Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘evolution

Science For All – Effective Science Communication and Public Engagement

leave a comment »

By: Agila Somasundaram, PhD

Image: By Scout [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

         In 1859, Charles Darwin published the Origin of Species, laying the foundation for the theory of evolution through natural selection. Yet more than 150 years after that discovery and despite a large volume of scientific evidence supporting it, only 33% of the American population believes that humans evolved solely through natural processes. 25% of US adults believe that a supreme being guided evolution, and 34% reject evolution completely, saying that humans and all other forms of life have co-existed forever. Similarly, only 50% of American adults believe that global climate change is mostly due to human activity, with 20% saying that there is no evidence for global warming at all. A significant fraction of the public believes that there is large disagreement among scientists on evolution and climate change (the reality being there is overwhelming scientific evidence and consensus), and questions scientists’ motivations. Public skepticism about scientific evidence and scientists extends to other areas such as vaccination and genetically-modified foods.

Public mistrust in the scientific enterprise has tremendous consequences, not only for federal science funding and the advancement of science, but also for the implementation of effective policies to improve public and global health and combat issues such as global warming. In her keynote address at the 2015 annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology, Dr. Jane Lubchenko described the Science-Society ParadoxScientists need society, and society needs science. How then can we build public support for science, and improve public trust in scientists and scientific evidence?

Scientists need to be more actively involved in science outreach and public engagement efforts. Communicating science in its entirety, not just as sensational news, requires public understanding of science, and familiarity with the scientific process – its incremental nature, breakthrough discoveries (that don’t necessarily mean a cure), failures, and limitations alike. Who better to explain that to the public than scientists – skilled professionals who are at the center of the action? In a recent poll, more than 80% of Americans agree that scientists need to interact more with the public and policymakers. But two major hurdles need to be overcome.

Firstly, communicating science to the public is not easy. Current scientific training develops researchers to communicate science in written and oral formats largely to peers. As scientists become more specialized in their fields, technical terms and concepts (jargon) that they use frequently may be incomprehensible to non-experts (even to scientists outside their field). The scientific community would benefit tremendously from formal training in public engagement. Such training should be incorporated into early stages of professional development, including undergraduate and graduate schools. Both students and experienced scientists should be encouraged to make use of workshops and science communication opportunities offered by organizations such as AAAS, the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science, and iBiology, to name a few. Secondly, federal funding agencies and philanthropic organizations should provide resources, and academic institutions should create avenues and incentives, for scientists to engage with the public. Both students and scientists should be allowed time away from their regular responsibilities to participate in public outreach efforts. Instead of penalizing scientists for popularizing science, scientists’ outreach efforts should be taken into consideration during promotion, grants and tenure decisions, and exceptional communicators rewarded. Trained scientist-communicators will be able to work better with their institutions’ public relations staff and science journalists to disseminate their research findings more accurately to a wider audience, and educate the public about the behind-the-scenes world of science that is rarely ever seen outside. Engaging with the public could also benefit researchers directly by increasing their scientific impact, and influence research directions to better impact society.

While increasing science outreach programs and STEM education may seem like obvious solutions, the science of science communication tells us that it is not so simple. The goals of science communication are diverse – they range from generating or sharing scientific excitement, increasing knowledge in a particular topic, understanding public’s concerns, to actually influencing people’s attitudes towards broader science policy issues. Diverse communication goals target a diverse audience, and require an assortment of communicators and communication strategies. Research has shown that simply increasing the public’s scientific knowledge does not help accomplish these various communication goals. This is because people don’t solely rely on scientific information to make decisions; they are influenced by their personal needs, experiences, values, and cultural identity, including their political, ideological or religious affiliations. People also tend to adopt shortcuts when trying to comprehend complex scientific information, and believe more in what aligns with their pre-existing notions or with the beliefs of their social groups, and what they hear repeatedly from influential figures, even if incorrect. Effective science communication requires identifying, understanding and overcoming these and other challenges.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine convened two meetings of scientists and science communicators, one in 2012 to gauge the state of the art of research on science communication, and another in 2013 to identify gaps in our understanding of science communication. The resulting research agenda outlines important questions requiring further research. For example, what are the best strategies to engage with the public, and how to adapt those methods for multiple groups, without directly challenging their beliefs or values? What are effective ways to communicate science to policymakers? How do we help citizens navigate through misinformation in rapidly changing internet and social media? How to assess the effectiveness of different science communication strategies? And lastly, how do we build the science communication research enterprise? Researchers studying communication in different disciplines, including the social sciences, need to come together and partner with science communicators to translate that research into practice. The third colloquium in this series will be held later this year.

