On September 28th the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology released a letter report on education technology. The focus in this letter report is on using education to boost access to higher education. Costs are rising, which likely doesn’t help the notable gap based on income of the percentage of high school graduates that immediately enroll in college. The report recommends that the federal government take steps to support the coordination of efforts to connect workers with training and jobs. The jobs in question here are considered ‘middle skill’ jobs – needing a certification, license and/or two-year degree. They comprise the bulk of the workforce.
The letter report has three recommendations:
Better coordination of federal efforts to support the connections between workers, trainers and jobs, specifically within the Departments of Labor, Education and Commerce.
Continue the support of information technology research that can help train workers, assess skills, and provide career guidance.
Lead the private sector by finding ways to use information technology to assess the skills and employment needs of the federal government and finding the people that meet those needs.
The third recommendation, as PCAST notes, is a break from the recommendations in its report on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). In that report, the Council was more confident in the private sector’s ability to drive growth in that area.
Earlier this month the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report on antibiotic resistance. President Obama asked for the report in 2013 to make practical recommendations for combating the rise of antibiotic resistance which has been keenly felt over the last decade. The report offers three major recommendations for addressing the threat:
- Increasing the surveillance of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
- Improving the longevity of current antibiotics.
- Increasing the rate at which new antibiotics and other treatments are developed and implemented
The second and third recommendations are as much about using antibiotics as they are about addressing concerns over resistance. You can refine existing antibiotics to increase their shelf life and effectiveness, but it’s as meaningful to be more judicious with the use of these drugs. They are very effective tools, but they lose this effectiveness with overuse. By increasing the use of other treatments and otherwise trying not to hit every bug with large doses of antibiotics, we can hopefully stave off the rise of resistant bacteria.
Like with many things the United States developed over the course of the 20th century, antibiotic use and infrastructure could benefit from new investments and research. It’s hard to see this getting much positive attention in the current climate. After all, Congress has been less than speedy in opening the purse for fighting Ebola.
The report was released in conjunction with other Executive Branch actions.
The 2014 Canadian Science Policy Conference will take place in Halifax, Nova Scotia, next month. The early bird registration period closes on Sunday, so I’d encourage you to register right now. The conference isn’t cheap, but I challenge you to find anything similar to it in the English-speaking world of science and technology policy.
Amongst the keynote speakers is the new Minister of State for Science and Technology, Ed Holder. There’s a whopping 14 different panels on various science and technology matters, focused on issues of particular interest to Canada. If I were to pick just one to recommend, it would be the panel on auditing science and technology programs. There will be a presenter from the Office of the Auditor General (comparable, I think, to the U.S. Government Accountability Office) there to discuss recent reports on topics related to science and technology. The discussion, at least per the panel description, would cover the value in conducting similar programs in science and technology.
But that’s just my particular interest. The Conference is now so big that I think most anyone could find at least one panel related to their particular interests. If you want to go to Halifax (and there are certainly plenty of reasons to visit the city) and talk science policy, October 15-17 is the time to do it. Register now, to avoid future disappointment.
Earlier this year I wrote about a case where the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was alleged to have acted improperly in a case involving a research study. Public Citizen lodged a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Service’s (HHS) Office of Inspector General claiming that senior officials from the NIH and HHS interfered with the decision process of the Office for Human Subjects Research Protection (OHRP). The specific case involved a research study on premature infants and optimal oxygen levels.
Earlier this month the Office of Inspector General issued its report on the allegations (H/T ScienceInsider). The main conclusions were that senior NIH and HHS officials did not interfere in the initial decision of the OHRP, and that the subsequent communications between those officials and the OHRP was permissible under the law. The OIG issued a separate report on how OHRP conducted its evaluation of the research study. Public Citizen is not happy with the decision, characterizing the investigation as a ‘whitewash.’
While the OIG report indicated that OHRP is not an independent organization, part of the Public Citizen complaint indicated (page 2) that moving OHRP out of the NIH was done in part to insulate the office from interference by NIH officials. It seems worth revisiting whether or not OHRP and related ethics organizations within HHS and NIH should be independent from those entities.
In related news, the ScienceInsider article (and the behind a paywall, Chronicle of Higher Education reporting it references) suggests that OHRP may soon be ready to issue new proposed rules on human subjects research. This would seem to be forward progress on the Common Rule, which was the subject of a public comment period back in 2011. As it hasn’t be revised in decades, it’s long overdue.
Earlier this week the U.S. Government announced the steps it was taking to expand its assistance to African nations in responding to the Ebola outbreak. The military, uniformed public health officers, the U.S. Administration for International Development (USAID), the Centers for Disease Control, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense and the State Department all have personnel assisting in the efforts.
Joining them soon will be Steve VanRoekel, the Federal Chief Information Officer. Except he won’t have that title when he gets there. So not long after the Chief Technology Officer departs for another position in the Administration (and outside of Washington), the Chief Information Officer will do the same.
VanRoekel is not a stranger to the USAID, where he will be the Chief Innovation Officer. Back in 2011 VanRoekel assisted USAID in digital communications during its famine response in the Horn of Africa. Until a permanent replacement as CIO can be named, one of VanRoekel’s deputies will serve as acting Chief Information Officer.
On Tuesday the Senate managed to confirm two nominations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that were announced less than two months ago. Their confirmation hearing was just last week. Unlike several other science and technology appointments, the vacancies that new Commissioners are filling have been open for just a few months.
Stephen Burns comes back to the NRC from work at the Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (One of the recently departed Commissioners left to head that agency.) He has over three decades of experience with the Commission. Jeffrey Baran is the other new Commissioner. He has over a decade of experience as a Congressional staffer in both the Energy and Commerce and Oversight and Government Reform Committees.
The confirmations mean that the Commission is back at it’s full strength of five.
We have a new Commissioner (H/T ScienceInsider) for Research, Science and Innovation at the European Commission. (There are separate Commissioners for climate change and energy and for the environment and marine affairs.) Carlos Moedas, currently the secretary of state to the Portuguese Prime Minister, will take over the research portfolio from Máire Geoghegan-Quinn. Incoming Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker outlined his expectations for the portfolio in a letter to Moedas. The Commissioner-designate will have responsibility over the Horizon 2020 research programme as well as the following elements of Commission agencies:
- Directorate-General for Research and Innovation (RTD)
- The relevant parts of the European Research Council executive agency (ERCEA)
- The relevant parts of the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME)
- The relevant parts of the Innovation and Networks executive agency (INEA)
- The relevant parts of the Research Executive Agency (REA)
(The European Parliament must approve the full slate of Commissioners, and is expected to vote on them later this year.)
Moedas was in investment banking prior to his government service in Portugal. But his education was in civil engineering, and he worked for five years after school for a French engineering concern. That was almost 20 years ago. His relatively lack of experience in research is consistent with his predecessors in the position.
Also worth noting in the slate of designated Commissioners is that the Commission will be reorganized, with an eye toward encouraging more teamwork amongst the Commissioners.