Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘science policy

Science Policy and U.S. Foreign Policy – Birds of a Feather

leave a comment »

By: Bethanie Morrison

According to the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats, “we are experiencing an unparalleled period of advancement and innovation in the life sciences globally that continues to transform our way of life.”1 This advancement in life sciences is driven by developments in international academic institutions, industrial research centers, private laboratories (i.e. Do-it-Yourself Biology) and government research facilities. The evolution of a global research community and the relationships such an entity can foster have major implications for the United States in terms of our foreign policy objectives.  In the pre-9/11 edition of Bruce Jentleson’s American Foreign Policy2, he lists 5 main reasons why U.S. foreign policy is especially important in this post-Cold War era.  The 5 points are summarized here, and you can see how our foreign policy and science policy agendas are inherently linked:

1.  The U.S. still faces significant threats to its national security (biodefense).

2.  The U.S. economy is becoming increasingly internationalized (technology imports and exports).

3.  Areas of policy previously considered “domestic” have been internationalized (STEM education).

4.  The increasing diversity of the U.S. population makes for a larger number of citizens with personal interests in foreign policy (areas of research funding, i.e. Malaria, HIV/AIDS).

5.  The U.S. cannot claim to be true to its most basic values if it ignores its violations internationally (global health system research).

In addition, Jentleson suggests that all foreign policy decisions can be analyzed by a framework of ‘4Ps,’ which stands for Power, Peace, Prosperity and Principles.  While each policy can be analyzed in terms of the 4Ps, it is rare for all four to be simultaneously achievable within each policy decision.  It is interesting to apply this analytical framework to the foreign policy involved in science policy and vice versa.  While this analysis will differ from policy to policy, the significance of each of the 4Ps may differ from political party to political party, making this a dynamic and interesting analytic process.  Below is a sample of how a 4Ps framework may be applied to science policy in terms of foreign policy.

Power:  This is important for self-defense, deterring aggression and exerting influence over other nations.  For example bioterrorism and biodefense strategies, and most DoD-funded research, provides outlets for science policy to influence the US’s position of power internationally. In addition, ensuring continued competitiveness in STEM education and U.S. involvement in “big science” (ie. The Human Genome Project) will require policies that allow us to be the authority on science thereby exerting our influence over other nations.

Peace:  This is important in terms of international management, diplomacy, and shows the importance of international institutions.  With regard to science policy, our relationships and collaborations fostered with other nations that are based on science and technology are critical to maintaining peace.  The globalization of science and international product development partnerships have improved our relationships with many European nations and are now expanding to our relationships with Asia.  Of particular interest is the formation of positive partnerships with major international forces such as Russia and China.  While there remain mistrust issues between the U.S. and China3, working together on a scientific goal may be a form of diplomacy that eases tensions moving forward.

Prosperity:  This relates to trade agreements and international economic policies that improve the U.S. financial system.   The ways in which science translates into finance center around technology development and trade.  This may involve regulatory mechanisms and policies regarding pharmacological agents and technology.

Principles:  These are the values, ideals and beliefs for which the U.S. claims to stand.  Global health initiatives play the largest role in U.S. foreign policy principles aside from our fight against terrorism.  Global health policy encompasses a broad range of research areas including clean water, children and women’s health issues, eradication of diseases and improvement of health care systems world-wide4.

The question is, how would you rank these 4Ps in terms of importance in U.S. foreign policy, and does that ranking system differ when thinking strictly in terms of U.S. science policy and funding?  Why?  Consider writing to your representatives expressing your ideas or concerns in terms of something bigger than your lab.  You never know what could happen!

References
1.  National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats. National Security Council, November 2009.
2.  Jentleson, Bruce W., American Foreign Policy: the Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century.  W.W. Norton and Company,  July 2013. 
3.  Lieberthal, K., Jisi, W., Addressing US-China Strategic Mistrust.  John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institute, March 2012.
4.  Kaiser Family Foundation 2013 Survey of Americans on the U.S. Role in Global Health, November 2013.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

December 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Posted in Essays

Tagged with , ,

Science Policy Around the Web – November 30, 2012

leave a comment »

photo credit: aloshbennett via photopin cc

By: Jennifer Plank

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

Tobacco Companies Are Told to Correct Lies About Smoking -
A recent ruling by Judge Gladys Kessler of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia requires tobacco companies to publish corrective statements admitting that they lied about the dangers of smoking. Each corrective advertisement must include a statement that a federal court has ruled that tobacco companies “deliberately deceived the American public about the health effects of smoking.” The tobacco companies opposed this ruling; however, Judge Kessler maintains that all of the statements are backed by specific findings of the court. (The Associated Press)

