store location for retailers.

"With this acquisition, we are extending our capabilities around a new level of analytics that not only provides clients with greater insight--but true foresight," said Ambuj Goyal, general manager of IBM's Information Management. "Predictive analytics can help clients move beyond the 'sense and respond' mode, which can leave blind spots for strategic information in today's fast-paced environment--to 'predict and act' for improved business outcomes."

Subject to approval from SPSS investors, the deal is expected to close in the second half of 2009. Following the acquisition, IBM will integrate SPSS into its Information Management software portfolio.

The SPSS buyout is just the latest move in Big Blue's drive to win a greater share of the business analytics market. In May, IBM picked up data analytics firm Exeros.

Wal-Mart wants its suppliers to help it get greener.

The retail giant plans to announce on Thursday that it will ask its suppliers to provide environmental information on all products carried in its stores. Wal-Mart Stores will use that information to label each item with an eco rating, designed to measure its environmental friendliness.

"We have to change how we make and sell products," Michael T. Duke, Wal-Mart's president and chief executive, plans to tell about 1,500 suppliers and employees on Thursday at a "sustainability meeting," according to a copy of his prepared remarks, quoted in The New York Times. "We have to make consumption itself smarter and sustainable."

To kick off the program, Wal-Mart will ask its suppliers to answer about 12 questions for each item. The questions are designed to determine how the product was made, how it was packaged, and what elements or ingredients were used to manufacture it.

Wal-Mart will then tap into a database and metrics to calculate the "greenness" of a product and translate that information into a ratings system for consumers.

The company will partner with a consortium of about 12 universities to collect the data and set new design standards. Professor Jay Golden of the Global Institute of Sustainability at Arizona State University will function as co-director of the new consortium.

The universities will work directly with suppliers to determine each product's environmental impact, from how it uses raw materials to if and how it can be recycled.

Talks have already been held in Washington about possible new regulations for environmental labeling. But Golden says having Wal-Mart lead the way will "move it so much faster."

Wal-Mart plans to announce further details about the program on Thursday. But the initiative is clearly important to the company.

The eco-rating system is just the latest effort by Wal-Mart to create a greener landscape. The company has already strived to make its own stores environmentally friendly, including a plan to tap into solar power. Wal-Mart has also driven an effort to create more sustainable electronics devices to reduce the amount of items dumped into landfills.

Venture capitalists are the latest group showing more confidence in an economic recovery that will revive business, according to a quarterly survey released Thursday.

For the second quarter, the Silicon Valley Venture Capitalist Confidence Index showed an uptick, hitting 3.37 on a 5-point scale, up from the previous quarter's mark of 3.03. This is the second consecutive rise since the index dropped to a five-year low in the fourth quarter of 2008.

(Credit: Mark V. Cannice, Ph.D., University of San Francisco)

Based on an ongoing survey of San Francisco Bay Area venture capitalists, the index measures their confidence level in the market for initial public offerings and entrepreneurs over the next 6 to 18 months.

A report of the latest results from the June survey of 42 venture capitalists was released by its author Mark Cannice, associate professor with the University of San Francisco School of Business and Professional Studies.

"Venture capitalists expect that the worst of the financial crisis is behind us," said Cannice in his report. "While the effects of the financial market disruption on the venture industry will linger for some time, most VCs observed an increasingly determined and talented pool of entrepreneurs and a continuing march of innovation."

Although IPO funding has been scarce, the second quarter was boosted by the reopening of the market for venture-backed firms after two down quarters, noted Cannice. VCs believe their underlying business model is recovering.

Among the VCs questioned for the survey, Sandy Miller of Institutional Venture Partners said: "There has been a stabilization in the environment generally in the last two months...While we are by no means out of the woods, the tone for both entrepreneurs and investors has improved."

Kurt Keilhacker of TechFund Capital added: "There are definite signs of stabilization and hints of increased activity, especially in clean-energy sectors. Innovation is not dependent on a certain unemployment rate or stock index. Rather, innovation is often catalyzed by times of uncertainty."

Cannice noted that the lack of money has forced venture capitalists to identify and work with only the "most resilient and creative entrepreneurs." But this has instilled a sense of efficiency in these new firms, which should help them sustain over the longer haul.

VC Bill Byun of Samsung Ventures said: "In today's environment, when I meet a team of start-ups with compelling business ideas, I witness more than passion. I hear hunger to succeed and solve real problems versus testing out a business concept with an investor." Echoing that sentiment, Jim Marshall of Selby Ventures added, "Times like these truly separate the real entrepreneurs from the 'get rich quick' folks."

In summing up his findings, Cannice said in his report: "When the public capital markets right themselves fully, there will exist a healthy supply of innovative and efficient venture-backed enterprises ready to refresh their ranks."

The full report of the June survey is available at the USF Entrepreneurship Program Web site.

IBM thinks it can improve the state of mobile communications, and it's investing millions of dollars toward that effort.

Big Blue announced on Tuesday that it will spend $100 million over the next five years on a major research project to advance mobile technology for both consumers and businesses. With an increasing dependence on cell phones and portable devices worldwide, IBM's goal is to make mobile communications more efficient and easier to use.

"Mobile devices are gradually becoming ubiquitous and helping us transcend many boundaries--geographical, economic, and social, among others," says Dr. Guruduth Banavar, global leader of the mobile communications focus for IBM Research and director of IBM Research-India. "With high penetration, simple user interface, and significant cost advantage for end users, mobile telephony holds the future of communication and exchange of information for the enterprise."

The company plans to focus its research on three key areas: mobile enterprise enablement; emerging market mobility; and enterprise to end-user mobile experience.

