Wow! That's some objective reporting there! Are you on leave from the administration to come tell us these things?
1) Michael Griffin - NASA has been astray for years trying to maintain a good reason to exist since the space race ended. I really don't have anything to say about who administers this organization.
2) Stephen Chu - An AGW supporter leading an organization designed by Carter in 1977 to ween us off of Middle East oil. FAILED. I do commend him for his knowledge of the Polywell project. Let's hope he doesn't sweep it under the rug in favor of the money pit that is ITER.
3) Cyber Security Review - A good thing, but I suspect such reviews are going on at the agency level all the time. It might not be a bad thing to create overarching mandates for this, especially as the Chinese and others are regularly breaking into DoD, DoE and power grid networks. And is this science or defense policy?
4) Mo Money! - More money for research is a great thing if it's targeted to useful research. Unfortunately, much of our scientific research establishment is as dependent on the federal dole as consumers are on crude oil. This leads to an extremely detrimental effect where research that reaches a critical mass politically is henceforth defended against all rational questioning. See AGW. Further, the money for the "stimulus" package is entirely borrowed or printed, meaning that your research will be paid for by generations to come at a cost likely triple the figure given when interest on the debt is included. Let's hope they do something worthwhile with it (maybe that's what those attached strings are for).
5) See borrowing and printing in #4 above.
6) Federal funding for stem cell lines other than those under the Bush administration - While I personally support this, it is important to remember that some people find the use of these cells for these purposes deeply offensive and immoral. You may not agree with them, but I doubt that anyone can effectively argue that the use of these cells in this manner results in the destruction of *potential* human life.
7) Scientific Integrity Memo - I've not read this memo, but based on its description in this article, it sounds as though the administration is not DE-politicizing science, it's RE-politicizing it in manner that it finds agreeable. Science has always been politicized, just ask Galileo about that. What is needed in science is an overhaul of the peer review system that stifles new ideas in favor of funding for old ideas. The current system encourages science to ignore evidence, hide methodology and even manufacture results. This is not only bad science, it's unethical and inefficient in regards to scientific progress. How about publishing or linking the memo?
8) John Holden - AGW alarmism run amuck, this fellow recently floated the idea that we might engineer our atmosphere with particulates to offset the radiative warming from the sun. At least he recognizes that warming comes from the sun, but this is precisely opposed by the very policies the EPA has enforced for the last 40 years. Before we start planning to pump man-made particulates into the atmosphere, it might be wise to understand that global temperatures have been trending down for 10 years now.
9) Nuclear disarmament - this is not science, it's international diplomacy. Why is this being touted as science? I suspect because the writer would like us to know what a swell guy Obama is to reduce our nuclear stockpile. Not that it matters much, we only need a few hundred warheads to maintain deterrence, and the Senate's not going to go that low.
10) CO2 is a pollutant? - Someone needs to tell the plants, especially the ones we eat! They've been breathing that stuff for, well, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have gone from 0.018% to 0.038% in the last 150 years. This is by definition a trace gas that is *REQUIRED* for life on earth. No verifiable experiment has ever demonstrated that this gas in this quantity will cause a horrible positive feedback that will do the things Al Gore would like you to believe so that you'll buy into his carbon credit scheme. The only source for this alarmism comes from computer models fed by data from poorly located ground monitoring stations, the code for which is made unavailable by the so-called "scientists" who promote this fear mongering.
POPSCI, you're failing miserably at objective reporting. But I will admit, I do enjoy coming here to tell the other side of the story that you're either ignorant of or unwilling to include. Nice list! </snark>