Posts Tagged ‘federal research funding’
Science Policy Around the Web February 13th, 2020
By Thomas Dannenhoffer-lafage PhD
Trump Proposes a Cut in Research Spending, but a Boost for AI
On Monday, February 10th, President Trump released his budget request for the 2021 fiscal year. The proposed budget calls for cuts in research across almost all federal agencies, with the notable exception of NASA. While the total budget of most federal agencies is planned to be cut, the budget also requests that a larger amount of the remaining money be directed towards research in artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing. The call for more research funding in AI has been recommended in reports and requested in legislation. The budget would call for an overall 9% percent reduction in research spending and will likely be modified by Congress, who usually oppose cuts to research spending.
The pushes for more research funding in the fields of AI and quantum computing were prioritized because the administration claims that these technologies “underpin the Industries of the Future.” The technologies of AI and quantum computing have also received substantial investment from China. Insiders have claimed that the president has acted responsibly, as these areas have been identified as areas of great competition. Dario Gil has also claimed that the investment in AI will accelerate discovery and that it is “going to permeate every sector of the economy and national defense.”
However, others have pointed out that the new budget may actually harm the development of new technologies by limiting the scope and funding of basic research. As Martijn Rasser points out: “[w]e don’t know where the next breakthrough will come from.” Others worry that an exclusive focus on AI research may actually hamper overall progresses of the field since inspiration for new ideas can come from different fields. Subbarao Kambhampati claims that “[n]euroscience will be really relevant to AI in over the longer term [sic].” This is exemplified by Neural Networks, an important component of many AI technologies, whose creation was inspired by the connections of neurons in brains.
(Will Knight, Wired)
Science Policy Around the Web – May 31st, 2019
By: Silvia Preite, Ph.D.
Common drink and food sweetener – High-Fructose Corn Syrup – accelerates colon cancer growth in mouse models: what about in humans?
Increased consumption of sugar-sweetened drinks has been associated with higher risk of obesity and intestinal cancers. However, whether sugar directly contributes to tumor development, independently from obesity, is less clear. A common sweetner of sodas, fruit-flavored drinks and processed foods is high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS). A recent study published in Science revealed that consumption of HFCS accelerated colon cancers in predisposed mice bearing a mutation in a tumor-suppressor gene commonly found in human colorectal colon cancers. Strikingly, the human diet equivalent amount of HFCS required to see such effects in mice corresponds to 12 ounces of a sweetened drink – one can of soda per day!
Mice fed with HFCS did not become obese or developed metabolic syndrome, however, developed larger and more advanced tumors, compared to water-treated animals. Mechanistically, HFCS leads to increased levels of fructose and glucose in the intestinal lumen and serum, that can be transported and utilized inside the tumor to generate energy and support its growth. The identification of these events opens new possibilities for the development of therapeutic strategies aimed at controlling tumor growth; in particular, targeting of fructose metabolism may selectively slow tumor progression without affecting survival of normal cells.
Further studies are needed to assess if similar tumorigenic mechanisms take place in humans. Moreover, whether prolonged and extensive consumption of HFCS has a greater detrimental effect on human health compared to other types of sugar remains to be determined. Regardless, this study could contribute to increase public awareness about the potential deleterious effects on physical health and tumor development due to sweetened drinks and processed food whose comsumption is globally rising.
(Source: Goncalves et al., Science, 2019)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – May 14th, 2019
By: Mary Weston, Ph.D.
Rural areas drive increases in global obesity
While past studies have found that the increase in global obesity is largely driven by urban regions, a newly published paper argues that this rise is actually being led by those in rural areas.
Global increases in BMI (body mass index) have been observed for decades, but no one had evaluated differences in urban and rural regions on a large-scale across many countries. The new Nature study evaluated BMI values in 200 countries from 1985-2017, finding that rural areas are responsible for more than 55% of the global rise in the average BMI and more than 80% of the rise in some low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Previous theories argued that urbanization caused rising BMI largely because of the availability of cheap, ultra-processed foods, a lifestyle that provides more transportation options, and greater access to non-physical leisure activities (smartphones, cable television). In contrast, rural areas were thought more likely to consume more local produce, have less access to ultra-processed and packaged food, and participate in high energy expending activities. However, rural areas, even in LMICs, have now begun to resemble urban areas because of access to ultra-processed foods and cheap mechanized devices that reduce transport and farming energy expenditure.
