Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘science policy

Science Policy Around the Web – November 18, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Thaddeus Davenport, PhD

Source: pixabay

2016 Presidential Elections

How the Trump Administration Might Impact Science

Donald Trump is now the President-elect of the United States of America. Mr. Trump’s loose speaking (and tweeting) style, affinity for controversy, relative disregard for facts, and his lack of experience in domestic and foreign policy, led him to make a number of vague, and sometimes contradictory statements about his specific policy positions over the course of his campaign. In light of this, there are few people on earth – and perhaps no people on earth, including Mr. Trump – who know exactly what to expect from his presidency. In Nature News last week, Sara Reardon, Jeff Tollefson, Alexandra Witze and Lauren Morello considered how Mr. Trump’s presidency might affect science, focusing on what is known about his positions on biomedical research, climate change, the space program, and immigration. The authors’ analyses are summarized below:

Biomedical Research – Mr. Trump will be in a position to undo the executive order signed by President Obama in 2009, which eased some restrictions on work with human embryonic stem cells, a decision criticized at the time by the current vice-president elect, Mike Pence. In his characteristically brash speaking style, Mr. Trump also called the NIH ‘terrible’ in a radio interview last year, but beyond this, he has said little about his plans for biomedical research.

Climate Change – Early signs suggest that Mr. Trump will dramatically shift the direction of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and undo some of its work to curb greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan implemented by President Obama. Mr. Trump has already appointed Myron Ebell, a denier of climate change, to lead the transition at the EPA and other federal agencies involved in climate change and environmental policy. Mr. Trump has also vowed to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement which, under the terms of the agreement, may not happen immediately, but it may influence how and whether other countries participate in the agreement in the future.

Space Program – Based on writings from Trump’s campaign advisers there may be continued support for deep space exploration, especially through public-private partnerships with companies such as Orbital and SpaceX, but not earth observation and climate monitoring programs, which account for one third of NASA’s budget.

Immigration – A central pillar of Mr. Trump’s campaign was his strong and divisive stance on immigration. He has vowed to build a wall on the US border with Mexico, deport millions of illegal immigrants, defund ‘sanctuary cities’ throughout the United States, impose “extreme vetting” of immigrants, and stop immigration from countries where “adequate screening cannot occur”, which he believes includes Syria and Libya, and set new “caps” on legal immigration into the United States. These proposals have drawn objections from human rights advocates, and scientists worry that they may discourage international students and researchers from working in, and contributing their expertise to, the United States.

It remains to be seen how Mr. Trump will shape the future of science in the United States and the world, but it is clear that he is taking office at a pivotal moment. He would do well to seriously consider how his policies and his words will impact research, discovery, and innovation within the United States, and more importantly, the long-term health of vulnerable populations, economies, and ecosystems around the globe. (Sara Reardon, Jeff Tollefson, Alexandra Witze and Lauren Morello, Nature News)

Public Health

Soda Taxes on the Ballot

Given the focus that has been placed on the outcome of the Presidential election, you may NOT have heard about the results of smaller ballot items including a decision to begin taxing sodas in four US cities – San Francisco, Oakland, and Albany, California, and Boulder, Colorado – as reported by Margot Sanger-Katz for the New York Times. These cities join Berkeley, California and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which passed soda taxes of their own in 2014 and June of 2016, respectively. The victory for proponents of soda taxes came after a costly campaign, with total spending in the Bay Area region campaign on the order of $50 million. Former New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and Laura and John Arnold spent heavily in support of taxing sodas, but did not equal the spending by the soda industry, which opposed the taxes. During his time as mayor, Mr. Bloomberg attempted to ban the sale of sodas larger than 16 ounces in New York City in 2012, but this was struck down in the New York State Court of Appeals in 2014.