Quoting Dr. Dan Kahan of Yale University, “A central aim of the science of science communication is to protect the value of what is arguably our society’s greatest asset…Modern science.” As evidence-based science communication approaches are being developed further, it is critical that scientists make scientific dialogue a priority, and make use of existing resources to effectively engage with the public – meet people where they are – and bring people a step closer to science – why each person should care – so that ‘post-truth’ doesn’t go from being merely the word of the year to a scary new way of life.

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

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 22, 2017 at 11:27 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – July 7, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Liu-Ya Tang, PhD

Source: pixabay

Autism

Is There Such a Thing as an Autism Gene?

Autism has become a global burden of disease. In 2015, it was estimated to affect 24.8 million people globally. Significant research efforts are underway to investigate the causes of autism. Autism is highly heritable – there is an 80 percent chance that a child would be autistic if an identical twin has autism. The corresponding rate is about 40 percent for fraternal twins.

However, is there such a thing as a single autism gene? Researchers haven’t found one specific gene that is consistently mutated in every person with autism. Conversely, 65 genes are strongly linked to autism and more than 200 others have weaker ties, many of which are related to important neuronal functions. Mutations in a variety of these genes can collectively lead to autism. The mutations could be from single DNA base pair, or copy number variations, which are deletions or duplications of long stretches of DNA that may involve many genes. Most mutations are inherited, but some mutations could also happen in an egg or sperm, or even after conception.

Besides genetic factors, maternal lifestyle and environmental factors can also contribute to autism. Exposure to air pollution during pregnancy or a maternal immune response in the womb may increase the risk of autism. While there is speculation on the link between vaccines and autism, it is not backed by scientific evidence.

Since both genetic and non-genetic factors play a role in the development of autism, establishing the underlying mechanism is complicated. There is no single specific test that can be used for screening autism. However, some tests are available to detect large chromosomal abnormalities or fragile X syndrome, which is associated with autism. (Nicholette Zeliadt, Washington Post)

STEM Education

New Florida Law Lets any Resident Challenge What’s Taught in Science Classes

A new law was signed by Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) last week, and has taken effect starting July 1. The law requires school boards to hire an “unbiased hearing officer” to handle complaints about teaching materials that are used in local schools. Any county resident can file a complaint, and the material in question will be removed from the curriculum if the hearing officer thinks that the material is “pornographic,” or “is not suited to student needs and their ability to comprehend the material presented, or is inappropriate for the grade level and age group.”

There are different voices in the new legislation, which affects 2.7 million public school students in Florida. Proponents argue that it gives residents more right in participating in their children’s education. A sponsor, state Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Naples), said that his intent wasn’t to target any particular subject. However, Glenn Branch, deputy director of the National Council for Science Education, is worried that science instruction will be challenged since evolution and climate change have been disputed subjects. A group called Florida Citizens for Science asked people to pay close attention to classroom materials and “be willing to stand up for sound science education.”

Like the new law in Florida, the legislature in Idaho rejected several sections of the state’s new public school science standards related to climate change and requested a resubmission for approval this fall. Since the Trump administration began, there has been “a new wave of bills” targeting science in the classroom. To protect teacher’s “academic freedom,” Alabama and Indiana adopted non-binding resolutions that encourage teachers to discuss the controversy around subjects such as climate change. A supporter of the resolution, state Sen. Jeff Raatz (R-Centerville), told Frontline, “Whether it be evolution or the argument about global warming, we don’t want teachers to be afraid to converse about such things”. (Sarah Kaplan, Washington Post)

 

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

July 7, 2017 at 1:32 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – April 11, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Liz Spehalski, PhD

Source: pixabay

Antibiotic Resistance

KFC to Stop Using Antibiotics in Chicken

Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) has announced that by 2018, all of its “finger-lickin’ good” chicken will be raised without antibiotics, a decision that is being applauded by health experts. KFC, which has the second largest sales of a U.S. chicken chain after Chick-fil-A is giving its poultry suppliers the deadline to stop using antibiotics in their protein. It will join other large chicken serving fast food chains in fighting the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria, following in the footsteps of McDonald’s, Chick-fil-A, and Subway. Corporate factory farms in the U.S. often treat their livestock and poultry with antibiotics to prevent disease and promote growth. Currently, livestock ventures utilize about 70% of the nation’s supply of the antibiotics that are given to patients when infections strike.

Antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents have been used successfully since the 1940s to treat people with infectious diseases, greatly reducing illness and death caused by microorganisms. However, the incidence of antibiotic- resistant bacteria is rising swiftly. According to the CDC, 2 million people become infected with antibiotic resistant bacteria each year, and at least 23,000 die because of these infections. Although resistance is caused simply by the wide usage of antibiotics across the globe, the fact remains that antibiotics are often incorrectly or over-prescribed.

This is a victory for consumer health groups who lobbied KFC to change its policies. “This announcement is a win for anybody who might someday depend on antibiotics to get well or even save their lives — i.e. everybody,” said Matthew Wellington, Program Director for one group’s antibiotics program. “It’s also a welcome step by KFC. The company’s newfound commitment on antibiotics should have lasting effects on the way these life-saving medicines are used in the chicken industry.” These advocates are currently lobbying state legislatures to pass laws that ban the routine use of antibiotics in livestock. (Lisa Baertlein, Business Insider)

Evolutionary Biology

Discovery of Giant Virus Fuels Debate over Fourth Domain of Life

Since their identification in the late 1800s as filterable infectious agents, viruses have long been characterized by their incredibly small size and their reliance on host cells for translation. These features have disqualified viruses as being classified as living organisms. However, with the discovery of the giant Mimivirus in 2003, evolutionary biologists are divided. Mimiviruses are larger than many microorganisms and can contain more than 2500 genes, including genes that implied their ancestors could live outside of a host cell. This discovery prompted some scientists to propose that viruses are descendants of a fourth domain of life alongside bacteria, eukaryotes, and archaea, while other researchers see no need for the fourth domain, asserting that viruses simply steal their genome from hosts.

A study published in Science on April 6 fuels this debate with the discovery of a virus in an Austrian sewage treatment plant that contains a genome with the most cell-like phenotype yet discovered. Klosneuvirus genomes contain genes for 20 amino acids as well as enzymes and other machinery used for protein synthesis. Analysis of these genomes suggests that the translation machinery seemed to have been picked up by one virus from a eukaryotic host cell, supporting the theory that viruses stole their genetic material and are thus not qualified as “life.” However, scientists have not been able to identify the host from which the stolen genes were taken, leaving the debate open since much of the Klosneuviruses’ translation genes do not match that of any other known organism. Further evolutionary work will need to be done to determine if viruses are indeed a fourth domain of life. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

April 11, 2017 at 9:24 am

Science Policy Around the Web – March 06, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Liu-Ya Tang, PhD

Source: pixabay

Technology and Health

Is That Smartphone Making Your Teenager’s Shyness Worse?

The development of new technologies, especially computers and smartphones, has greatly changed people’s lifestyles. People can telework without going to offices, and shop online without wandering in stores. While this has brought about convenience, it has also generated many adverse effects. People tend to spend more time with their devices than with their peers. Parents of shy teenagers ask, “Is that smartphone making my teenager’s shyness worse?”

Professor Joe Moran, in his article in the Washington Post, says that the parents’ concern is reasonable. The Stanford Shyness Survey, which was started by Professor Philip Zimbardo in the 1970s, found that “the number of people who said they were shy had risen from 40 percent to 60 percent” in about 20 years. He attributed this to new technology like email, cell phones and even ATMs. He even described such phenomena of non-communication as the arrival of “a new ice age”.

Contrary to Professor Zimbardo’s claims, other findings showed that the new technology provided a different social method. As an example, teenagers often use texting to express their love without running into awkward situations. Texting actually gives them time and space to digest and ponder a response. Further, Professor Moran said that the claim of Professor Zimardo was made before the rise of social networks;  shy teenagers can share their personal life online even if they don’t talk in public. He also talks about the paradox of shyness, where shyness is caused by “our strange capacity for self-attention”, while “we are also social animals that crave the support and approval of the tribe.” Therefore, new technologies are not making the shyness worse, in contrast social networks and smartphones can help shy teenagers find new ways to express that contradiction. (Joe Moran, Washington Post)

Genomics

Biologists Propose to Sequence the DNA of All Life on Earth

You may think that it is impossible to sequence the DNA of all life on Earth, but at a meeting organized by the Smithsonian Initiative on Biodiversity Genomics and the Shenzhen, China-based sequencing powerhouse BGI, researchers announced their intent to start the Earth BioGenome Project (EBP). The news was reported in Science. There are other ongoing big sequencing projects such as the UK Biobank, which aims to sequence the genomes of 500,000 individuals.