Obesity results in higher health care costs, lower life expectancy, and reduced quality of life. Thus, prevention strategies are vital but currently, most preventative measures are targeted towards urban areas. Given this new data, funding priorities and strategies need to adjust to address this growing issue.
(Barry M. Popkin, Nature)
After outcry, USDA will no longer require scientists to label research as ‘preliminary’
After protests, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has stopped requiring their staff scientists to label all published peer-reviewed research as “preliminary.” Released last week, the revised USDA guidelines now require the following language when disclaimers are necessary: “The findings and conclusions in this [publication/presentation/blog/report] are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.” Not all publications will be obliged to contain this statement.
Previous USDA guidelines, implemented last July, required publications to carry the label: “The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the [USDA] and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy.” This disclaimer caused concern over claims that it was confusing and possibly misleading. Scientific publications are peer-reviewed (evaluated by professionals in the field for quality and accuracy) and considered completed work, not preliminary. Some among the scientific community feared the disclaimer might reduce the impact of the published research conclusions or be used to diminish findings that conflict with views of the current administration.
While reaction towards the disclaimer change has been generally positive, some non-USDA researchers are still concerned that the latest guidelines have the potential to jeopardize scientific integrity. The new guidelines say that the USDA can request “corrections” or “changes” to research papers if they pertain to a “prominent issue,” a significant scientific advancement, or could influence trade/policy decisions. Rebecca Boehm, an economist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, stated that “removing ‘preliminary’ from the disclaimer is a step in the right direction, but there still may be unnecessary obstacles preventing agency researchers from publishing their work in peer-reviewed journals.”
(Ben Guarino, Washington Post)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – June 13, 2017
By: Nivedita Sengupta, PhD
By Mikael Häggström, used with permission. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Stem Cell Therapy
Texas on Track to Become First State to Explicitly Back Stem Cell Therapies
On 30th May, Texas passed a bill authorizing unapproved stem cell therapies, making Texas the first state to openly recognize experimental treatments. The bill will make the use of unapproved stem cell therapies legal for patients and is currently awaiting the approval of Governor Greg Abbott, who already supports the measure. Experimental stem cell therapies for terminal and chronic conditions have struggled for years to gain support without much success. Until now, no state has provided legal validation for these kind of therapies and the current stem cell procedures are mostly done under strict regulations.
Amendments were added to the bill, which require that the treatments be delivered by doctors with the approval of an institutional review board, which deals with human research. It will also add another amendment that will allow patients to have authority to sue in case the treatments go wrong. Many scientists and advocates opposed the measure stating that unapproved stem cell therapies can be harmful rather than beneficial. They state that though the amendments add protection to the patients, there are a few aspects of the bill that make them uncomfortable. Two other bills focused on patient access to experimental therapies, also known as “right-to-try” policies, failed to pass in the Texas Senate. (Andrew Joseph, STATNews)
Research Funding
NIH Scraps Plans for Cap on Research Grants
US National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to drop the controversial proposal of capping the number of grants that an investigator can have at a time. The initial capping attempt was suggested to gather funds for younger researchers by NIH in May. The proposal was based on studies that suggested that a lab’s productivity decreases once it holds too many grants. Younger scientists often face more difficulties in obtaining NIH RO1 grants compared to their older more experienced colleagues. As a result, many researchers applauded the NIH’s effort to provide more funding for younger scientists. Yet the capping proposal received major adverse response from the scientific community stating that the NIH’s interpretation of the productivity study data does not apply to all labs, especially to the collaborative lab groups with four or five R01s that are more productive than labs with only one. Researchers also complained that the proposed point-based scoring system will also make collaborations difficult thus hampering productivity in the long run.