Soda tax advocates see the outcome of this year’s ballot initiatives as a sign of a sea change in public acceptance of programs intended to discourage soda consumption (and increase revenue for municipalities), but it is indisputable, especially in light of the results of the presidential election, that the set of relatively liberal cities that have adopted soda tax measures do not accurately represent the thinking of people throughout the United States. Though it is still too early to know if soda tax programs lead to improvements in public health, evidence from Berkeley and Mexico – which passed a soda tax in 2013 – indicates that these programs have the potential to decrease soda consumption. Regardless of how similar initiatives may perform in other cities on future ballots, the increasing number of cities participating in soda tax programs will provide valuable data to inform policy decisions aimed at reducing obesity and diabetes. (Margot Sanger-Katz, New York Times)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 18, 2016 at 9:00 am

Science Policy Around the Web – September 23, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

Source: pixabay

Biomedical Research

BRAIN Initiative might get a global boost

While politicians met at the UN General Assembly in New York this week, another meeting of a more scientific variety was going on nearby at Rockefeller University. The US National Science Foundation (NSF) hosted a meeting to organize neuroscientists from across the globe to develop new ideas to organize their field of research. The US BRAIN initiative was launched in 2013 as an effort to study key issues in neuroscience, such as how the brain connects and functions at the cellular and systems levels. Worldwide, other countries have similar initiatives in place or in planning, thus NSF wanted to get a feel of how data and resources could be shared between scientists regardless of country. For example, Japan and China are investing heavily in primate research, while America and Europe tend to shy away from these organisms, but put more focus on basic research and clinical applications.

One problem that neuroscientists encounter as they compare research findings is differences in data acquisition and processing, with each lab having their own in-house protocols and analyses. A global repository of data with access to super computers and/or powerful microscopes for all could be a boon for how neuroscience research of the future is performed. Other researchers voiced concerns over the possibility that a global project would re-direct funds from local and national sources. This new neuroscience “club” could also create yet another economic hurdle for developing nations’ scientists to overcome.

Politicians at the UN General Assembly voiced their support for an International Brain Initiative, and were met by cautious enthusiasm from neuroscientists. Time will tell if a truly global approach to neuroscience materializes, but political and financial support for neuroscience research makes this an exciting time to be a scientist. (Sara Reardon, Nature)

2016 Presidential Elections

How do the candidates stack up on science?

With the first presidential debate scheduled for Monday, September 26, our nation continues a heated election season with two powerful candidates. Although science is generally low on the priority list for the voting public, it remains an integral part of how our educated nation works. Research influences broad issues in public policy, and policy influences how science gets funded and moves forward.

The candidates have some points of agreement and points of contention for various scientific topics. For example, both Trump and Clinton support NASA and space exploration, although Trump is more eager for a private sector endeavor. Both Trump and Clinton support vaccines in children, with Trump having some reservations, but for other issues of public health such as funding for biomedical research, Clinton has clear proposals for increasing funding, while Trump seems more skeptical than supportive of funding NIH.

Neither candidate has voiced strong opinions on the use of genetically modified foods. However, Clinton does support food labeling, citing a “right to know”, while the Republican Party opposes making labels mandatory. In addition, neither candidate has made a clear statement about gun research; while Clinton has proposed many changes to gun control, Trump supports a right to carry at the national level. Improving Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) education is a topic about which Clinton is passionate, while Trump’s stance is less clear. He maintains that education should be on a locally managed level, which means geography would impact the availability of quality STEM programs.

The strongest point of contention is regarding climate change, where Clinton proposes creating clean energy jobs and cutting greenhouse gas emissions, while Trump considers climate change a hoax and vowed to use American-produced natural gas and oil and reverse the EPA’s moratorium on new coal mining permits.

Overall the candidates have said little regarding these top scientific issues, but based on what they have said in the past, there are certain issues they agree on, while others are divisive in both politics and for the general public. (Science News Staff, ScienceNews)

Biomedical Training

It’s postdoc appreciation week!

In 2009 the US House of Representatives officially declared a week of appreciation for the forces which move scientific research: the postdoc. Postdoctoral fellows/researchers (postdocs) are research scientists who have completed a PhD and continue their training under a more established principle investigator in order to expand their research experience and launch their careers. The National Postdoctoral Association (NPA) pioneered the celebrations in 2010, giving postdocs perks such as career fairs, ice cream socials, and free tickets to local events. Although some of these perks may seem superficial, the larger goal of this week is to bring attention to the plight of these mid-career scientists.

