Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘research funding

Science Policy Around the Web – October 13, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Maryam Zaringhalam, Ph.D.

20171013_Linkpost

source: pexels

Research Funding

Why gun violence research has been shut down for 20 years

The mass shooting in Las Vegas has reinvigorated the debate around gun control. In turn, scientists and policymakers have renewed the call for more support around gun violence research. According to Alan Leshner, CEO-emeritus of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Gun violence is not something you can solve by just intuition and common sense or ideology.” Rather, research is required to make evidence-based policies around the best possible prevention strategies.

Gun violence research, despite its mortality rate, receives less funding and fewer publications than other leading causes of death according to an article published in JAMA earlier this year. The gap is attributable in large part to the Dickey Amendment, first passed in 1996 and reauthorized every year since. The provision, named for former Congressman Jay Dickey, mandated that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could not use funding “to advocate or promote gun control,” effectively banning federal research into gun violence.

Prior to the amendment’s passage, the CDC was responsible for the bulk of research around gun violence, which informed policies aimed at violence prevention. Since the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, The Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice has resumed funding for gun violence studies, awarding 13 grants since 2014. Still, the bulk of funding is provided by private sources, such as the Joyce Foundation, which has spent over $53 million over the last 15 years on gun violence prevention research and advocacy.

While the Dickey Amendment has been reauthorized every year since 1996, Dickey himself has reversed his thinking on the issue: “We need to turn this over to science and take it away from politics.” While Congress is considering restrictions on ‘bump stocks’ with the support of the National Rifle Association, the political winds remain unfavorable for reopening research support.

(Todd C. Frankel, The Washington Post)

 

Women in Science

Disturbing allegations of sexual harassment in Antarctica leveled at noted scientist

Last week Science broke the news about an investigation into David Marchant, an Antarctic geologist and department chair at Boston University (BU), accused of sexually harassing two of his former graduate students while they were in the field in Antarctica. The accusations speak to an alarming trend highlighted in an online survey in PLOS ONE that found 71% of 512 female respondents reported being sexually harassed during fieldwork. Marchant’s case is one in a number that have come to light in recent years, highlighting sexual harassment and gender discrimination in science.

The allegations come at a time when U.S. universities and the U.S. government are struggling to address sexual harassment. In 2011, the Obama administration clearly defined sexual harassment as a form of gender discrimination under Title IX, directing schools to evaluate harassment claims based on a “preponderance of evidence” rather than prove allegations “beyond a reasonable doubt,” as is required for a criminal conviction. On September 22, 2017 Education Secretary Betsy DeVos submitted guidance that universities should instead consider a “clear and convincing standard” of proof. On October 12, 2017 California Representative, Jackie Speier, introduced a bill that would codify the “preponderance of evidence” standard.

BU’s Equal Opportunity Office is currently investigating Title IX complaints filed by two of Marchant’s former graduate students over the last year. According to Science, they have “interviewed numerous people, elicited a 200-page rebuttal from Marchant, and received at least four letters in his support plus at least five letters supporting [the former graduate student who filed the complaint].”

Marchant is now one of a number of senior male scientists who have been accused or found guilty of sexual harassment. These scientists span the disciplines — including astronomer Geoff Marcy, paleoanthropologist Brian Richmond, linguistics expert Florian Jaeger, and molecular biologist Jason Lieb — and have spurred a larger conversation around sexual harassment and discrimination in the scientific community. Last week, the National Academies of Science convened their fourth committee meeting on the Impacts of Sexual Harassment in Academia. The study is investigating the influence of harassment on the “career advancement of women in the scientific, technical, and medical workforce.” The committee will soon issue a consensus report, including identification of policies and practices that have been effective in combatting harassment.

(Meredith Wadman, Science)

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

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 13, 2017 at 5:11 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – June 20, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Eric Cheng, PhD

Source: Flickr, via Creative Commons (CC BY 2.0)

Research Funding

America is Still First in Science, but China Rose Fast as Funding Stalled in U. S. and Other Countries

American scientific groups continue to publish more biomedical research discoveries than groups from any other country, and the United States still leads the world in research and development expenditures. However, American dominance is slowly diminishing as China’s increase in funding on science over the last twenty years are starting to pay off. Chinese biomedical research now ranks fourth in the world for total number of discoveries published in six top-tier journals. This is with China spending three-fourths of the amount of money that the U.S. spent on research and development in 2015. In addition, new discoveries and advances in science are becoming more of a collaborative effort, which include researchers from around the world.