NIH director Dr. Francis Collins stated that the original idea was still a work in progress and NIH is going to put a hold on it. Instead of the cap, on 8th June, NIH announced the creation of the special fund, the Next Generation Researchers Initiative (NGRI), starting with US$210 for funding young researchers. The initiative will focus on investigators with less than 10 years of experience as NIH- funded principal investigators, and on high score grant proposals that were rejected because of lack of money. The initiative will grow up to $1.1 billion over the next five years. According to NIH principal deputy director Larry Tabak, NIH will immediately start creating an inventory of investigators who meet these criteria and expects that this approach will allow more than 2,000 additional R01 grants to be funded to younger scientists compared to the cap-based plan, which would have supported only 1600 awards. Nonetheless, the current proposal is still going to generate controversy as it will affect the older researchers because of NIH’s diversion of funding. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – May 24, 2017
By: Joel Adu-Brimpong, BS
Source: Flickr by Selena N. B. H. via Creative Commons
Scientific Publishing
The beauty of the scientific enterprise is that it is, eventually, self-correcting. Thus, occasionally, a scientific paper may be retracted from a journal based on new revelations or due to reports of ethical breaches. Tumor Biology, a peer-reviewed, open access journal disseminating experimental and clinical cancer research, however, seems to have set a record for the number of retracted papers at once. In a single notice, in April, Tumor Biology retracted 107 articles; yes, one hundred and seven!
Springer, the former publisher of Tumor Biology, reported that the retracted papers were due to a compromised peer review process. Like other journals, Tumor Biology allows the submission of preferred reviewer information (name and email address) when submitting a manuscript. In the case of the retracted papers, “the reviewers were either made up, or had the names of real scientists but false email addresses.” Unsurprisingly, the manuscripts sent to the fake reviewers consistently received positive reviews, bolstering the likelihood of publication.
Springer, of course, is not the first and only major publisher to uncover issues in its peer-review process leading to mass retractions. A 2016 paper reveals similar issues from other major publishers including SAGE, BioMed Central and Elsevier. These breaches are particularly worrisome as some of the retracted manuscripts date back to the beginning of the decade. This means that studies floating around in other journals may have built on knowledge reported by the retracted studies. As if this was not enough, Springer has also come under scrutiny for individuals listed on Tumor Biology’s editorial board, several of whom appear to have no association with the journal and/or in at least one case, have been deceased for several years.
These discoveries are particularly disturbing and are percolating at a time when biomedical research spending is increasingly being scrutinized. Richard Harris, the award-winning NPR journalist, in his recent book Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions (2017), highlights major areas in biomedical research that produce wastes, such as studies that may incite researchers, and even whole fields, to follow a phantom lead. In the meantime, it does appear that journals are taking measures to ensure that these breaches are minimized, if not prevented entirely. (Hinnerk Feldwisch-Drentrup, ScienceInsider)
Research Funding
Fighting On All Fronts: Republican Senators Advocate for DOE’s Research Funding
Republican senators are, again, urging President Trump to rethink potential budget cuts to research programs; this time to the Department of Energy (DOE). On Thursday, May 18, 2017, six top senate republicans, including well-known congresspersons Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), drafted a letter to the President reminding him of the importance of government-sponsored research. In the letter, they re-echo, “Government-sponsored research is one of the most important investments our country can make to encourage innovation, unleash our free enterprise system to create good-paying jobs, and ensure American competitiveness in a global economy.” They go on, “It’s hard to think of an important technological advancement since World War II that has not involved at least some form of government-sponsored research.”
If it seems like we’ve been down this road before, it’s because we have. Earlier this year, Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK), on the House Appropriations and Budget Committee, and his colleagues signaled disagreement with proposed budget cuts to the NIH and CDC in President Trump’s fiscal blueprint. The Republican congressman reiterated the importance of agencies like the NIH and CDC in conducting crucial biomedical research and leading public health efforts that protect Americans from diseases. The strong commitment to advancing biomedical research and the health of the American people led to an omnibus agreement that repudiated President Trumps proposed cuts, increasing NIH funding by $2 billion for the 2017 cycle.