Recently postdocs have been an increasingly vocal part of the research community, as their numbers swell and job prospects appear bleak. Under the organization of the NPA, postdocs have won increases in stipend (pay) levels dictated by the NIH. The NPA has also provided recommendations, information and guidance to the White House and other policy branches of the government. Their goals are to enhance postdoctoral training experiences and opportunities for postdocs in academic and government research settings. The US is placing more focus on getting students to study Science, Technology, Engineering and Math, however biomedical PhDs are being produced at an unsustainable rate for academia, government and industry to employ. By celebrating postdoc appreciation week, the focus is briefly shifted to the other end of the pipeline, where conditions must improve if more people are to be inspired to join at the entry point.

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 23, 2016 at 3:29 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – June 6, 2016

leave a comment »

By: Amanda Whiting, Ph.D.

photo credit: DSC03602.JPG via photopin (license)

Human Genetics

Scientists reveal proposal to build human genome from scratch

The limits of genomic engineering took another step forward with the publication of a proposal in Science to synthesize a human genome from the ground up. The project, called the Human Genome Project – Write or HGP-write, seeks to take the progress made by the original Human Genome Project in reading a human genome one step further, and “learn by building” in order to test our understanding of how genetic information results in a living, functioning cell. “You know all the parts needed [to make a chromosome], so you take these parts and rebuilt it,” said chromosome biologist Torsten Waldminghaus of Philipp University of Marburg in Germany who is not a part of this project. “If it’s functional, you see that you were right.”

HGP-write originally made headlines back in May with the report that a private, invite-only meeting of 150 scientists would be held at Harvard Medical School to discuss the project. The meeting was criticized for excluding the media and asking participants to not contact the media or post to Twitter about it. Concerns about the private meeting stemmed from not being able to have an open dialogue with other scientists and the public about ethical concerns surrounding the topic of “Einstein genomes” or “human beings without biological parents.” The meeting organizers including George Church, a professor of genetics at Harvard Medical School, clarified the project’s intentions by saying the goal was to create functioning cells, not people. The recently published proposal goes on to further clarify the intentions of HGP-write, including several “stepping stone” pilot projects such as constructing specific chromosomes to model human diseases and potentially developing cells powered by “baseline” human genomes, containing the most common pan-human alleles (or allele ancestral to a given human population) at each position. (Kelly Servick, Science Insider)

Science-policy research

UK government slammed for losing track of its own research

An independent analysis into the commissioning and publication of the UK government’s policy-related research has found significant problems, delays and overall confusion. The London-based science-advocacy group, Sense About Science, instigated the analysis as a “response to media stories of government research being suppressed or withheld” and had “the aim of determining the scale and significance of the problem and to look into potential remedies” according to their website. The UK government spends around $3.6 billion US per year on research related to policy-issues, both conducted in house and out-sourced to external researchers. This information is then (theoretically) used to make government decisions in policy areas ranging from social and public policies, to health and climate change.

While all of this research was funded and conducted, the analysis found that there is no “comprehensive account” or centralized mechanism to find out just what research has been done, how much public money was spent, or whether any of it was published and accessible. “Sir Stephen [the lead investigator] has revealed that we don’t know what has become of millions of pounds worth of government-commissioned research because government itself doesn’t know whether it was published, or where it all is now,” said Tracey Brown, director of Sense about Science. The report recommended that the UK government establish a central and searchable database of all government-commissioned research and commit to the prompt and routine publication of any work that has been used in deciding government policy. (Daniel Cressey, Nature News)

Antibiotic Resistance

The superbug that doctors have been dreading just reached the U.S.

On May 26th, researchers from the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center published their findings that for the first time, a person in the United States was found to be carrying bacteria resistant to an antibiotic of last resort, colistin, a polymyxin antibiotic. The sample of E. coli came from a 49 year old woman in Pennsylvania and was found to be carrying a colistin-resistance gene, known as mcr-1. This gene, first discovered in China in late 2015 in pigs treated with colistin, most worryingly was found to be located on a small piece of circular DNA known as a plasmid, allowing it to be easily shared and spread among bacterial strains. Similarly, the American sample also contained plasmid-borne mcr-1, leading to fears about when (not if) bacteria with other resistance genes might come in contact with it and gain additional resistance.