Mobile enterprise enablement
With more business users relying on their cell phones, companies need a way to manage and easily deploy information to those devices. IBM's new technology dubbed "BlueStar" is striving to automate the use of mobile phones and applications within a large enterprise. A recent pilot test of BlueStart helped an insurance company more easily send claims to the right agents on their cell phones by using GPS tracking and calendaring tools. The system then processed information about those claims, which was transmitted securely back to the agents.

Emerging market mobility
According to information that IBM obtained from Internet World Stats, 83 percent of the world still does not have regular Internet access through a computer. IBM Research has set up a pilot in southern Indian to help consumers and small business owners find and share Internet information via their cell phones. People in the program speak into their phones to grab content, so Web-enabled smartphones are not even needed.

Enterprise to end-user mobile experience
Here IBM wants to build a better relationship between the mobile user and the back end. By analyzing consumer and business habits, the mobile Web would get better at providing personalized content.

"Mobility and the associated analytics will change virtually every enterprise business process," said Paul Bloom, chief technologist, IBM Telecom Research. "It will change the relationship between enterprises and their customers, their employees and their partners, enabling them to do business in more intelligent, efficient ways."

IBM says this technology will allow people to monitor energy use at home and at work, pay more conveniently for online purchases, and keep in closer touch with personal and professional networks. Access to personal information via a mobile device could also help doctors, emergency workers, and health care providers more effectively treat their patients.

IBM Research employs 3,000 scientists across eight major labs throughout the world.

The famous Paris International Air Show opened Monday amidst troubled times for the airline industry with plummeting sales, employee layoffs, canceled orders, rising oil prices, and the recent as-yet unexplained crash of Air France Flight 447.

Against the cloudy backdrop, key airline manufacturers like Boeing and Airbus expressed optimism at the show. Scott Carson, president and chief executive of Boeing's commercial aircraft division, told reporters on Monday that he believes the recessionary downturn in the commercial aircraft market has hit bottom.

"Are we down in the dumps about the status of this industry? Have we allowed the current economic situation to overwhelm us and discourage us from the path ahead? The answer is absolutely no," said Carson. "At this point it appears to us that the economic conditions have bottomed. If they have bottomed and a recovery comes next year, I think we have a shot at getting through."

Photos: Boeing Dreamliner moves closer to first flight

Boeing has been hard at work prepping its new 787 Dreamliner airline. The new plane had been hit by severe delays over the past year but seems to be on the launch pad for an upcoming test flight. Hopes were high at the air show that visitors might be the first to witness the 787 in action. But Boeing didn't want to rush things.

"If you were expecting the 787 to fly during the air show you will be disappointed," said Carson. "If it had happened during the air show, it would have been great, but it was never our intention. The airplane will fly when it is completely ready."

Meanwhile, France's Airbus has reason to pop the champagne. In one of the show's few orders for commercial aircraft, Qatar Airways said on Monday it would buy 24 of Airbus' top-selling A320 planes for $1.9 billion. This is an increase in Qatar's order of four A321 airlines announced last year.

The Airbus A321

(Credit: Airbus)

Airbus had already expressed a positive tone at a press conference ahead of the show on Saturday. Hit by 21 canceled orders so far this year, Airbus chief executive officer Tom Enders said the cancellations are helping to trim the company's order backlog of 3,500 airliners that it must still deliver.

"The weak sisters have left the backlog," noted Enders. "I'm quite happy that some of the order backlog is melting down."

Enders believes Airbus will still deliver the same number of aircraft this year as it did last year, a record 483, and now an amount helped by Qatar's A320 order.

The Paris International Air Show is celebrating its 100th birthday this year. The show runs every two years, and organizers expect close to 300,000 visitors this year, around the same as in 2007. More than 2,000 companies are exhibiting.

Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt and Microsoft Chief Research and Strategy Officer Craig Mundie are among computing industry leaders who President Barack Obama named to a technology advisory panel Monday.

The executives are among the members of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). The council's three co-chairmen are John Holdren, assistant to the president for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Eric Lander, a Human Genome Project leader and director of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard; and Nobel laureate Harold Varmus, chief executive of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center and former head of the National Institutes of Health.

Google CEO Eric Schmidt

(Credit: Stephen Shankland/CNET)

Schmidt already had close ties with the Obama camp. He was an adviser to the Obama campaign, campaigned for Obama, and is a member of the Transition Economic Advisory Board.

In related news, Obama announced in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences on Monday that he wants to devote 3 percent of the country's gross domestic product to research and development.

Here's the White House's full list of board membership:

• Rosina Bierbaum, a widely-recognized expert in climate-change science and ecology, is Dean of the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan. Her PhD is in evolutionary biology and ecology. She served as Associate Director for Environment in OSTP in the Clinton Administration, as well as Acting Director of OSTP in 2000-2001. She is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

• Christine Cassel is President and CEO of the American Board of Internal Medicine and previously served as Dean of the School of Medicine and Vice President for Medical Affairs at Oregon Health & Science University. A member of the US Institute of Medicine, she is a leading expert in geriatric medicine and quality of care.

• Christopher Chyba is Professor of Astrophysical Sciences and International Affairs at Princeton University and a member of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences. His scientific work focuses on solar system exploration and his security-related research emphasizes nuclear and biological weapons policy, proliferation, and terrorism. He served on the White House staff from 1993 to 1995 at the National Security Council and the Office of Science and Technology Policy and was awarded a MacArthur Prize Fellowship (2001) for his work in both planetary science and international security.

... Read more