These findings come from research published in The Journal of Clinical Investigation by a group of University of Michigan researchers. The analysis comes at an important time for Congress to think about whether the annual uncertainty of the National Institutes of Health’s(NIH) budget and proposed cuts are in the nation’s best interest over the long-term. Bishr Omary, the senior author of the article commented, “If we continue on the path we’re on, it will be harder to maintain our lead and, even more importantly, we could be disenchanting the next generation of bright and passionate biomedical scientists who see a limited future in pursuing a scientist or physician-investigator career.”

The research was based on data up to 2015. During the current fiscal year of 2017, funding for NIH was proposed to be increased by 2 billion dollars, which is the second year in a row where funding was increased after 12 years of flat budgets. With this increase in funding, Omary hopes that, “our current and future investment in NIH and other federal research support agencies will rise above any branch of government to help our next generation reach their potential and dreams.” (University of Michigan, ScienceDaily)

Opioid Crisis

The Role of Science in Addressing the Opioid Crisis

Opioid addiction is an ongoing public health crisis. Millions of individuals all over the United States suffer from opioid use disorder with millions more suffering from chronic pain. Due to the urgency and scale of this crisis, innovative scientific solutions need to be developed. As part of a government-wide effort to address this crisis, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is supplementing current research efforts with a public-private collaborative research initiative on pain and opioid abuse.

The Director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins met with research and development leaders from biopharmaceutical companies in April 2017 to discuss new ways in which  government and industry can work together to address the opioid crisis. Dr. Collins stated how some advances such as improved formulations, opioids with abuse-deterrent properties, longer-acting overdose-reversal drugs, and repurposing of treatments approved for other conditions may be quick. Other advances such as mu-opioid receptor-based agonists, opioid vaccines, and novel overdose-reversal medications may be slower to develop. Overall, the goal for this partnership is to reduce the time typically required to develop new, safe, and effective therapeutics to half the average time. (Nora D. Volkow and Francis S. Collins, New England Journal of Medicine)

Climate Change

France is Offering US Scientists 4-year Grants to Move to the Country and do Research

Following President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, France created an initiative that will allow researchers, teachers, and students to apply for a fully financed four-year grant to combat climate change. The website for the initiativesays,

“You will be able to stay in France at least for the duration of the grant, and longer if you are granted a permanent position. There is no restriction on your husband / wife working in France. If you have children, note that French public schools are free, and the tuition fees of universities and ‘grandes écoles’ are very low compared to the American system.”

Since Emmanuel Macron won the French presidential election in May, he has addressed American scientists who feel alienated by the Trump administration. Macron has promised strong funding for climate initiatives. However, some U.S. scientists like David Blockstein of the National Council for Science and the Environment see Macron’s invitation as “both a publicity stunt and a real opportunity.” Although it is not very likely that many U.S. researchers will take up the offer, it does provide a “sharp contrast to an increasingly hostile U.S. political environment for science.” (Chris Weller, Business Insider)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 20, 2017 at 1:10 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – June 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

Source: pixabay

Science and Politics

Politics in Science – It’s Not Just the U.S.!

Romania is a country in eastern Europe that joined the European Union (EU) in 2007. Scientists there are few and far between; research spending only accounts for 0.49% of GDP, the lowest in Europe (the US spent 2.7% in 2016). After joining the EU, Romanian researchers were encouraged to apply for European merit-based grants and sit on international review boards such as the National Research Council and the National Council of Ethics. It seemed that research was making slow but steady progress, but the new administration elected this year has shaken things up in all facets of government, including scientific research.

The new research minister, Serban Valeca, removed the international members appointed to government councils that oversee research funding, ethics, innovation and science policy, and replaced them with city council members, government-loyal union members, researchers from second tier Romanian institutes and even a surgeon being investigated for embezzlement. Grant review panels have been shuffled to remove international scientists and replace them with domestic researchers, but only if they have a certificate saying their university approves of their participation. These changes mark a departure from welcoming international input into Romanian proceedings and a movement towards scientific isolation.

To combat these changes, Romanian scientists have formed an organization, Ad Astra, which calls on researchers to boycott grant evaluations. Combined with the shuffling, the councils have been suspended for 3 months, which delays funding and puts already under-funded researchers in peril. The European University Association calls the policies deeply concerning, and although the current president may disagree with the research minister’s handling of the situation, his political ties ensure he won’t hold much sway over how this plays out. A computer scientist at the University Politehnica in Bucharest, Costin Raiciu, is concerned that the policies will affect talented researchers who have returned to Romania and says, “Without [merit-based] funding, people would either give up research altogether or move out of the country”. This is an all too familiar scenario in which it is apparent that policy and science must cooperate to produce ideal outcomes. (Alexandra Nistoroiu, ScienceInsider)

Mental Health

Clinical Trials Down, Basic Research Up at NIMH

Mental health is a notoriously tricky field. The development of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in the 1950s has historically been a way to diagnose patients with mental health issues, and then give appropriate treatment. This has proved to be an imprecise treatment strategy, because within a category of diagnosis there is a broad spectrum of behaviors, and underlying this behavior there may be multiple causes. The NIH’s Precision Medicine Initiative (PMI) seeks to characterize 1,000,000 people by behavior, genetics, environment, and physiology. Researchers from the NIMH will send questionnaires evaluating behavior to detect mood and reward responses for this group of people. When this mental health evaluation is combined with information about their genetics, lifestyle and environment, scientists can characterize mental health disorders more specifically.