“It basically shows us that the end of the road isn’t very far away for antibiotics — that we may be in a situation where we have patients in our intensive care units, or patients getting urinary-tract infections for which we do not have antibiotics,” CDC Director Tom Frieden said in an interview.  While Congress recently increased spending in the 2016 fiscal year by at least  $375 million for the purpose of battling antibiotic-resistant bacteria, one would hope that this latest incident on American soil would further spur action at the highest levels including urgent action to improve detection, control outbreaks and especially prevent new cases by improving prescribing patterns so that antibiotics are used only when necessary. In addition, significant research is needed into the link between antibiotic use in food animal products and the rise of antibiotic-resistant infections in humans. (Lena H. Sun and Brady Dennis, Washington Post)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 6, 2016 at 3:00 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – November 13, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Agila Somasundaram, Ph.D.

World Map – Temperature Trends by NASA via Wikimedia Commons

Climate Policy

Greenhouse gases hit new milestone, fueling worries about climate change

2015 is a milestone year for the Earth’s Environment. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) recently reported that the average levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere has exceeded 400 parts per million (ppm) in the early months of 2015. The Met Office and Climatic Research Unit in Britain has reported that the temperature in the first nine months of 2015 exceeded historic norms by 1.02 degree C. These reports are raising serious concerns about global warming. “We are moving into uncharted territory at a frightening speed,” says WMO Secretary General Michel Jarraud. Many scientists agree that the carbon dioxide levels should remain below 400 ppm, but increasing fossil fuel usage has resulted in a steady increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide, going from 278 ppm during pre-industrial times to 397.7 ppm in 2014. “We will soon be living with globally averaged CO2 levels above 400 ppm as a permanent reality,” Jarraud said. Methane and nitrous oxide, two other important greenhouse gases, are also increasing. The long-term implications for the planet, Jarraud says, include higher global temperatures, extreme weather events, melting ice, rising sea levels, and increased acidity in oceans.  These reports on carbon dioxide levels, and the increase in the average temperature, come weeks before the start of the United Nations Climate Change Conference, where diplomats from over 190 countries will participate in discussions on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. (Joby Warrick, The Washington Post)

Science and Decision-Making

European Commission appoints top scientists to fill policy advice gap

The European Commission has appointed seven prominent scientists to provide the Commission with policy advice. This group is part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), and consists of four men and three women from seven different countries and fields, including Polish bioinformatician Janusz Bujnicki, Dutch sociologist Pearl Dykstra, Portuguese material scientist Elvira Fortunato, German physicist and CERN Director Rolf-Dieter Heuer, British climate researcher Julia Slingo, French mathematician and Fields medalist Cédric Villani, and Danish microbiologist Henrik Wegener. “This looks like a good group,” says Anne Glover, the first and only chief scientific adviser (former) of the Commission. “They have scientific credibility as well as a deep knowledge of the ways in which scientific evidence can be used to inform policy as well as the world of politics,” Glover adds. The seven scientists will have their first meeting in January, and the topics of discussion are likely to be dictated by current matters. The SAM also includes a €6 million grant to fund academies and societies to help provide policy advice to the Commission. James Wilsdon from the Science Policy Research Unit at the University of Sussex in the United Kingdom, though skeptical about how the new group will “safeguard its independence and navigate the political sensitivities that will inevitably arise”, is also optimistic and said that the announcement “is a serious step in the right direction for robust, independent and interdisciplinary scientific advice at the heart of European decision-making.” (Tania Rabesandratana, ScienceInsider)