The letter by Senator Alexander and colleagues was drafted following reports suggesting that the DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy could face a reduction in funding of up to 70 percent for the 2018 fiscal cycle. In a separate follow-up analysis, Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee reported on the growth and importance of clean energy jobs and its contribution to the economy. Cuts to the DOE’s research programs could have profound impact on not only millions of jobs but also America’s ability to stay competitive in the global economy as it shifts towards renewable energy and resources. (Geof Koss, ScienceInsider)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – May 5, 2017
By: Thaddeus Davenport, PhD
Image by James Palinsad, via Creative Commons
Healthcare Policy
House Passes Bill to Repeal and Replace the Affordable Care Act
Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear reported for the New York Times yesterday that Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that would undo a number of central elements of the Affordable Care Act. Only six weeks ago, House Republicans failed to gather enough support to even vote on the first version of this bill, which was predicted to eliminate insurance coverage for twenty-four million Americans over the next decade. Since that time, Republican lawmakers have modified the so-called American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to appeal to the more conservative members of the House – including provisions that would limit federal support of the Medicaid program, allow states to opt out of requiring that insurance cover services like maternity and emergency care, and also enable states to apply for waivers that would let insurance companies charge higher premiums for some individuals with pre-existing conditions. Like the first version, the bill that passed the House on Thursday does away with the ‘individual mandate’, which imposes a tax on people who can afford to buy insurance but do not – an aspect of the Affordable Care Act that was relatively unpopular but critical to ensure sustainability of the insurance markets. It also replaces government-subsidized insurance plans with tax credits between $2,000 and $4,000, depending on age. Other provisions in the bill would stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood for one year as well as eliminate taxes on high-income individuals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies that helped to fund the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday, 217 Republicans voted in favor of the revised AHCA bill that will certainly not provide healthcare insurance for everyone, without waiting for a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill’s impact on the federal deficit or on the American people. These representatives’ haste reveals that they care little about how the AHCA will actually affect their constituents’ lives, and Democrats are counting on voters remembering this in upcoming elections. (Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear, The New York Times)
Science Funding
NIH Funding Changes to Support More Early Career Investigators
The NIH budget has gradually declined over the last fourteen years, from $40 billion in 2003 to about $32 billion in 2017. Given that a proposed budget from the Trump administration for fiscal year 2018 would further cut funding for NIH by $5.8 billion, it is unlikely that funding for the NIH will increase dramatically in the coming years. To address these budget limitations, and in an attempt to do more with less, Jocelyn Kaiser reported for ScienceInsider this week that the National Institutes of Health will impose a cap on the number of grants awarded to investigators. In an open letter announcing the decision, NIH director, Francis Collins, writes that 40% of NIH funding is concentrated in the hands of 10% of NIH-funded investigators. He notes that this is not inherently problematic, except that many studies indicate that there are diminishing scientific returns on each additional dollar that is granted to any individual investigator. Under the new guidelines, investigators will be limited to a maximum of three R01-equivalent grants in order to support approximately 1,600 more grants to early career and mid-level researchers, who have been particularly affected by the declining NIH budget. While it is difficult to quantify scientific impact, the NIH decision is admirable for its intent to support diversity and efficiency in funding research. (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – April 4, 2017
By: James Taylor, PhD
Photo source: pixabay.com
Research Funding
NIH Research Grants Yield Economic Windfall
Assessing the social and economic benefits of basic research – research conducted with no clear medical or financial goal in mind – has is often tricky with the former being philosophical in nature whilst the later sometimes coming years later from unexpected angles. A classic example of this process is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which was built on basic research on DNA replication in bacteria from hot springs published years before its invention. Critics of publicly funded research often take studies out of context in order to ridicule them, such as Sarah Palin’s infamous “fruit flies” comment.
A recent analysis of the economic effects of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has shone light on the economic benefits of basic research. Danielle Li and colleagues found that although 8.4% of NIH grants between 1980 and 2007 led directly to patents, 30.8% produced a scientific article which was later cited in a commercial patent for a drug, device or other medical technology. This demonstrates an enormous but indirect benefit of publically funded research. Furthermore, when the studies were broken down into basic or applied (research with a stated medical or commercial goal) they found no difference between the two in terms of how likely they were to be cited in a patent. This should give funding bodies pause for thought, as it calls into question their growing emphasis on applied research.
