Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Archive for January 2012

The Research Works Act: Intellectual Property v. Open Access

with one comment

By: Jessica Lamb

In the shadow of SOPA and PIPA, let us consider another bill in the battle between free exchange of information and the price of intellectual property – The Research Works Act (RWA).  This bill would make illegal open access policies such as the one put in place by the National Institutes of Health (NIH).  This policy requires that articles resulting from NIH grant-supported research be uploaded to PubMed, a free online database, within a year of publication.

The problem some organizations have with this policy is that many of these papers are published in private, subscriber-funded journals under copyright protection.  The NIH policy essentially forces these journals to make their intellectual property (IP) freely available.  The Association of American Publishers released a statement saying the RWA prevents “regulatory interference with private-sector research publishers in the production, peer review and publication of … scholarly journal articles.”  They also implied the act protects individuals from being compelled to sign over copyright due to government policy.

Traditionally, these private-sector research publishers facilitate submission of raw manuscripts and help edit the final proofs.  They also print periodicals for libraries and individuals that continue to prefer paper and archive their past editions.  Perhaps most importantly, they give credibility to their content by facilitating peer review.  Ideally, peer review is a scientific editorial process whereby volunteer scientists screen manuscripts, reject ones that are scientifically unsound, and offer improvements.  For all of these reasons many scientists look to peer-reviewed publications as reliable sources of research articles.  Forcing these publishers to give up their IP certainly could be seen as burdensome government interference.

How does the NIH justify this interference?  The open access policy is based on the philosophy that the results of publicly funded research should be freely available.  Furthermore, the year of exclusive rights left to the journals does ensure that most subscribers will continue to give the journals their business.  While scientific journals certainly add value to the content they produce, the fact remains that the vast majority of the intellectual effort put into their product is the work of the researchers, who are expected to sign over copyright to the publishers.  Neither the scientists, nor their institutions, nor their funding agencies are compensated.  The majority of the IP the journals are seeking to protect they obtain for free.

Interestingly, in 2008 the “Fair Copyright in Research Works Act”, a bill of similar name and purpose, was introduced in the House and didn’t make it out of committee.  A year later, the “Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009”, which aimed to expand the open access policy to other funding agencies, was introduced in the House and Senate but suffered a similar fate.  The RWA, it seems, is just the latest volley in this battle and unlikely to be the last.

As a society we value the exchange of information, but we also value private enterprise.    When considering the RWA, Congress should weigh this conflict but also remember they are responsible to the taxpayer.  Is the best way to protect dissemination of peer-reviewed scientific inquiry making the public pay for research they’ve already funded?

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 31, 2012 at 7:55 pm

Posted in Essays

Tagged with ,

Science Policy Around the Web – January 31, 2012

leave a comment »

By:  Rebecca Cerio and Adele Blackler

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

Whistleblower Uses YouTube to Assert Claims of Scientific MisconductAllegations of image manipulation are by no means new, but this video alleging nearly 60 incidences by one lab does it particularly effectively.  One thing to note is that these instances are mostly (if not totally) drawn from the published figures:  these are infractions that could have been caught by a sufficiently keen-eyed reviewer.  (by Dennis Normile via AAAS ScienceInsider)

White House Gives Up on NOAA Science Chief Nomination – “Under U.S. Senate rules, a single lawmaker can place a “hold” on a nomination, effectively preventing a vote.”  This hold can be put on for any reason.  In this case?  The senator involved was “uncomfortable confirming a high-level science advisor […] while there remain significant outstanding concerns over scientific integrity at federal agencies and the White House, including with regard to the recent drilling moratorium and the ongoing bottleneck in permitting, which I would characterize as a continuing de facto moratorium.”  The objecting senator was Senator David Vitter (R-LA).  (by David Malakoff via AAAS ScienceInsider)

Time for a New Type of Peer Review?Travis Saunders on Science of Blogging has a radical suggestion to address the problems with conventional peer review:  accept everything, score for methodology, and publish each article with its score and reviewers’ comments.  “This new system would make paper quality exceedingly clear; …would incentivize high quality research, rather than “sexy” findings;…[and] would make it ok to replicate prior work or publish null findings.”  The author is asking for ideas, comments, and constructive criticism, for those inclined to join the thought experiment.

Have an interesting science policy link to share?  Let us know in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 31, 2012 at 11:06 am

Posted in Linkposts

An Exploration in Science Policy Opportunities

leave a comment »

By: Adele Blackler

This past year, in my never ending quest to figure out What I Want To Do When I Grow Up, I undertook two different science policy experiences. The first, a part-time detail in a science policy office at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), I really enjoyed. The detail led me to my second experience, a 3-month science policy fellowship with a research advocacy firm, which I really did NOT enjoy. While there were many differences between the two experiences, I think what made the biggest difference for me was the people I worked with.