Public Health Policy

U.S. Smoking Rate Declines, but Poor Remain at Higher Risk

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently reported that smoking has become largely a problem of the poor in the US. Smoking has steadily declined in the last few decades – nearly half the US population smoked in the 1960s, whereas those numbers have declined to 16.8 percent in 2014. However, the differences among various sections of the population are striking. Anti-smoking campaigns have been very successful on a national scale, but the results have not been very encouraging with the poor. While only 5 percent of Americans with a graduate degree smoke, about 43 percent of people with high school equivalency diploma smoke, and the latter figures haven’t changed since 2005, compared to a 26 percent decline in smoking among people with college degrees. Nearly a third of the Americans on Medicaid smoked, in contrast to 13 percent for Americans with private insurance. Smoking among people at or above the poverty line has declined from 21 percent in 2005 to 15 percent in 2014 (a 26 percent decline), whereas it went from 30 percent to 26 percent (a 12 percent decline) for people below the poverty line. Kenneth E. Warner, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Public Health, says that disparities are the most important issue in smoking. “The people who are politically influential believe the smoking problem has been solved. It’s not in their neighborhoods. Their friends don’t smoke. Those who still smoke are the poor, the disenfranchised, the mentally ill. That’s who we need to focus on”, says Dr. Warner. A proposed federal rule that bans smoking in public housing might be a step toward changing that. (Sabrina Tavernise, The New York Times)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 13, 2015 at 10:06 am

Science Policy Around the Web – June 5, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Elisavet Serti, Ph.D.

Science Policy

The growing challenges of scientific advising

Scientists are increasingly called upon to share their scientific expertise and help governments shape policies and regulations in response to public health threats, such as the recent Ebola epidemic. During this time, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Dr. Anthony Fauci, was interviewed daily and met with high ranking government officials in order to inform the public about the Ebola disease. His job was to specify precautions should be taken, what safety regulations should be established in order to control the epidemic and avoid its spread to the United States, and how infected patients should be treated. This crisis, and the way it was handled by the media, is one of the several examples of the importance of scientific counseling and its challenges. Other scientists that were involved in Ebola research or other infectious diseases were also frequently asked for their scientific perspective.

According to a recent article in Science magazine, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) recently issued a report entitled Scientific Advice for Policy Making to illuminate the roles and responsibility of scientists in policy decisions. OECD reported that, in emergency situations, media interest “can encourage alternative sources of scientific or expert information to publicize their own diagnoses or forecasts, which can differ significantly from the views of official/mandated scientific advisory structures”. While different scientific perspectives are necessary for the process of public health related issues, “[t]he diversity of solicited and unsolicited advice can be a challenge for decision-makers [and] create confusion in the public realm.” The article concluded that an advising scientist should have some specific qualities before joining the arena of science policy. Today, “[s]cientists find themselves in a policy arena where the interests of a variety of stakeholders have to be balanced: scientists, policy and law makers, regulators, industry, [nongovernmental organizations], the public at large,” the report says. Scientists should therefore “be open to expert opinions coming from outside their selected group,” and recognize “that relevant expertise is often available outside established academic structures.” Finally, scientific advisers should accept and communicate the issue of scientific uncertainty and the need of more research before expressing an absolute opinion. “As a general rule, [they] should explicitly assess uncertainties and communicate and explain them to policy makers,” the report says. “In emergencies or on controversial issues, policy makers and the general public want quick answers from the scientific establishment, and researchers are under pressure to come up with clear-cut advice, even though the uncertainties are often high.” (Elisabeth Pain, Science Careers)