The significance of the EBP will greatly help “understand how life evolves”, says Oliver Ryder, a conservation biologist at the San Diego Zoo Institute for Conservation Research in California. Though the EBP researchers are still working on many details, they propose to carry out this project in three steps. Firstly, they plan to sequence the genome of a member of each eukaryotic family (about 9000 in all) in great detail as reference genomes. Secondly, they would sequence species from each of the 150,000 to 200,000 genera to a lesser degree. Finally, the sequencing task will be expanded to the 1.5 million remaining known eukaryotic species with a lower resolution, which can be improved if needed. As suggested by EBP researchers, the eukaryotic work might be completed in a decade.

There are many challenges to starting this project. One significant challenge is sampling, which requires international efforts from developing countries, particularly those with high biodiversity. The Global Genome Biodiversity Network could supply much of the DNA needed, as it is compiling lists and images of specimens at museums and other biorepositories around the world. As not all DNA samples in museum specimens are good enough for high-quality genomes, getting samples from the wild would be the biggest challenge and the highest cost. The EBP researchers also need to develop standards to ensure high-quality genome sequences and to record associated information for each species sequenced. (Elizabeth Pennisi, ScienceInsider)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

March 6, 2017 at 8:41 am

Evolution provides us with many genetic power tools – how do we use them wisely?

with 2 comments

By: Daniël P. Melters, Ph.D.

The Red Queen Hypothesis in evolutionary biology: “Now, HERE, you see, it takes all the running YOU can do, to keep in the same place.” (Lewis Carroll, “Through the Looking Glass”)

DNA is a very ubiquitous molecule, sufficient to span the observable universe at least 20 times. Most of this DNA comes from viruses, either in the form of active viruses or in its inactive form incorporated in viral, bacterial, plant, fungal, and animal genomes. To limit the spread of viruses, it is not surprising that evolution has created many ways to contain the spread of these inactivated viruses. We have adopted some of these antiviral mechanisms for our own use.

The discovery of the first bacterial antiviral system, the restriction enzyme, led to the founding of Genentech and thereby the modern biotechnology industry. Despite the ease with which restriction enzymes can be used to cut and paste pieces of DNA together, they are currently limited to use in test tubes (in vitro).

A few years ago, a new genetic tool was discovered that could modify genetic material in living creatures (in vivo). Again, it was a bacterial anti-virus mechanism. This new technology is called CRISPR and its in vivo use brings with it the possibility to edit DNA in order to correct genetic diseases in patients themselves. Just as a slew of restriction enzymes with unique cutting characteristics have been found, a similar scenario seems to be happening with CRISPR with the discovery of more nucleases used to cut specific DNA sequences. The original nuclease used with CRISPR is cas9, but recently another nuclease (cpf1) was discovered. Where cas9 is efficient in deleting genes, cpf1 seems to be good for making small modifications. In the foreseeable future more cas9-like nucleases will be discovered, each with potentially their own unique characteristics, in addition to ongoing efforts to genetically engineer a better cas9 nuclease.

Ethical questions about the use of CRISPR in humans, especially in human sperm and eggs, have arisen. On December 1-3, 2015, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in collaboration with the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the UK Royal Society, hosted a three-day international summit on the use of CRISPR in human embryos. Although germline editing is strongly discouraged pending continued technological and ethical deliberations over the next few years, it remains a scientific possibility. Based on a single Chinese study, it is still unclear if this route is realistic. After all, cloning mammals has proven much harder than feared in the 1990s, as has creating a petrol-producing algae by genetic editing. Nevertheless, this has not stopped genetic entrepreneurs like Google and Bill Gates from jumping on the CRISPR bandwagon to kick-start the second revolution in biotechnology. One big unknown factor that still remains looming over the development of both the technology and any regulation is the potential misuse of any do-it-yourself CRISPR kits.

