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trials studied were published in peer-reviewed journals within 30 months after completion, and one-third were still unpublished 51 months after completion.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!