Science and Foreign Policy

Cuba’s scientists are ready to rejoin the international scientific community

Ernesto Altshuler, is a physicist and runs his own research lab in University of Havana, Cuba, one of the world’s more challenging settings for conducting science. The research resources are very poor and there has been a persistent “brain drain”, as the majority of scientists leave the country as soon as they graduate university. Cubans believe that the U.S. embargo, which has been in place for a half-century, is responsible for this scientific crisis; “The embargo is like God. It affects every aspect of life,” says Sergio Jorge-Pastrana, foreign secretary of the Academy of Sciences of Cuba (ACC). The embargo prohibits the import of equipment and supplies made in the United States or with U.S. components, furthermore, the Internet speed is extremely slow and U.S. travel restrictions have hampered academic exchange between the two countries. Dr. Altshuler was interviewed by Richard Stone on behalf of the Science magazine, where he explained that he had to find “alternative” ways to do his research “invading zones where I was not a specialist, looking around for new phenomena with wider eyes, seeing scientific instruments in daily life objects, attacking and retreating from serendipitous findings like a guerrilla.” However, for his studies of granular materials, Altshuler spent about $100 “to obtain the same quality of data” as other researchers who spend millions of dollars on microgravity experiments, says Thorsten Pöschel, a physicist at the Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg in Germany. After the historic rapprochement last December, Cuban President Raúl Castro and U.S. President Barack Obama announced that their nations would strive to overcome mutual hostility and normalize relations. This means that Cuban science is now ready to join the modern world as the revised travel rules ease visits to Cuba for U.S. scientists, and the U.S. Commerce Department can now allow scientific equipment to be freely donated to Cuba, as long as it does not have potential military applications. (Richard Stone, Science)

Multidisciplinary Cancer Research

Immunology and Oncology join hands against the fight of cancer

The standard four options of cancer treatment currently are tumor dissection, radiotherapy, chemotherapy and “targeted therapies” that use antibodies to specifically target the tumor and have the potential to kill it. For a fifth alternative, immunologists and oncologists have collaborated efficiently and presented their latest data on anti-cancer strategies at this year’s meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), in Chicago. A fifth type of cancer treatment that will be based on “immuno-oncology” is likely to be broadly established in clinical practice in the next few years. Like “targeted therapies”, these new approaches often use antibodies; however, the new treatments do not directly attack cancerous cells, but instead they boost the immune responses against them. Cancer cells seem to use strategies of manipulating the immune system in a way that favors their evasion and spread among which are failure of recognition and/or immune cell suppression. The “immune-oncology” strategic approach is to use one or more antibodies or small molecule inhibitors in the crucial checkpoints of immune cell regulation by cancer cells so that the immune cells recognize and efficiently attack the tumor. The combination new treatment results look promising, especially for lung cancer, but there is still some room for improvement. As seen in previous innovative therapies, for example in Hepatitis C new antivirals, their cost is very high, ranging from $130,000 to $150,000 per patient per year. (The Economist)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 5, 2015 at 3:48 pm

Science Policy and U.S. Foreign Policy – Birds of a Feather

leave a comment »

By: Bethanie Morrison

According to the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats, “we are experiencing an unparalleled period of advancement and innovation in the life sciences globally that continues to transform our way of life.”1 This advancement in life sciences is driven by developments in international academic institutions, industrial research centers, private laboratories (i.e. Do-it-Yourself Biology) and government research facilities. The evolution of a global research community and the relationships such an entity can foster have major implications for the United States in terms of our foreign policy objectives.  In the pre-9/11 edition of Bruce Jentleson’s American Foreign Policy2, he lists 5 main reasons why U.S. foreign policy is especially important in this post-Cold War era.  The 5 points are summarized here, and you can see how our foreign policy and science policy agendas are inherently linked:

1.  The U.S. still faces significant threats to its national security (biodefense).

2.  The U.S. economy is becoming increasingly internationalized (technology imports and exports).

3.  Areas of policy previously considered “domestic” have been internationalized (STEM education).

4.  The increasing diversity of the U.S. population makes for a larger number of citizens with personal interests in foreign policy (areas of research funding, i.e. Malaria, HIV/AIDS).

5.  The U.S. cannot claim to be true to its most basic values if it ignores its violations internationally (global health system research).

In addition, Jentleson suggests that all foreign policy decisions can be analyzed by a framework of ‘4Ps,’ which stands for Power, Peace, Prosperity and Principles.  While each policy can be analyzed in terms of the 4Ps, it is rare for all four to be simultaneously achievable within each policy decision.  It is interesting to apply this analytical framework to the foreign policy involved in science policy and vice versa.  While this analysis will differ from policy to policy, the significance of each of the 4Ps may differ from political party to political party, making this a dynamic and interesting analytic process.  Below is a sample of how a 4Ps framework may be applied to science policy in terms of foreign policy.