A Huge Pay Cut for Doctors is Hiding in the the Fiscal Cliff - On January 1, a 30 percent pay cut for doctors treating Medicare patients is set to take effect. This pay cut has been looming for a decade. Each year, doctors increase the amount they bill for services and procedures. Therefore, in 1997, Congress adapted a solution to this problem to reduce rising costs to Medicare- if doctors’ fees increased too much per patient per year, Medicare would pay a little less for services. For example, in 2002, using the formula developed by Congress, Medicare was to cut 4 percent from the amount paid to doctors. However, that year, doctors complained resulting in complaints to Congress from Medicare patients, and ultimately, Congress passed a bill to ignore the pay cuts. This pattern repeated itself yearly resulting in a cumulative cut of about 30 percent. This reduction in pay for doctors is one component of the fiscal cliff negotiations. (Channa Joffe-Walt)

Smith Wins Chair of U.S. House Science Committee - Leaders in the House of Representatives recommended that Lamar Smith of Texas become the new chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Representative Smith is about to begin serving his 14th term in Congress and has served on the House science committee for 26 years. While Representative Smith maintains some conservative ideals- including being skeptical of government action on climate change, he has also been successful at working in a bipartisan manner. Many lobbyists for universities and science organizations are happy with the selection. (David Malakoff)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 30, 2012 at 11:47 am

Science Policy Around the Web – November 16, 2012

leave a comment »

By: Jennifer Plank

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

What the world can learn from Denmark’s failed fat tax - Last October, the Danish tax ministry added a tax of 16 kroner ($2.70) per kilogram of saturated fat in foods from milk to butter to frozen pizza. The tax resulted in increased costs to consumers, increased administrative costs for companies, and a loss of jobs due to Danish citizens leaving the country to buy fatty foods. Therefore, the tax ministry decided to scrap the tax law. Olga Khazan reviews the Danish “fat tax” and similar taxes elsewhere- including the soda tax in New York.

From Physics to Politics: Mr. Foster goes to Washington – Citizens from Illinois’s 11th district recently elected physicist Bill Foster to the House of Representatives. After spending years in the lab contributing to findings such as the top-quark or co-inventing a system to increase the efficiency of the Tevatron, Dr. Foster decided to apply his analytical thinking skills to political issues. Scientific American interviewed the newly elected Congressman who encourages other scientists to become involved in the political process. (JR Minkel)

Call for global crackdown on fake medications - According to the World Health Organization (WHO), nearly one in ten medications sold in poorer countries are fake, and strikingly, one-third of all malaria medications are fake.  While richer countries do not face this problem to the same extent, they are not immune from the effects of falsified drugs. For example, a contaminated drug supply led to an outbreak of meningitis that has killed 16 people in the United States. A recent article in the British Medical Journal outlines an approach that can be taken by the WHO to inhibit the sale of counterfeit medication. (Michelle Roberts)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 16, 2012 at 12:50 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – November 4, 2012

leave a comment »

 

By: Jennifer Plank

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

Scientists unsure if humans are to blame for Hurricane SandyFollowing the devastation of Hurricane Sandy last week, one must ask “Did this storm occur as a result of global climate change?” While most climate scientists will not conclusively say that the storm resulted from global climate change, some will offer several pieces of evidence that global warming at least intensified the effects of the storm. (Justin Gillis)

Politics and fetal diagnostics collide – A new diagnostic called non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) will increase the amount of genetic information available early in pregnancy. This test is currently used to determine a fetus’s blood type, gender, father, trisomy 21 (Down Syndrome) and trisomy 13. Due to its non-invasive nature and the fact that it can be completed at 10 weeks gestation rather than during the second trimester (when amniocentesis can be performed), NIPT is a valuable tool for diagnosing genetic abnormalities. This new screening method is strongly opposed by pro-life groups and has resulted in the introduction of new legislation to limit abortions following genetic screening. To date, “the FDA has not developed a regulatory scheme for genetic tests”. (Jaime King, subscription required)

Will Elephant Contraception Work in South Africa? – Although the elephant population in much of Africa is endangered due to poaching, the number of elephants in South Africa keeps increasing. Elephants eat approximately 600 pounds of food per day and can be incredibly destructive to their environment. Therefore, wildlife conservationists have encouraged the use of a contraceptive vaccine on female elephants to reduce elephant fertility. However, some experts oppose this new treatment and raise questions about its feasibility. (Martin Plaut)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 4, 2012 at 8:38 am

Science Policy Around the Web – October 27, 2012

leave a comment »

photo credit: . Shell via photopin cc

By: Jennifer Plank

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

EU acts against harm from biofuel crops - The European Commission has concluded that clearing land in order to plant food for generating biofuels minimizes the environmental benefit of using them. To circumvent this issue, the commission has placed a new cap on the amount food-based biofuel. As an alternative, they recommend using waste, algae, and straw for the production of biofuel.