Taking into account the indirect effects of NIH funded research, the authors estimate that every $1 in NIH funding returns $1.40 in drug sales. This report is timely with proposed budget cuts for science funding looming large in the horizon, and exposes such cuts as sheer economic folly. (Elie Dolgin, Nature News)
HIV/AIDS
HIV Infections are Spiking Among Young Gay Chinese
Recent surveys of HIV infections in China have shown a worrying spike in HIV infections among young gay and bisexual men, and have sparked the implementation of a broad 5-year plan to raise awareness and boost research into new treatments by the country’s ruling State Council. In the early 2000s, HIV infections were most prevalent amongst drug users in China, but there has been a steady decrease in prevalence amongst this group. The increase in HIV infections amongst men who have sex with men (MSM) has bucked this trend, and instead has been rising at an alarming rate. The cause of this increase remains unknown, with researchers at the National Health and Family Planning Commission in Beijing and China Medical University in Shenyang rather hopelessly suggesting that it was “possibly due to several unidentified and yet unaddressed risky sexual behaviors”.
China has previously mounted an effective response to the initial HIV epidemic by providing free antiretroviral to all HIV patients. This does little good, however, if you are afraid to admit you have HIV because it may out you as gay or bisexual. Despite recent improvements in LGBT rights and growing acceptance of LGBT people among the younger generation, being LGBT in China still carries with it significant stigma. This stigma, along with that of having HIV, may be causing young men to avoid seeking help out of fear. To reach out to gay men who may be at risk, the government and concerned nongovernmental organizations are working on novel outreach programs, such as working with dating apps popular with young gay and bisexual men to spread HIV awareness. The director of the Chinese Centre for Disease Control (China CDC), Wu Zunyou, has proposed increasing the availability of HIV self-test kits and pre-exposure prophylaxis medications, both of which would help those at risk whilst lessening the pressure from social stigma. (Kathleen McLaughlin, Science)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – June 17, 2016
By: Eric Cheng, Ph.D.
Photo source: pixabay.com
Biomedical Research Funding
NIH gets $2 billion boost in Senate spending bill
The Senate approved a $2 billion dollar boost to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget for the 2017 fiscal year. This will increase the agency’s overall budget to $34 billion which represents a 6.2% increase from the previous year. This boost in funding represents an increase to NIH’s funding for the second year in a row after more than a decade of stagnate funding. NIH received an additional $2 billion last year.
The increase to NIH’s funding is the result of bipartisan negotiations between Senate Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Roy Blunt (R.-Mo.) and Ranking Member Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
“Last year, for the first time in 12 years, we were able to have an increase in [funding to support] NIH research,” Blunt said at a subcommittee meeting to unveil the budget proposal. “We have worked hard to repeat that this year.” Adding that he hopes to establish a pattern of increases for health research funding, he further noted that “if you are going to have an annual pattern, year two is critical. So we’re proposing for the second year in a row we make a substantial commitment to NIH research.”
The bill will include $1.39 billion for Alzheimer’s disease research, a $100 million increase for Obama’s Precision Medicine Initiative, an additional $100 million for the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) brain-mapping project, and $50 million in new spending for a federal initiative to combat antimicrobial resistance. Not mentioned is the $670 million proposal for Vice President Joe Biden’s proposed moonshot to double progress against cancer. (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)
Federal Accountability
House sharpens oversight of new NSF facilities
The U.S. House of Representatives approved bill H.R. 5049 by a vote of 412 to nine which would direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to audit its major multi-user research facilities. This bill was passed in response to the problems that have plagued NSF’s National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) under construction at dozens of sites across the country. Last December NSF fired the contractor, NEON Inc., citing a potential $80 million cost overrun and continued delays in completing the project.
The passage of the NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016 would direct the NSF to audit its major multi-user research facilities in order to prevent such cost overrun problems in the future. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that conducting these audits required by the legislation would cost about $2 million annually and $10 million over the 2017-2021 period. Specifically, the bill would require NSF to analyze how much every large research project would cost by the first year of the start of construction.
NSF officials remain concerned on how these changes in legislation would affect how audits are conducted and the use of management fees for a contractor. Such additional restrictions on management fees could potentially scare off some highly qualified would-be bidders for future projects. In addition, they believe that the proposed audits would not have caught the problems that NEON faced. (Jeffrey Mervis, ScienceInsider)
Infectious Diseases
Zika virus added to the FDA Priority Review Voucher Program Act
U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.) supported emergency funding to help stem the spread of the Zika virus in the United States. Over $1 billion in emergency funds passed the Senate today on a bipartisan basis to help mitigate the spread of Zika and respond to outbreaks of the virus.
