It seems that Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) is not only interested in conquering virtual space but outer space as well. Through the ever expanding horizons of billionaire Google co-founder Sergei Brin, Google has created together with the X PRIZE Foundation the Google Lunar X PRIZE. Like so many Google activities, this is a very long-term enterprise.

Our architecture practice has done work for the aerospace industry, including the structural test lab for the space shuttle and other unique projects. This created the impetus for our involvement with numerous interesting organizations, one of which is the X-Prize Foundation. It and the Ansari Family Foundation were instrumental in the promotion through a $10 million prize to privately fund sub-orbital travel.

We had the spectacular privilege of being present at both launches of Space Ship One from the Mojave Spaceport (thanks JSS) near Edwards Air Force Base that managed to put a manned vehicle outside the atmosphere for a duration of 60 seconds twice in a ten-day period. Space Ship One, the winning entry, was designed and built by Burt Rutan, supported by funding from Paul Allen.

I'm getting a bit sick of the high priests of corporate governance getting bent out of shape about every little violation of their puritanical standards. The latest episode is the kerfuffle over Google, Inc.'s (NASDAQ: GOOG) co-founder Sergei Brin's wife who started a company -- 23andMe that's developing ways "to help you make sense of your own genetic information" -- in which Google invested $3.9 million.

The media's offering some gossip to make the medicine go down more easily. According to the New York Times [registration required], Brin's wife, Anne Wojcicki -- the Times said it's pronounced Wo-JIT-skee -- is a likable overachiever who received a biology degree from Yale! Security was so tight at her wedding to Brin on a private Bahamas isle that those departing on Brin's custom jet didn't know where they were heading!! Brin doesn't flaunt his wealth in the real estate market -- he lives in "a quiet residential neighborhood in Palo Alto!!!" And Fortune posts that 23andMe's test discovered that Warren and Jimmy Buffett are NOT related!!!!

These articles miss the key question: "Will Google investors get a return on their $3.9 million?"

Google Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG) invested $3.9 million in 23andMe, the bio-tech start-up of Anne Wojcicki, the wife of Sergey Brin, Google co-founder. While that's pocket change compared to Brin's net worth of around $14 billion (and even more of a drop in the bucket when you take into account the size of Google), it raises some interesting questions about ethics and conflicts of interest.

There's nothing inherently wrong about financing the start-up of a spouse of the company's founder, as long as it's done at arm's length. In terms of ethics, the question is, Would someone other than Ms. Wojcicki have been able to secure capital from Google for the same thing?

It seems unlikely. I can't find much record of Google investing in other bio-tech companies (if it does, it would probably be a sign of diworsification), although a Google spokesman said that the acquisition actually made strategic sense because, "They are developing new ways for people to make sense of their genetic information" -- and Google is all about information! Hmm . . .

This isn't a big deal, but it just doesn't smell quite right. At Enron, all employees were required to make their travel arrangements through an agency owned by Chairman Ken Lay's sister. Was that a big deal in itself? Probably not, but it was indicative of self-dealing on the part of the company's management that went far deeper than a travel agency.

Of course, I'm not suggesting for a second that Google is the next Enron, but I think investors should be on the lookout for more signs of related-party transactions and questionable dealings at Google.

There are two kinds of CEOs: innovators -- who come up with growth ideas -- and janitors -- who cut costs and instill discipline. There are times when it's best to invest in an innovator, and others when a janitor generates superior shareholder returns. What does this mean for stocks? Potential buys include Boeing Co. (NYSE: BA), Google, Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOG), and American International Group, Inc. (NYSE: AIG), and potential holds include Hewlett-Packard Co. (NASDAQ: HPQ), Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ: MSFT), and Apple, Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL).

This thought came to mind after reading an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal's Alan Murray's new book -- Revolt in the Boardroom: The New Rules of Power in Corporate America. It's a measure of his clout that he got the front page [subscription required] -- albeit of the Saturday edition. Murray's argument is that "boring" CEOs are now on the rise "in the wake of ... Enron" (a hackneyed expression that should be banned from the journalistic lexicon).

Following journalistic convention, Murray extrapolates a trend from three cases. He argues that boards have appointed "boring" CEOs -- I call them janitors since they are the executive equivalent of a clean up crew that comes in after a rock concert -- to avoid their predecessors' scandals. He cites the "boring" examples of Jim McNerney at Boeing, Martin Sullivan at AIG, and Mark Hurd at HP. They can boost the stock price for a while by cutting excess cost and instilling process discipline.

But they often fall down when it comes to generating revenue growth ideas. This is where investors can benefit from an innovator CEO -- the archetype of which is Apple's Steve Jobs. For investors there are two problems with such innovators:

Last week Microsoft's Bill Gates expressed regret about being the world's richest man. When I read this, I was reminded of the expression, "be careful what you wish for, you might get it."

Before launching into an analysis of how Gates could be toppled from his throne, it's worth noting that I've admired Microsoft and wondered whether it's lost its elbow room. I praised Microsoft's ability to adapt to change in two of my books, The Technology Leaders and Value Leadership. But in the last several years, Microsoft seems to have lost its mojo as I noted in these interviews by Red Herring and The Washington Post.

Here's a surprise. The biggest threat to Gates's top rank on the Forbes 400 comes not from the number two on the list, but from numbers 15 and 16. According to that September 2005 list, Gates's net worth totaled $51 billion. Berkshire Hathaway's Warren Buffett came in second at $49 billion. And he was followed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen ($22.5B), Dell's Michael Dell ($18B) and Oracle's Larry Ellison ($17B). Spots six through 12 were occupied by descendants of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton, Microsoft CEO, Steve Ballmer, and heiresses from Cox Enterprises and Fidelity.