Recently in Science policy Category

Graduate students in the Science Policy Initiative at MIT started Stand with Science, a call to Congress to protect science funding. They are collecting signatures on a letter to Congress, and when I checked the list of signatures, there were more than 1800 names. Here's how the letter begins:

America's science and engineering graduate students need your help. Our country is on the precipice: with US finances in a desperate position, upcoming decisions will determine the shape of our nation for decades to come. We urge you to seek common ground in Congress to preserve the indispensable investments in science and engineering research that will drive our nation's prosperity for generations. We urge you to avoid any cuts in federally funded research.

Head over to www.standwithscience.org to read the letter.

Related articles

• Dot Earth Blog: Students Press Congress to Sustain Investment in Science (dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com)

The Biological Sciences Directorate at NSF announced new procedures for proposal review recently.

The Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) has initiated new procedures for the submission and review of regular research proposals to the core programs within the Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB), Division of Environmental Biology (DEB), and Division of Integrative Organismal Systems (IOS).  The changes for MCB were previously announced in a new solicitation (NSF-11-545). Effective immediately, DEB and IOS will both implement an annual cycle of preliminary and full proposals beginning in January 2012.  Preliminary proposals will be accepted in January. New Solicitations  NSF 11-572 for IOS and  NSF 11-573 (for DEB) provide further details.

There will be a webinar on Monday from 1:45pm to 3:00pm¹ describing the changes. I'm sure there will be more opportunities to tune in, and I'll post links here as soon as I hear about them.

The National Science Foundation uses two criteria to judge proposals: intellectual merit and broader impacts. Over the past year, the National Science Board has conducted a review of those criteria. They recently published a draft revision of those criteria, and comments were due on 14 July. The Botanical Society of America and the American Society of Plant Taxonomists submitted a joint letter commenting on the draft (PDF), and the American Institute of Biological Sciences submitted a separate letter.

Last February, students in the Botanical Society of America and other organizations wrote an open letter to policymakers.

As future scientists and educators, we, the undersigned students, encourage Congress and the President to make sustained investments in the nation's scientific research, education, and training programs. The extramural, competitive, peer-reviewed grant programs administered by federal agencies are critical to our nation's scientific enterprise and future.

...

Addressing the nation's current budget challenges is essential, but we must not sacrifice investments in our future. One way to grow our economy is through scientific innovation. Science, however, cannot move forward in an environment where one year brings a rapid budget increase and the next year a precipitous budget cut. Research and development require people, facilities, and equipment - recruiting, retaining, and building this infrastructure requires a sustained and predictable investment.

As of June, nearly 2800 students had signed the letter. If you are a student and you have not yet signed the letter, I encourage you to visit the AIBS website, read the letter, and sign it.

A couple of years ago, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) had a dumb idea. He proposed an amendment that would have eliminated social science funding at the National Science Foundation. The amendment was soundly defeated, but 36 senators voted in favor of the Coburn amendment.

In late May, Coburn returned and upped the ante. He released a report accusing NSF of mishandling nearly $3 billion. Of course, he was wrong. I can't link to all of the posts explaining why, but you'll find some a few of the more relevant links at the bottom of this post.

In Friday's New York Times, David Brooks does a good job of explaining why "[t]his is exactly how budgets should not be balanced -- by cutting cheap things that produce enormous future benefits." You should go read the whole thing for yourself, but here's how it starts:

Over the past 50 years, we've seen a number of gigantic policies produce disappointing results -- policies to reduce poverty, homelessness, dropout rates, single-parenting and drug addiction. Many of these policies failed because they were based on an overly simplistic view of human nature. They assumed that people responded in straightforward ways to incentives. Often, they assumed that money could cure behavior problems.

Fortunately, today we are in the middle of a golden age of behavioral research. Thousands of researchers are studying the way actual behavior differs from the way we assume people behave. They are coming up with more accurate theories of who we are, and scores of real-world applications. (emphasis added)

Scientific research often sounds funny because the technical detail needed for full understanding requires years of training. Coburn¹ doesn't provide the context for the funny-sounding research he describes. When you know the context, it sounds a lot less funny. In fact, it sounds pretty important, and you can often imagine real-world applications quite easily.

The first complication is that scientists - all of us really - have to accept that the decisions we make are not entirely determined by data and reason. They are, or should be, influenced by data and reason, but our decisions are inescapably bound up with the representation of the world that we carry in our head. So if we want to influence public opinion and public policy, we have to hire professionals to help us make sure we construct the right representation of the world.

But what is the "right" representation? That's the second complication.

Science is really good at data, evidence, and reasoning. That's the reflective thinking embodied in "Data rule!" It's not good at distinguishing right from wrong or good from evil. Philosophers argue about whether David Hume was right. Some argue that it is possible to develop a purely naturalistic ethics derived from empirical facts about the world. Others argue that ethical principles derive from other sources. Regardless of which side is right, it's safe to say that it isn't easy or straightforward to go directly from a scientific statement - "The global average temperature will be 2°C higher in 2050 than it is now." - to an ethical or policy statement - "We ought to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide to 1990 levels or below by 2020".

That puts the IPCC into a real bind. As scientists, the IPCC can provide a solid assessment of the likely trajectory of future changes in climate and of the likely impacts associated with those changes. It can even identify the technologies that might be needed to adapt to future climate change and the costs associated with different strategies for adapting to climate change or to reducing the magnitude of climate change or both. What it can't do is to determine which of those strategies is preferable or ought to be adopted. Those choices will involve questions of value - What kind of a world do we want to live in? What responsibility do developed countries have, given that they are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? What responsibility do emerging economies have, given that they will be the source of most future emissions?