“The Zika virus is a real threat, and we need action to curtail its spread and encourage the development of treatments and a vaccine,” said Franken. “This emergency support will help fight back against the disease, and now, we need to work with the House of Representatives and with President Obama to make sure that the funding measure becomes law. This is far too important of an issue to ignore.”
The Centers for Disease Control has reported that over 150 pregnant women in the U.S. have been diagnosed with Zika virus, which can cause a range of birth defects including devastating neurological defects. There are currently no known treatments or vaccines for the disease. The funds will be used to control mosquitos that carry the Zika virus, raise awareness of Zika virus disease, provide education on how to reduce risk of becoming infected, and accelerate development of a vaccine. (Congressional Research Service)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – April 1, 2016
By: Ian McWilliams, Ph.D.
photo credit: Matti Mattila via photopin cc
Federal Research Funding
House budget plan would rearrange and restrict federal research portfolio
Since the financial crisis of 2008, much attention has been given to the state of the economy. With recent optimism about the health of the economy, the president’s new budget plan for 2017, increases the NIH budget in FY 2016, and initiates new research spending for the Cancer moonshot. However, not all agencies are benefiting from the proposed budget. A report filed recently by the U.S. House of Representatives’ budget committee could curtail research spending for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE), and could lead to reshuffling sections of the Department of Commerce (DOC) into other agencies. Current DOE budget speculation is that there will be a decrease in funding for “several high-risk projects” that should be picked up in the private sector. While NSF biology, computing and information science, and math and physical sciences research directorates are to receive “stable funding”, the omission of specific plans for engineering, geoscience, and the social and behavioral sciences is ominous. It is unclear how the reorganization of the DOC will contribute to decreases in discretionary spending. The DOC is responsible for the research portfolios of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the Census Bureau. (Jeffrey Mervis, ScienceInsider)
Science in the Public Eye
Controversial anti-vaccination documentary pulled from Tribeca Film Festival
In 2010, The Lancet retracted a highly controversial paper by Andrew Wakefield which proposed to link the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism. Since the original publication in 1998, this paper has been a cornerstone for the anti-vaccination movement, even after the paper has been discredited and retracted. Recently, Wakefield himself has directed and co-written a documentary titled “Vaxxed: from cover-up to catastrophe,” which claims that the CDC falsified and omitted crucial data linking vaccines to autism. This divisive film was to be screened at the Tribeca film festival , but was pulled, likely due to the backlash over screening the film. The original plan, put forth by Tribeca co-founder Robert De Niro, was to give an “opportunity for a conversation around the issue,” but he later decided after consultation that “we do not believe it contributes to or furthers the discussion I had hoped for.” In response, Wakefield and Del Bigtree, a producer for the film, released a statement that “We will be pressing forward and sharing our plans in the very near future.” With both sides pointing fingers, this argument will likely continue for some time to come. (Jason Ukman, StatNews)
Medical Devices and Testing
Study of Theranos Medical Tests Finds Irregular Results
The first peer-reviewed results of finger prick blood tests offered by Theranos have been published this week and bring more questions about the accuracy of its tests. Theranos, the medical start-up that provides direct-to-consumer blood tests, has come under increased scrutiny after an independent study found irregular results from tests offered by the company. The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation, compared results from 22 different tests offered by Theranos to conventional blood test results from two national diagnostic laboratories, Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp.
Theranos has received much attention for their claims to offer blood tests that require small amounts of blood as a low-cost alternative to conventional laboratory testing. The company offers over two hundred different tests that require only a finger prick compared to vials of blood needed for conventional tests. Elizabeth Holmes, CEO of Theranos, touts the convenience and consumer experience of Theranos’s tests. However, the company has been reluctant to release data regarding their tests and has been mired in controversy after a Wall Street Journal article questioned the accuracy of the results of these tests. Furthermore, Theranos’ Newark, California laboratory has been cited by The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services for problems that “pose immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety.”
The current study used 60 healthy, adult volunteers who were tested at separate laboratories on the same day and found more measures outside of their normal range for Theranos’s finger prick blood tests when compared to measures from conventional blood tests. Results from Theranos were out of range for 12.2 percent of measurements compared to 7.5 and 8.3 percent for Quest Diagnostics and LabCorp, respectively. Although variability was seen in results from all three labs, Eric Schadt, one of the authors of the study, said that “Theranos was outside of range in ways that would impact clinical decision-making.”