At the NIH detail, at least half of the office was comprised of people who, like me, had obtained Ph.Ds in the life-sciences, completed some post-doctoral work, and then decided to switch to policy. Not only did they really understand my background and interests in policy, but they also knew how research and lab skills translated into policy skills. I worked closely with several people in the office who helped me learn the domain and navigate institute politics, but I was also given a lot of independence and was treated very much like one of their peers.

At the research advocacy firm, I wound up working with hard-core policy wonks with no experience working with scientists. As such, my 8+ years of research and scientific training were deemed irrelevant the moment I walked into the office, and I was treated as though I had no useful skills. When I proposed a project describing the history of recently developed pharmaceuticals, I was told that that project was very research intensive, and would probably be too hard for me!

For most of the science advocacy fellowship, I was undertasked and micromanaged. When I did have work to do, I was taking research-related press releases and reducing them into health related sound bites for the science-illiterate elected official. Basically, every piece of scientific research became “studying disease X, to build better treatments,” no matter what the actual science was about. It was truly an eye-opening experience into how little technical scientific accuracy can matter to some of the groups trying to influence science policy.

So, what do I know now that I wish I had known before taking the fellowship? Well, unfortunately there is no fool-proof way to avoid bad fellowship experiences-but here are several criteria that I think are important:
1. Make sure at least one person you will be working with has a Ph.D. I had talked to scientists that had done the same advocacy fellowship as me, and they really had good things to say. But they had worked at the firm when the vice-president of science policy had a science-oriented Ph.D.; by the time I started my fellowship this person had moved on and I was the only one with a Ph.D. (or science background) in the office.
2. Try to determine what you will be allowed to do. During the interview process, in addition to ascertaining what work you will be doing, also try to figure out if there are limits on what you are allowed to do. Part of my interest in the science advocacy fellowship was thinking I would be able to go out and actually work with different student or post-doctoral groups to get them involved in advocacy. When I started, I quickly learned that fellows are not allowed to talk to outside groups without supervision. If I had discovered that during the interview I probably would not have taken the fellowship.
3. Take notice of how well your skills are assessed during the interview. When I interviewed for my NIH detail, I had two long interviews where I was asked very focused questions about my writing and communication skills; in my fellowship interview, I was the one asking most of the questions. In retrospect, I should have taken this as a warning that the fellowship was not one that required a great deal of specific skill.

In trying to make the leap from bench research to science policy, it can be very valuable to do some short details or fellowships in the field. This gives you experience and a feel for what the job entails. But it pays to be picky about what jobs to take; make sure that your skill set and interests match up well with the position.

As for my science policy career, at the moment it is on hold-I am back at the bench and really enjoying my research. But I’m glad I have had the opportunity to explore a different career path and really get a feel for it. If I do decide to go into science policy someday, I have a very clear vision of what I want, and I am now one step closer in deciding What I Want to do When I Grow Up.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 26, 2012 at 1:21 pm

Posted in Essays

Tagged with ,

Science Policy Around the Web – January 26, 2012

leave a comment »

by darrenhester on Morguefile. Used with permission

By:  Rebecca Cerio & Adele Blackler

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

A Guide for Using SOPA & PIPA to Kill Scientific Debate – The big news on the internet last week was regarding the SOPA and PIPA bills in Congress.  Would the passage of these bills affect scientific discourse?  Dr. Ham from Los Alamos National Laboratories thinks so.  He points out that if the government has the ability to shut down a website the instant a copyright complaint surfaces; it would be very easy for individuals to post copyrighted material in an online science journal which would cause the entire website to be shutdown.  (via Huffington Post)

Conserving Biodeversity Could Benefit The World’s Poor – It is the sad truth that the most biodiversity is found in some of the poorest areas of the world.  However, conserving biodiversity can be one of the best things we can do for those impoverished areas, suggests a new analysis by Conservation International.  One key reason:  “biodiversity conservation provides both direct services (food, fuel) and indirect services (pollination, clean water) that the poor have difficulty replacing.”  Furthermore, local populations are undercompensated for the use of these resources.  “…Given effective and equitable mechanisms to ensure that the beneficiaries of ecosystem services paid those responsible for stewarding them, global benefits to poor communities would robustly increase by 50 percent, and the payments would amount to more than a dollar per person per day for about a third of the 1.1 billion people in the world living in dire poverty.”  The study article is available free online through the end of the month. (via the American Institute of Biological Sciences)

Clinical Trial Results in US Go Unreported – US law demands that most clinical trials report their findings to ClinicalTrials.gov within one year of the trial’s completion.  A new study, however, finds that over 80% of investigated trial results are not deposited within the required timeframe.   Alsol, fewer than half of NIH-funded trials studied were published in peer-reviewed journals within 30 months after completion, and one-third were still unpublished 51 months after completion.  These results are quite disturbing as even negative results are useful for future studies, and indicate that efforts to increase reporting need to be investigated and encouraged.  (by University of Nottingham, via Futurity.org)

Have an interesting science policy link to share?  Let us know in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 26, 2012 at 11:06 am

Posted in Linkposts

Science Policy Around the Web – January 18, 2012

leave a comment »

by ppdigital on Morguefile. Used with permission.