Many clinician researchers are upset by the steep decline in clinical trial research funded by NIMH, which has become higher profile with director Joshua Gordon’s arrival in 2016. NIMH seeks to route funding to study mental disorders using a basic research approach before spending time and money on costly clinical trials which too often lead to inconclusive or disappointing results. In 2011 NIMH launched the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which encourages research proposals to include a hunt for the mechanism underlying mental health studies. Since the initial call to include a RDoC perspective in grant applications, the incidence of RDoC appearing in funded applications has increased while mention of the DSM has decreased. Other buzzwords that are present in funded grants include biomarker, circuit, target and mechanism.

These data represent a shift in how funding decisions will proceed in mental health but may have broader reaching implications for other areas of research. In a blog post Dr. Gordon writes, “the idea that RDoC will facilitate rapid, robust and reproducible neurobiological explanations for psychopathology (as observed within and across DSM disorders) represents a hypothesis”. It remains to be seen if RDoC is an effective metric to evaluate successful grants. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

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

Science Policy Around the Web – June 13, 2017

leave a comment »

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!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 13, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 24, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Joel Adu-Brimpong, BS

Source: Flickr by Selena N. B. H. via Creative Commons

Scientific Publishing

Fake It Until You’re Caught?

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 16, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Sarah L Hawes, PhD

Source: pixabay

Preventative Medicine

Fresh Foods a Day Keep Disease and Deficit Away

If you have recently shopped for health insurance, you likely encountered incentives for self-maintenance, such as discounted gym membership, or reimbursement for a jogging stroller. These incentives are motivated by the enormous ticket price of failing health. The CDC estimates that over $500 billion is spent annually on direct medical expenses to treat chronic diseases, which can be prevented or postponed through lifestyle practices – including heart disease, obesity, and diabetes.

The Geisinger health care system reports encouraging results from the first year of a lifestyle-modification program called Fresh Foods Pharmacy, piloted in central Pennsylvania. This program provides patients with Type 2 diabetes nutrition counselling, hands-on classes in healthy cooking techniques, and a weekly prescription for five days’ worth of fresh food – fillable for free at a hospital based “food pharmacy.” This means patients are not just advised to eat better; they are comprehensively enabled to eat better.

David Feinberg, president and CEO of Geisinger, reports that all 180 participants in the pilot group have made substantial improvements in their health, including reductions in blood pressure and body weight, and that many have seen a several-point reduction in a blood marker used to diagnose and monitor their disease, called A1C. A1C reduction means that blood sugar levels are being better controlled, which also means fewer costly diabetic complications for patients down the line. Feinberg calls the program “life changing,” adding that participants “won’t go blind; [they] won’t have kidney disease, amputations.”

Many Fresh Foods Pharmacy participants are low-income, so there is powerful financial incentive to ‘follow doctors’ orders’ and eat the free, healthy food. But what does supplying a person with nutritional counsel and weekly fresh foods cost?

Geisinger spends approximately $1,000 per year on each Fresh Foods Pharmacy patient. Meanwhile, a mere one-point drop in A1C levels saves Geisinger roughly $8,000 per year. Feinberg says that many participants trimmed about 3 points off their A1C level in the first year, saving roughly $24,000 on a $1,000 investment. “It’s a really good value” says Feinberg, who is already working to expand the program to additional sites.

Improved patient health and medical cost-cutting in the first year of this program are independently exciting. In addition, the value of engendering better patient health through comprehensive dietary support is very likely to extend beyond patient and provider. Patients who are enabled to engage in healthful food preparation will share a healthier diet and food-culture with their families, enhancing program benefits in as-yet unmeasured dimensions. (Allison Aubrey, NPR)

Research Funding

Climate Science Policy Lessons from Down Under

Pretend for a moment that everyone firmly believes that climate change is real, and is a real threat. Is this enough to safeguard basic climate science research? Recent events in Australia give us our answer – no.

Australia is the most active contributor to climate science in the Southern Hemisphere. As such, Australian researchers provide a truly international service. Public appreciation of this fact, together with public activism, recently saved funding for Australian climate science.

