Funding Opportunity on the Scientific Workforce

I make note of this particular grant opportunity because it’s supported by the National Institutes of Health.  When thinking about research on modeling the scientific workforce, the NIH would not necessarily be the first agency that comes to mind.  But the NIH has significantly more resources than most other federal research agencies – at one point its budget for physical sciences research was larger than the physical sciences research budget of the National Science Foundation.

You can read the Request For Applications for detailed information, but here are some important points.

The Need for Mitigation…in Orbit

According to Wired Science, NASA craft had to dodge orbital debris four times in 2008.  Given that on average NASA and the ISS need to avoid orbital debris once a year, this is a noticeable uptick in incidents.  This doesn’t count classified missions or the efforts of other spacefaring nations, so the number is likely higher.

Part of the problem comes from two recent incidents, a collision and a missile test by the Chinese.  Both events significantly increased the amount of debris in orbit.  As the Wired Science article indicates, this debris increase has already forced change in a Shuttle mission involving the Hubble Space Telescope and forced International Space Station personnel to take cover in a Soyuz capsule as protection against a possible collision.  While some of the testimony at the Congressional hearing on this issue held earlier this week seemed to downplay the issue, should China or other countries become regular spacegoers, or increase their satellite activity, the need to avoid debris will increase.  It might be wiser to establish some protocols for removing debris before it provokes an incident.

PCAST Members Announced

In what may become tradition of burying the interesting policy stuff on the same day as a politically savvy move, the Obama Administration announced on Monday who the remaining members of the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) will be.  It had already been announced that Eric Lander and Harold Varmus will join Presidential Science Adviser Holdren as co-chairs of PCAST.  Dr. Landren directs the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard and holds appointments in biology faculties at both schools.  Dr. Varmus is a fomer NIH Director and currently heads the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

I’ll list the other members after the jump, and you can look at more complete bios on the PCAST website (which, sadly, is woefully thin for the launch of the new Council).  Two points worth noting: a higher percentage of PCAST members have backgrounds in life science fields than in the past; and a few PCAST members have served in government S&T positions before.

Swine Flu, Technology and Policy

This is not the first time flu and technology have intersected.  While Google Flu Trends is currently mum on the swine flu, you can track CDC notices via Twitter or its official Swine Flu page.  Global tweets are also available (H/T Marc Ambinder).

A couple of policy points worth making here.  We currently have an acting director of the Centers for Disease Control, no doubt at least in part due to the continuing absence of a confirmed Secretary of Health and Human Services.  While that might also explain why Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has been the highest profile government face on this issue, it’s a good argument to try and make sure the transition process can happen more smoothly and more quickly to allow for staff to take positions sooner after January 20 than is currently the case.  Secondly, it would be worthwhile to evaluate the public health response in the U.S. to this flu (especially if it gets worse), and see what changes, if any, need to be made.  $420 million in funds for pandemic flu were removed from the recent funding bills, and it would be nice to know whether that was a good call.

A final point.  It’s relatively early in the process here.  While the cases in the United States have not been as widespread, nor as lethal, as those in Mexico, we simply don’t know enough yet to be sure.  This item from the New York Times explains some of the yet unanswered questions that will help map this particular outbreak.  This post from Effect Measure helps explain what the numbers mean (and don’t mean) and what makes an epidemic, pandemic, and outbreak.

Varmus Interview Discusses NIH Organization, Research Balance

Co-Chair of the new President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST), Dr. Harold Varmus, has a new interview at American Scientist‘s website.  The interview covers his work in science and science policy.  Those readers not familiar with biomedical research or the NIH will learn more about how the NIH may not be as disease-centered as coventionally thought.  You will also find some suggestion that PCAST will be a more vital and active advisory body than it’s been before.

Unfortunately, the interviewer asks a question that somehow completely confuses the problem of politicization in science.

Do you think controversial scientific questions, such as the use of human embryonic stem cells, can ever be removed from politics in the United States?

While Varmus appears to accept the premise and say that they can, a careful reading of his response demonstrates how questions involving ethics choices – like the use of human embryonic stem cells – always involve some level of politics.  He speaks of how the U.K. and the U.S. used different forms of regulation to control the use of human embryonic stem cells, and how an effective incorporation of scientific expertise in the political process would allow for effective rules on research to be established and used.