By:  Rebecca Cerio

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

Cracking Open the Scientific Process – Should the public have to pay to read the results of research that was funded by their tax dollars?  The journal-based publication process has come under fire in recent years as old-fashioned, slow, expensive, and ethically questionable.  Enter the open-access movement, including journals such as PLoS ONE and scientific networking and data-sharing initiatives such as ResearchGate.  (by Thomas Lin via the New York Times)

The Risks of Dangerous Research – “In the wake of news last month that researchers had created a version of the deadly bird flu that was easily transmissible by air, a heated debate has arisen in the scientific community about whether or not the research should be published. But some experts are taking the discussion a step further back, and wondering why the research was conducted at all.(by Tia Ghose via The Scientist online)

Envisioning A New Path For K-12 Science Education – The National Research Council has released a new educational framework that aims to enhance science understanding in K-12 students.   “Currently, the report says, science education in the U.S. tends to place too much emphasis on having students learn an unconnected array of facts, and too little on helping them understand how scientists established those facts. Students need to learn the processes of science, not just the products. The framework describes key practices — for example, engaging in argument from evidence and designing and conducting investigations — that all students should learn and be able to do by the time they graduate high school.”  Personally, I have one word in response to this:  YES.  (by Sara Frueh via the National Academies)

 

Have an interesting science policy link to share?  Let us know in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 18, 2012 at 11:20 am

Posted in Linkposts

23 and 1/2 hours: What is the single best thing we can do for our health?

leave a comment »

By: Rebecca Cerio

“A Doctor-Professor answers the old question “What is the single best thing we can do for our health” in a completely new way.  Dr. Mike Evans is founder of the Health Design Lab at the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, an Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health at the University of Toronto, and a staff physician at St. Michael’s Hospital.”

This video’s entertaining to watch for the visuals alone (as far as I can tell, it WAS all hand-drawn), but the points he makes are excellent.  Exercise has so many benefits, can help us in so many ways, that it IS the single best thing we can do for our health.  No matter your situation, no matter your vices or your predispositions, if you can exercise safely, it will signifcantly reduce your chances of developing some of our biggest health problems.

By extension, perhaps one of the best health policies around is to encourage exercise.  I don’t mean your doctor’s steady litany of “–and you should get more exercise, too.  See me in six months.”  I’m talking about actively making it easier for people to exercise.  Including gym membership benefits in Medicare and other health plans.  Making cities pedestrian and bike-friendly.  Supporting strong public transportation systems so that people are more likely to do without a car.  Funding parks and other safe places where people can get out and about, play sports, or just walk.

As anyone who’s tried to get on an exercise plan and failed can attest, new habits can be hard to develop.  However, making it easier, safer, and cheaper to exercise can go a long way in overcoming the “activation energy” of getting into the fitness habit.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 12, 2012 at 11:42 am

Science Policy Around the Web – January 9, 2012

leave a comment »

By:  Rebecca Cerio

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

By duboix on Morguefile. Used with permission.

U.S. Requests Censoring of Bird Flu Papers –  The US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity is requesting that Science and Nature censor data on a laboratory-made avian flu variant that may spread more readily to humans, fearing that it could be recreated by others as a weapon.  This is the first time the government has made such a request, and the journals are attempting to find a way to curtail public access to the details of how to create the virus while still allowing the free flow of information to researchers.  (by Reuters in The Guardian)

Tobacco company misrepresented danger from cigarettes – A chilling look at how industry bias can affect its own research:  when threatened with regulations on cigarette additives, Philip Morris started its own studies into the toxicity of their additives, including menthol.  When they found that additives in cigarettes actually increased cigarette toxicity, they changed their analysis protocol to one that hid the increase.  In fact, the authors of a case study looking at Philip Morris’ data says, the original data from those papers, if properly analyzed, could be used as evidence that these additives should be banned from cigarettes for making cigarettes more dangerous.   The case study analysis can be read on PLoS Medicine for free.  (By Elizabeth Fernandez via UCSF press release)

Pitch Perfect: Academic detailing has the potential to significantly improve clinical practice – Many clinicians, researchers, and policy makers believe that comparative effectiveness research is both sorely needed and likely to be instrumental in improving the effectiveness and value of health care.  However, getting the results of comparative effectiveness studies into the hands of doctors can be difficult.  Thus was born academic detailing:  the practice of going to doctors’ offices, much like drug reps do, to meet face to face with doctors.  (by Josephine Johnston in The Scientist’s web edition.)


Have an interesting science policy link to share?  Let us know in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 9, 2012 at 10:45 am

Posted in Linkposts