In 2015, Dr. Larry R. Marshall was appointed to lead Australia’s national scientific agency (CSIRO). Dr. Marshall planned to champion initiatives motivated by his faith in climate science. He wanted to develop technologies to respond to inescapable climate change, and to mitigate damage through reduced emissions. Paradoxically he proposed to fund these by laying off droves of basic climate researchers.

Dr. John A. Church was a climate scientist at CSIRO, having published highly regarded studies indicating accelerated sea level rise paralleling greenhouse gas emission. On catching wind of Marshall’s plan, Church reached out to his contacts in the media and wrote an open letter to Marshall in defense of basic science. Public marches, hearings, and protests from thousands of international scientists ensued.

Ultimately, the rally of public voices instigated by Dr. Church and others like him was effective. Far fewer layoffs occurred than were initially slated to occur. Dr. Church was among those let go by CSIRO, but was rapidly recruited by the University of New South Wales to continue his climate research.

Bear in mind that Dr. Marshall was no climate change denier. He showed great willingness to use scientific findings to guide policy, which is admirable. He addressed an Australian Senate committee saying that the climate “absolutely is changing,” and “we have to do something about it.” In a recent interview, he summarized his reasons for wanting to lay off scientists saying this: “Unfortunately, with a finite funding envelope, you’ve got to make choices where you fund.”

Australia’s example shows us that even in a political environment with great faith in science, reverence for basic research is a separate issue, and merits independent attention and protection. Staying abreast of science policy matters. And for those of us who believe there is no shortage of natural complexity, and no end to the fruitful pursuit of knowledge, it pays to speak out in defense of basic research. (Justin Gillis, The New York Times)

 

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

Science Policy Around the Web – May 12, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Liu-Ya Tang, PhD

Source: pixabay

Biosafety

Basic Scholarship in Biosafety Is Critically Needed

While a significant amount of money funds primary research in life sciences, the portion allotted in biosafety assessment is almost neglected, which can be detrimental to biomedical research. In a recent paper in mSphere, an open-access journal published by the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the authors reported the status of practicing biosafety in U.S. labs and pointed out the urgent need for funding in this field.

They identified human errors as the dominant component of laboratory biosafety risk, but there was limited data to support a quantitative analysis of human failure rates. Publicly available risk assessments were only focused on mechanical failure rates. They also found that historical biosafety incident data is not adequate, and incidents reporting systems are not sufficiently standardized. So the same mistakes could likely happen in multiple labs. In contrast, other industries, such as the power and transportation industries, have been investing heavily in maintaining safety records and have benefited from doing so. The authors cite an example from the airline industry to address the importance of incident reporting system. After a flight crash outside Washington’s Dulles airport in 1974, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) created a no-fault system of reporting aviation incidents and mistakes. FAA has maintained this system ever since, which has helped reduce accident rates by two-thirds compared to that in the early 1970s.

Even though funding for biosafety assessment is much less than that in other industries, the consequences of a potential infectious disease outbreak can be much bigger than any other accidents. Therefore, such funding is urgently needed for three aspects: “(i) development of a national incident reporting system, (ii) primary research programs focused on human reliability assessments, equipment failures, and decontamination efficiencies, and (iii) sharing of best practices.” Investing in biosafety and biorisk management will help enhance laboratory safety practices and improve work performance of our research enterprise in the long run. (Ryan Ritterson and Rocco Casagrande, mSphere)

Human Stem-Cell Research

Attitudes Towards Stem-Cell Research in Europe, Canada and the United States

Human embryonic stem-cell research has caused many political and public debates over moral concerns while providing benefits to human health. In science policy making, public opinion has great impact. To investigate factors that affect international public opinion towards stem-cell research, Allum N. and colleagues analyzed representative sample surveys in Europe and North America, fielded in 2005, when it was a highly contested issue.

The authors found that public attitudes towards stem-cell research has been affected by government decisions, especially in the U.S. During the Bush administration, federal funding only allowed the use of a small number of existing cell lines in stem-cell research. These limitations were removed by an Executive Order from President Barack Obama that expanded NIH support for human stem-cell research. In response to government guidance, public support for stem-cell research in the U.S. rose from 40 percent in 2002 to around 65 percent in 2010. About 65 percent of Europeans and Canadians supported human stem-cell research on the condition that it is tightly regulated. The other influential factor is religion. The authors showed that in all the regions examined, approval for stem-cell research decreased with increasing religious commitment. This pattern was more pronounced in the U.S. and Canada than in Europe. But interestingly, half of even the most religious public supported stem-cell research, which indicated that perhaps the benefits of stem-cell research are being more appreciated. Overall, the majority of people in the surveyed areas hold positive attitudes towards human stem-cell research. (Nick Allum et al, PLOS ONE)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

May 12, 2017 at 11:07 am