In addition to making individual genetic changes at will like those with CRISPR, forces that work on population genetics can be employed. Again they have their roots in evolution. One such potential powerful force is gene drive. Gene drive is caused by a genetic sequence that does not obey the Mendelian inheritance rules (where there is a 50-50 shot for a gene to be passed on from parent to offspring). It is therefore possible to introduce a gene that could, for example, get rid of the malaria parasite by introducing a few GMO mosquitoes into a population of natural mosquitoes. Through gene drive over time the entire population of mosquitoes will carry the malaria-fighting gene. The implication would be that the malaria parasite would not be able to passed on to humans and thus malaria would be eradicated. This sounds like a dream scenario!

However, using gene drive on mosquitoes to eradicate malaria does open a new can of worms. Both for the good – as the need to fumigate would be reduced also reducing the creation of fumigation-resistant insects, including mosquitoes – and for the bad, namely unwanted ecological consequences as a result from for instance horizontal gene transfer. Another unwanted consequence of the gene drive technology would be the near-certainty that it will spread across political borders. To handle such foreseeable international disputes, international regulatory collaboration will be required. One solution to overcome these unwanted consequences of gene drive could be use genetically engineered mosquitoes that would not be able to produce any off spring.

Whatever happens on the side of technology development, genetically modifying organisms remains controversial for the time being. Just think about the hype surrounding the recent FDA approval (after 19 years) of faster-growing “Frankenfish” for human consumption. Part of the problem resides in the highly technical details and extensive use of jargon that permeate the biological sciences. At times, it can be challenging for even scientists to keep up with the fast pace of development in the field of genetics. Once can only imagine what must then be demanded of the public and policy makers. Just look at what CRISPR itself stands for: clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. From the acronym alone, it is not clear what CRISPR does or means. Only through extensive communication between scientists and the public can a bridge be made that allows for exchange of knowledge about both the technical details and sincere concerns. The absence of many scientists on social media does not help this and actually widens the knowledge gap.

Nevertheless, various scientists have raised their voices about the potential power of gene drive as well as their professional concerns. Sure, gene drive can be used to do many things such as immunize animals that carry human diseases, control insect-borne diseases, spread pest-specific pesticides and herbicides, reduce populations of rodents and other pests, control invasive species, and aid threatened species. Yet, the power of gene drive also brings with it the fear for the unknown. What happens if a gene “goes wild” and crosses the species barriers through horizontal gene transfer? Will we be able to detect this quick enough to control it? What damage will it do if we can’t control it? Will there be any damage? For instance, cross-pollination between GMO crops and natural variants has been observed, albeit their incidences are relatively low and its broader ecological effect mostly unknown. To help curb these concerns, some solutions have been brought forward to help contain gene drive such as by designing it like Lego pieces, where only a complete set would be functional.

These concerns were considered so great that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences felt the need to create a workshop focused specifically on gene drive, in addition to the earlier international summit about the ethics of human genome editing. In short, the meeting showed that while gene drive has potential promises, both scientific and regulatory uncertainties remain, as well as fear about its potential irreversibility if it were to go wild. In other words, more research is needed covering all aspects of gene drive, including educating the public across the globe about the pros and cons.

Just as atomic energy produces both electricity and atomic bombs, thereby bridging the worlds of physics and societal needs, bacterial immune systems and evolutionary forces bridge basic biological research with applied biotechnologies. Society as a whole is moving more and more towards a society where genetics is a driving force for change – in medicine, global health, agriculture, pest-control, the judicial system and in combating terrorism. Understanding the basic principles of biology, genetics, and evolution are a must for policy makers of today and even more so of tomorrow. How else will they be able to support or debate a bill that is guided by or deals with genetic information and manipulation? After all, selective breeding and building a highly interconnected world have resulted in new species (of pets, livestock, and crops) and forced other species to adapt to changes in the environment we made (such as geographical barriers like roads and deforestation, and climate change). Therefore, careful ethical consideration of the wise use of powerful genetic tools and forces is critical, both for use in human, as well as any potential ecological implications. Gene drive as a tool has great potential, since after all, most of the DNA on earth came from the driving forces of selfish genetic elements. Evolution has provided us with many powerful tools and with great power comes great responsibility.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