President Obama to Address National Academy of Sciences

As part of its annual meeting, President Obama will address the National Academy of Sciences on Monday, April 27.  The address will take place at 9 a.m., Eastern Daylight Time, and there will be an audio webcast.  Link to the Academies’ home page starting at 8:55 to follow the address live, and check back after the address for audio and video recordings.  As only three other sitting presidents have addressed the Academy of Sciences (much less the Academy of Engineering or Institute of Medicine), this is noteworthy.  Perhaps the President will give further detail to the oft-repeated phrase from his inaugural address – “restore science to its rightful place” – or give some better idea of what he means by scientific integrity.

National Academies Releases Thousands of Reports Online

I’m a bit late with this, but it’s still worth spreading the word.

Through Google Book Search, earlier this month the National Academies released approximately 9,000 of their reports online.  The reports, which run from 1863-1997, join several already available online through the National Academies Press.  It includes the earliest issues of Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.  The full complement of National Academies report should be available sometime in 2011.

You can read more about it through the Academies’ press release, and access the reports through Google Book Search.  Unfortunately, the indexing on Google Book Search makes the National Academies Press search engine look sane by comparison.

OSTP Seeks Public Comment on Scientific Integrity

The Office of Science and Technology Policy released today a Request for Public Comment in the Federal Register (H/T ScienceInsider).  The comments would inform the drafting of recommendations to the President for action to preserve scientific integrity in the executive branch.  These recommendations were required by a Presidential Memorandum* issued by President Obama in early March.  As noted here when it was released, the memo seems to be better as a political statement than as effective policy.  Hopefully the comments process can nudge it towards the latter.

The comment period is brief – it ends at 5 p.m. Eastern time on May 13.  You can submit comments via email (scientificintegrity@ostp.gov), online (though I’d make sure they fixed the link on that page), or by mail (address is listed in the Federal Register notice).  Comments can also be made on the new OSTP Blog, with blog posts for each of the principles outlined below.  You will need to register in order to comment on the blog.

There is some guidance for the comments, which are after the jump:

Senator Lugar Wants to Create Science Envoys

Update – the bill text is now available

Senator Richard Lugar, (R-Indiana) introduced a bill yesterday calling for the creation of “Science Envoys” through the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (H/T ScienceInsider).  These envoys would receive grants for short-term stays abroad.  While abroad, the scientists would forge connections between their host institutions in the U.S. and those in the country where they are posted.  This would be distinct from the Consular Officers responsible for science that are posted to some State Department facilities around the world.

Unfortunately, Senator Lugar’s website is not as current as you might like, so the statement he issued on the program is not yet available online (though it appears to have been excerpted in full at a different site).  Likewise, the bill (S838), is not yet available via THOMAS, the legislative tracking site administered by the Library of Congress.  Once it is, you can read it here.

I like the idea, as it would be a welcome supplement to the international exchanges already happening with some universities establishing branch campuses overseas, and with scholars pursuing opportunities like the Fulbright program to pursue research and teaching in other countries.  The U.S. has succeeded with this kind of public diplomacy before, so why not try again?  Hopefully the legislation will allow for stays of sufficient duration, and will be funded with sufficient resources to encourage top scientists to pursue these opportunities.

How Effective Are University Rankings?

The European Commissioner for Science and Research, Januz Potocnik, recently blogged (H/T ScienceInsider) about a workshop focused on measuring and comparing universities.  The Commission has an Expert Group focused on assessing university research and recently released an interim report on the use of rankings to assess university based research.  While acknowledging some honest disagreement over whether such rankings are useful, the group did note that the current methodologies behind rankings like the Times QS World could use improvement.

What I found particularly interesting was Commissioner Potocnik’s idea that more coherent university rankings could stimulate the funding of university research.

Rankings, which have been shown to influence the behaviour of universities and promote strategic thinking and planning, could help universities to develop better management practices and thus attract potential external funders. This is in the end what we are trying to do – secure the future for research activities in universities which will benefit our societies for a long time to come…

While the notion is encouraging, I’m reminded of how universities (at least in the U.S.) have set goals like aiming for the top 30 on a particular ranking or to boost their position in a magazine’s list.  These efforts often seem focused on the output – the numerical ranking – rather than desired outcomes like increased research funding and quality.  While by no means perfect (and certainly more expensive), the more involved United Kingdom university ratings seem a better means of acheiving these desired outcomes.