Viral research faces clampdown – In an attempt to enhance public safety, US health agencies have added two new viruses to the list of select agents – a list of pathogens and toxins that have the “potential to pose a severe threat to public health and safety”. However, researchers oppose the restrictions due to the implications posed for conducting research on the select agents. The labs working on these agents will either have to upgrade their biological safety levels, transfer, or destroy their stocks. The two pathogens in question are the SARS Virus and strains of H5N1 influenza that are transmissible to mammals. (Declan Butler)

Life at the Bottleneck – A recent graduate from the University of Vienna’s Department of Social Studies of Science shares the major findings of her research. Ruth Muller studied the current academic landscape and how it influences a postdoc’s career development and working practices. Her findings suggest that the pressure of the postdoctoral position decreases the opportunity to develop skills for future success such as lab management, creative collaboration, and visionary innovation.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 27, 2012 at 6:03 pm

Earthquakes and the (non-)science of risk prediction

leave a comment »

photo credit: Waifer X via photopin cc

By:  Rebecca Cerio

One of the more scientifically bizarre stories lately has been the conviction of Italian scientists and engineers in the L’Aquila earthquake trial.  To summarize, during a swarm of small earthquakes, a government-sponsored panel told the people of the L’Aquila region that the tremors were nothing to worry about and that they were believed to disperse energy and reduce the chance of a larger earthquake.  (In the past, such swarms preceded only a tiny fraction of large earthquakes.)  Six days later, a large earthquake hit the region, killing over 300 people.  The scientists were tried for the deaths of about 30 of those people, who–reassured by the scientists’ words–stayed in their homes when the quake struck, instead of rushing outside to more open, safer ground.

Scientists, predictably, have shook their heads in dismay at the Italian court’s verdict (convictions of manslaughter and 6-year sentences).  They have, understandably, pointed out that there was no way that the scientists could predict an earthquake and that they should not be punished for giving the best advice they could given the data they had.  The prosecution has pointed out that the defendants were not being charged with incorrectly predicting an earthquake but instead incorrectly communicating the RISK of an earthquake.  In essence, the scientists were charged and found guilty of giving people a false sense of security that convinced the victims to change their behavior in an ultimately lethal way.

Whether the scientists gave people bad advice or whether they gave them good advice that simply turned out to be wrong is still unclear and is perhaps something that only Mother Nature would be able to testify about, but it gets right at the crux of a very pointed issue:  how should scientists convey risk and uncertainty about their data to the public, particularly in life-and-death scenarios?  How much responsibility do scientists have to convey that risk accurately?  And what legal blame do scientists have to accept when people interpret and use that data to justify acting in ways that lead to injury or death? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 26, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – October 18, 2012

leave a comment »

Photo Credit: Adamo Photo

By: Jennifer Plank

Our weekly linkpost, bringing you interesting and informative links on science policy issues buzzing about the internet.

Parsing of Data Led to Mixed Messages on Organic Food’s Value - Recently two independent groups reviewed years of scientific data regarding the benefits of organic food and came to very different conclusions. A study published in 2011 by a group from Newcastle University in England found that organic food was generally more nutritious and contained more molecules that help people fight cancer and heart disease. However, while reviewing many of the same original studies, a group from Stanford University concluded that organic food is not more nutritious than conventionally grown food. Kenneth Chang of the New York Times reviews the methodology used by both groups that led to this discrepancy.

Science in an Election Year – President Obama and Governor Romney were recently asked 14 science-related questions regarding topics such as energy, climate change, and the future of research, and Scientific American evaluated the responses given by their campaigns. The candidates’ full responses can be found here. Additionally, sciencedebate.org asked leaders of congressional committees that impact science policy 8 of the 14 questions that were asked of the presidential candidates- The Top American Science Questions: 2012 Congressional Edition.

Pertussis: Get the Vax or At Least Listen To Why You Should – Tara Haelle, a Double X Science contributor, reviews several recent events regarding vaccines and vaccine exemptions. On September 30, California Governor Jerry Brown signed Assembly Bill 2109 which requires parents to sign a statement stating they received information about the risks and benefits of vaccines before excluding their children from immunization. The statement must also be signed by a health care practitioner. On September 24, a US District court in Ohio ruled that religious objections were not sufficient for vaccination exemption stating that “the mere assertion of a religious belief . . . does not automatically trigger First Amendment protections,” and that “it has long been recognized that local authorities may constitutionally mandate vaccinations.”  Finally, a study in the journal Epidemiology highlights the importance of family members being vaccinated to protect the health of babies who are too young to be vaccinated and may contract the disease.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 18, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 42 other followers