December 9, 2015 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – November 7, 2014

leave a comment »

By: Julia Shaw, Ph.D

photo credit: subarcticmike via photopin cc

Evolution

Newly discovered fossil could prove a problem for creationists

Ichthyosaurs were dolphin-like reptiles that lived during the time of the dinosaurs. These aquatic predators are thought to have evolved from land-dwelling ancestors that eventually returned to the water. Because of gaps in the fossil record, a definitive link between these proposed terrestrial reptiles and the ichthyosaur has been lacking. A study recently published in Nature identifies a semiaquatic reptile that appears to partially fill that gap. The creature, named Cartorhynchus lenticarpus, was recovered from China’s Anhui Province in 2011. Close analysis of the specimen identified C. lenticarpus as the oldest ichthysauriform identified to date. Unlike its descendant, C. lenticarpus had a shorter snout as well as large flippers, flexible wrists, and thicker bones which would have allowed them to troll shallow waters without being swept away by coastal waves. This animal lived approximately 4 million years after the earth’s largest mass extinction. Lead author of the study, Ryosuke Montani, said the amphibian “was probably one of the first predators to appear after that extinction.”  The next step? Find C. lenticarpus’ predecessor.  (Rachel Feltman, The Washington Post)

 

Ebola Outbreak – Vaccine Research

Nasal spray vaccine has potential for long-lasting protection from Ebola virus

A nasal spray vaccine developed by researchers at The University of Texas at Austin provided long-term protection in a non-human primate model after challenge with 1,000 plaque-forming units of Ebola Zaire, the strain responsible for the current outbreak in West Africa. The nasal vaccine resulted in 100 percent survival (3 out of 3 animals) 150 days post-immunization, in contrast to only 50% survival in primates vaccinated by standard intra-muscular injection. Results of the study, co-authored by Dr. Maria Croyle, graduate student Kristina Jonsson-Schmunck, and colleagues from the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg were published this week in the online edition of Molecular Pharmaceuticals. While the Ebola outbreak in West Africa continues to rage with a fatality rate as high as 70%, there remains no licensed vaccine. Officials have declared the outbreak a public health emergency. According to Jonsson-Schmunck, “There is a desperate need for a vaccine that not only prevents continued transmission from person to person, but also aids in controlling future incidents.” This is the first study to examine the longevity of an Ebola vaccine and the first to demonstrate efficacy from a single-dose, non-injectable formulation. Use of a nasal spray is preferable to needle-based vaccines in terms of both cost and safety. A Phase I clinical trial is planned to test the vaccine’s efficacy in human subjects. (ScienceDaily, Mark Prigg, MailOnLine)

 

Federal Science Policy

After Election 2014: COMPETES Reauthorization

In the coming year, Congress will likely seek to reauthorize important legislation governing research and science education. The America COMPETES Act expired last year and has yet to be extended although two different congressional committees have emerged with strikingly opposed revisions to the previous 2010 COMPETES law. Democratic Senator John Rockefeller (who has chosen to retire and will not be returning to the Senate in January) introduced S. 2757 in July. This bill seeks to make good on the 2007 and 2010 COMPETES Act by doubling the budget of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The increase in NSF funding would be applied to all fields of research, including the social sciences and the NSF’s current peer review system would be maintained. The bill also provides for the continuation of federal outreach and educational activities. In stark contrast, Republican Representative Lamar Smith has crafted the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology (FIRST) Act. FIRST authorizes NSF programs for only 1 year with a small increase in the current budget. However, the bill also specifically allocates the funds within the foundation’s six research directorates, slashing funding for the social sciences. Smith’s bill has raised strong opposition from the scientific community who are not only pushing for a substantial, long-term budget, but are equally committed to their own peer review process for awarding research dollars. Although Republicans will control both the House and Senate come January, COMPETES may still have a fighting chance. Republican Senator Lamar Alexander, the anticipated new head of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, expressed support for COMPETES legislation in 2013; and fellow Republican Senator John Thune, predicted chair of the commerce and science committee, while not coming out in support of COMPETES reauthorization, has endorsed the development of a research facility in his home state of South Dakota. Regardless of whether House and Senate can agree, the White House will still play a major role in dictating policy, making a lengthy battle over reauthorization likely. (Jeffrey Mervis, ScienceInsider)

 

 

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 7, 2014 at 12:00 pm