Unlike an advocacy organization, the IPCC can't identify a preferred policy outcome and organize a campaign around that, including a representation of the world that supports that policy outcome. Instead, its objective must be something more nebulous and less definite. Its objective must be to provide the public and policy makers with an intuitive grasp of the earth's climate system and with tools to guide their reasoning that are consistent with the scientific details in the 5th assessment report. And because climate science has become so deeply politicized, they must find a way to do so that is open and transparent - a daunting, but vital task.

If I had good ideas on how to accomplish it, I'd offer them. Right now, I can diagnose the problem. I can't suggest a cure.

Earlier this month I mentioned that students from the Botanical Society of America helped to organize an open letter to policymakers on the importance of education and research programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Yesterday, Rachel Meyer -- a graduate student representative to the BSA Board -- was interviewed by Science Cabaret on Air. Click on the "play" button below to hear the whole thing.



Here's the blurb about the broadcast from the website:

Rachel Meyer and fellow graduate students from the Botanical Society of America (BSA) could not sit idly by when the GOP-sponsored YouCut program recently targeted projects funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the chief sponsor of non-medical scientific research at universities. She recounts the student action team's rapid response, rallying thousands of fellow students and voicing their concerns directly to Congress. Rachel describes her personal experiences with NSF funding to host Holly Menninger, and explains why YouCut's Congressional sponsors should be very interested in her research on the domestication of the eggplant. Learn more information about the students' open letter to Congress on science funding here.

Related articles

• US public asked to play judge and jury for science funding (newscientist.com)

From the Natural Sciences Collection Alliance:

February 18, 2011

Contact Congress Now About Museum Funding

The United States House of Representatives is considering a Continuing Resolution that would fund the Federal government through the end of the current fiscal year. As many as 500 amendments may be considered on the House floor.

It appears that Representative Robert Goodlatte (R-VA) will offer an amendment (#471) which would place a "Limitation on Funds for Non-Federal Museums." If adopted, none of the funds appropriated, or otherwise made available, by the Continuing Resolution could be used to fund non-Federal museums. This amendment would apply to all agency funding for FY 2011. This amendment could significantly hinder research across the nation.

Please contact your Representative immediately to urge him/her to oppose the Goodlatte Amendment #471. Please consider calling your member of Congress at 202-225-3121. Letters may also be sent via the AIBS Legislative Action Center at http://capwiz.com/aibs/issues/alert/?alertid=29348541.

Additional information about the value of science collections is available on the NSC Alliance website at http://nscalliance.org/?page_id=10.

Information about members of Congress is available at www.house.gov or at http://capwiz.com/aibs/home/.

Preparing college students for the future has been much in the news lately. President Obama called on us to celebrate science fair winners, not just Super Bowl winners. Richard Arum and Josipa Roska present disturbing evidence that U.S. college students are Academically Adrift.¹ Specifically,

• 45 percent of students "did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning" during the first two years of college.
• 36 percent of students "did not demonstrate any significant improvement in learning" over four years of college.
• Those students who do show improvements tend to show only modest improvements. Students improved on average only 0.18 standard deviations over the first two years of college and 0.47 over four years. What this means is that a student who entered college in the 50th percentile of students in his or her cohort would move up to the 68th percentile four years later -- but that's the 68th percentile of a new group of freshmen who haven't experienced any college learning.
• (From the Inside Higher Ed report on Academically Adrift)

In the same vein, I'm the co-author of a paper that just appeared in BioScience (subscription required).

Perceptions of Strengths and Deficiencies: Disconnects between Graduate Students and Prospective Employers

The US Botanical Capacity Assessment Project (BCAP) was initiated as a first step to gauge the nation's collective ability to meet the environmental challenges of the 21st century. The project, in which the authors of this article are involved, specifically aimed to identify multisector contributions to and gaps in botanical capacity in order to develop growth opportunities to address research and management problems. One of the primary gaps revealed by the BCAP surveys was that the skills graduate students identified as their greatest strengths closely matched the areas future employers (government and private sectors) identified as needing greatest improvement. Although our survey focused on only one discipline (botany), we suspect that the results are applicable throughout the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics disciplines. We suggest that it is critical for university faculty and administrators to team with professionals from government, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations to identify critical and desired knowledge and skill sets and implement the necessary curriculum changes to provide graduates with the tools they need.

If we were to survey academic employers of our students, I suspect most of them would be pretty satisfied, but we don't seem to be doing a good job of preparing science students for non-academic careers.

For more information about other findings of the Botanical Capacity Assessment Project, visit the BCAP website, where you can download the full report, a brief summary, and a summary of recommendations.

Related articles

• "Academically Adrift": Are American college kids falling behind? (salon.com)
• 'Academically Adrift' Argues College Students Have Plenty of Time to Work (dailyfinance.com)
• Singal: US college students learn nothing? (boston.com)
• College Test Leaves Questions Unanswered (online.wsj.com)
• The Choice: How Much Do College Students Learn, and Study? (thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com)
• Are Undergrads Learning Much in College? (usnews.com)

As future scientists and educators, we, the undersigned students, encourage Congress and the President to make sustained investments in the nation's scientific research, education, and training programs. The extramural, competitive, peer-reviewed grant programs administered by federal agencies are critical to our nation's scientific enterprise and future.

That's the opening paragraph of an Open letter to policymakers from science students. The students urge policymakers to continue federal support for science research and education. If you're a student, please head over and sign on. There's a simple form to fill out and a button to press, and you'll be part of the effort.