Theranos’ laboratory directors responded to the study by sending a letter the journal calling the study “flawed and inaccurate.” They claim that a large blood draw from a vein could affect the results from a finger prick test and that the study authors did not attempt to determine which measurements were correct. (Andrew Pollack, New York Times)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy Around the Web – February 23, 2016
By: David Pagliaccio, Ph.D.
Kris Krüg via Photo Pin cc
Science in Schools
Climate confusion among U.S. teachers
Despite the vast agreement among scientists that global warming is occurring due to human activities, many difficulties persist in conveying this to middle and high school students. A new survey published in Science indicates that 74.3% of middle and high school science teachers discuss global warming but only at median rate of 1.5 class hours. Importantly, only 54% of teachers are clearly stating that fossil fuel use is a major cause of global warming rather than natural causes. The remainder presents a mixed message about the role that humanity plays in global warming vs. natural factors, denies humanity’s role, or does not present the causes of global warming. This may be due to several causes. Luckily, few teachers felt outside pressures from parents, school administrators, etc. to not teach about climate change. Instead, it appeared that a large percentage of teachers did not know the consensus among scientists and thus try to present a two-sided case about global warming. Further, less than half of teachers reported having formal training on climate change during their education though newer teachers were more likely to discuss the human causes of global warming. The authors also indicate a role for sociopolitical ideology where teachers with a more conservative view of the government’s role were less likely to emphasize teaching about the causes of climate change. The authors call for improved training, continuing education, and content materials, including updated textbooks, to aid in addressing this issue as well as trying to work to improve science literacy. (Eric Plutzer, Mark McCaffrey, A. Lee Hannah, Joshua Rosenau, Minda Berbeco, and Ann H. Reid, Science Education; USNews.com; NPR)
Science Funding
President Obama has requested increased science funding in his fiscal year 2017 budget, yet people have concerns over the strategy for this and the likelihood of it passing Congress. Particularly, he requested an additional $825 million be allocated to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), but this money was set to come from mandatory funds. Further, $1 million of the NIH’s current budget was slated to be moved from regular appropriations processes to mandatory funds. There are concerns that Congress will not approve these mandatory funds, which require that a dedicated funding source be established. If approved, this new money would go to support new cancer initiatives, the Precision Medicine Initiative, and the BRAIN initiative with little going to the other NIH institutes. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would also not get much of a general increase in funding but would get money specifically for its role in Precision Medicine Initiative and the new cancer programs – also from mandatory funding. The President has also called for a $500 million increase in funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) coming from both discretionary and mandatory spending streams. Again, there is doubt that Republicans will approve of allocation through mandatory spending streams that will require selling federal assets, which would leave only a small increase in NSF funding through discretionary spending. While there are many increases in science funding budgeted for, many people are disappointed in the means of funding allocation and are less than optimistic for passing this proposed budget. (Science News Staff, Science Insider)
Federal Regulations
Could FDA E-Cigarette Regulations Help More People Quit Smoking?
While e-cigarettes are generally expected to be safer than traditional cigarettes due to the lack of tar from burning tobacco, research is limited and major health organizations currently do not recommend using e-cigarettes to help people quit smoking. Despite the large and expanding market for e-cigarettes, there are essentially no federal rules or regulations regarding anything about the e-cigarette industry, including sales and advertising. Several attempts have been made to regulate e-cigarettes with the FDA first trying to regulate e-cigarettes as a drug-device combination in 2009. This was overruled by the courts, which deemed e-cigarettes a tobacco product in the next year. Further, the President’s Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act allowed the FDA to regulate some tobacco products but did not specifically list e-cigarettes. In 2014, the FDA called for authority to specifically regulate e-cigarettes and is awaiting final approval. While no real federal regulations are in place, some states have enacted minimum purchasing age laws, tax e-cigarettes, or call for e-cigarettes to only be used in places where other tobacco products can be used. The science regarding the potential harms of e-cigarettes and any potential benefits to smoking cessation are lacking leading to much fractured debate over regulatory policy, which will continue as the FDA’s role continues to unfold. (Michael P. Eriksen, USNews.com)
Have an interesting science policy link? Share it in the comments!
Science Policy For All 