Power:  This is important for self-defense, deterring aggression and exerting influence over other nations.  For example bioterrorism and biodefense strategies, and most DoD-funded research, provides outlets for science policy to influence the US’s position of power internationally. In addition, ensuring continued competitiveness in STEM education and U.S. involvement in “big science” (ie. The Human Genome Project) will require policies that allow us to be the authority on science thereby exerting our influence over other nations.

Peace:  This is important in terms of international management, diplomacy, and shows the importance of international institutions.  With regard to science policy, our relationships and collaborations fostered with other nations that are based on science and technology are critical to maintaining peace.  The globalization of science and international product development partnerships have improved our relationships with many European nations and are now expanding to our relationships with Asia.  Of particular interest is the formation of positive partnerships with major international forces such as Russia and China.  While there remain mistrust issues between the U.S. and China3, working together on a scientific goal may be a form of diplomacy that eases tensions moving forward.

Prosperity:  This relates to trade agreements and international economic policies that improve the U.S. financial system.   The ways in which science translates into finance center around technology development and trade.  This may involve regulatory mechanisms and policies regarding pharmacological agents and technology.

Principles:  These are the values, ideals and beliefs for which the U.S. claims to stand.  Global health initiatives play the largest role in U.S. foreign policy principles aside from our fight against terrorism.  Global health policy encompasses a broad range of research areas including clean water, children and women’s health issues, eradication of diseases and improvement of health care systems world-wide4.

The question is, how would you rank these 4Ps in terms of importance in U.S. foreign policy, and does that ranking system differ when thinking strictly in terms of U.S. science policy and funding?  Why?  Consider writing to your representatives expressing your ideas or concerns in terms of something bigger than your lab.  You never know what could happen!

1.  National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats. National Security Council, November 2009.
2.  Jentleson, Bruce W., American Foreign Policy: the Dynamics of Choice in the 21st Century.  W.W. Norton and Company,  July 2013. 
3.  Lieberthal, K., Jisi, W., Addressing US-China Strategic Mistrust.  John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institute, March 2012.
4.  Kaiser Family Foundation 2013 Survey of Americans on the U.S. Role in Global Health, November 2013.

Written by sciencepolicyforall

December 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm

Posted in Essays

Tagged with , ,

Science Policy Around the Web – November 30, 2012

leave a comment »

photo credit: aloshbennett via photopin cc

By: Jennifer Plank

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

Tobacco Companies Are Told to Correct Lies About Smoking
A recent ruling by Judge Gladys Kessler of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia requires tobacco companies to publish corrective statements admitting that they lied about the dangers of smoking. Each corrective advertisement must include a statement that a federal court has ruled that tobacco companies “deliberately deceived the American public about the health effects of smoking.” The tobacco companies opposed this ruling; however, Judge Kessler maintains that all of the statements are backed by specific findings of the court. (The Associated Press)

A Huge Pay Cut for Doctors is Hiding in the the Fiscal Cliff – On January 1, a 30 percent pay cut for doctors treating Medicare patients is set to take effect. This pay cut has been looming for a decade. Each year, doctors increase the amount they bill for services and procedures. Therefore, in 1997, Congress adapted a solution to this problem to reduce rising costs to Medicare- if doctors’ fees increased too much per patient per year, Medicare would pay a little less for services. For example, in 2002, using the formula developed by Congress, Medicare was to cut 4 percent from the amount paid to doctors. However, that year, doctors complained resulting in complaints to Congress from Medicare patients, and ultimately, Congress passed a bill to ignore the pay cuts. This pattern repeated itself yearly resulting in a cumulative cut of about 30 percent. This reduction in pay for doctors is one component of the fiscal cliff negotiations. (Channa Joffe-Walt)

Smith Wins Chair of U.S. House Science Committee – Leaders in the House of Representatives recommended that Lamar Smith of Texas become the new chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Representative Smith is about to begin serving his 14th term in Congress and has served on the House science committee for 26 years. While Representative Smith maintains some conservative ideals- including being skeptical of government action on climate change, he has also been successful at working in a bipartisan manner. Many lobbyists for universities and science organizations are happy with the selection. (David Malakoff)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 30, 2012 at 11:47 am