European Research Administration Will Get Easier and Harder

From ScienceInsider we have this report of remarks made by the European Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner about proposed changes to how researchers will apply for and administer grants from the European Commission.  While I don’t have the text of her remarks, the official Communication is available online.

It’s a much broader strategy than the standardized form introduced by the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy (probably unnecessary in this case as research funding in Europe appears more centralized).  Some of the steps involve using information technology more, a more consistent application of relevant rules, modifying financial reporting and accounting rules, and adjusting the timetables for various kinds of proposals as appropriate.

A phrase the ScienceInsider piece picked up on deals with what the Commissioner called “payment by output” for scientific research.  If you had an involuntary nervous response hearing that phrase, I sympathize.  While I disagreed strongly with those who opposed the impact requirements for the U.K. Research Excellence Framework, this “payment by output” is a whole different thing.  From the Commissioner’s remarks (according to ScienceInsider).

Genetic Discrimination Law Faces Court Test

Nature reports that the first instance of an alleged violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) may see a public venue.  The law forbids terminating an employee due to genetic information.  The plaintiff had tested positive for one of the genetic markers for breast cancer and was undergoing preventative measures to reduce her risk for the disease.  She did not have the disease, and her position was eliminated during a medical leave (for one of the preventative procedures she had).

Assuming the case is not settled out of court, I suspect one of the challenges of this particular case is relating the job loss specifically to genetic information, and not to other legal remedies within employment law.  Barring a situation where there was pre-employment genetic testing and later termination, I think any claims under GINA stand a good chance of falling under other employment discrimination laws.  Does this mean the law is frivolous?  I think it way to early to make that determination – it was passed in 2008.  It’s also quite possible that the existence of the law is sufficient deterrent to make prosecuting violations quite rare.  Just because we haven’t heard about a law or policy doesn’t mean it’s doing nothing.

We Can Rebuild It…We Have the Models

While I was listening to the epic markup of the bill that would reauthorize the America COMPETES Act, over at the Wilson Center there was a much more meaningful event on technology assessment.  Part of the engagement efforts spearheaded by the Science Cheerleader, (though there’s no mention of it right now on that website or ScienceforCitizens.net, the report released on Wednesday takes the efforts to resuscitate the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) and does a perfectly reasonable thing – calls for updating the model.

European countries modeled the OTA when establishing their own spin on it, namely increasing the amount of participation from stakeholders and the public in technology assessment.  The report outlines the European work on participatory technology assessment and describes how it has been used in the United States and how it could be incorporated into other government science and technology decision processes.

Hoping to take advantage of the Obama Administration’s efforts on open government, the authors see participatory technology as an extension of the government’s efforts to make more information available to the public.  I understand the reasoning, but I think it’s qualitatively different to make more information public and solicit more public input than to adopt and encourage the kind of participation found in these models of technology assessment.  The authors aren’t wrong to make the argument; it’s just not enough to prompt action.

That’s part of the reason why the Woodrow Wilson Center, Science Cheerleader and others have partnered to form a network – Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology (ECAST).  The effort is in the early stages, at least it seems that way from their website.  Unfortunately, it is currently focused on institutional membership, which may inadvertently freeze out the individual interest that I think they’d want to have in their network.  Nonetheless, it’s nice to see the effort, as the Sisyphean efforts at OTA resuscitation are likely to continue indefinitely.

Science on the Idiot Box

A couple of pieces worth noting courtesy of SciTechDaily.

First is another study reported in The Economist confirming what many have long suspected: that the forensic science shown on television has changed people’s perceptions of what such evidence means in court and what to expect from it.  Since the television forensics is used to advance story and tidy things up in 30 or 60 minute chunks, it often compresses how fast things can be done and how much any one law enforcement organization can do on its own.  Both jurors and criminals have changed their behavior (for good and for bad) in light of the increased presence of lab tech on the TV.  Lawyers are finding they need to explain their evidence more, jurors sometimes confuse when certain tests make sense, and criminals are bringing more bleach when they commit their mischief.

This New York Times piece on the hit comedy The Big Bang Theory misleadingly suggests that there’s evidence kids are embracing physics more due to the show.  It’s merely speculation on the part of one of the show’s creators.  What I thought was worth noting is the show does have female guest characters who are scientists.  Perhaps a distaff version of the show would be a bit too much to ask, but female role models in science – even if that aspect of their character isn’t emphasized – aren’t that frequently seen on the so-called idiot box.

Next PCAST Meeting – May 21

The President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST) continues its rapid pace of meetings.  The Council’s fifth meeting in the Obama Administration will take place on May 21.  The agenda and registration are available online.

In the morning PCAST will hear from heads of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).   The NOAA Administrator and USGS Director are speaking on issues of biodiversity in their work.

In the afternoon PCAST will discuss reports on advanced manufacturing, STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) education, health information (technology?), and the influenza vaccine.  Presumably the first three are reports in progress, and the last one is either new or follows up on the H1N1 report released last year.

There will no doubt be a webcast, and more information on that will be available closer to the meeting date.  Do register if you wish to attend in person.

Brown Weighs in With Labour Response to CaSE and Science Manifesto

This would have been buried whether or not Prime Minister Brown spoke ill of a constituent near an open mic, but we now have the Labour response to the Campaign for Science and Engineering letter to all three parties.  The Times Eureka section has a decent assessment of the Labour response, and notes a innovative proposal for more research funding connected not to institutions, but leading researchers.

The Science Manifesto added to Brown’s response focuses – not without cause – on what Labour has done since 1997 to boost British science.  It is not as forward-looking as the other party responses, but they do not have records to run on.  And while the commitment of Labour (or the Conservatives, and even the Liberal Democrats) to future science research funding is not terribly solid, it’s not unreasonable to look at the Labour track record on science in government and science support and think they would continue it moving forward.  There are some new proposals, some talking to specifics of U.K. law I can’t effectively comment on.  One worth noting is the proposal to appoint a Chief Technology Officer for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills.  I suspect this position would be more like a technology parallel to the Department’s Science Advisor than the kind of Chief Technology Office Aneesh Chopra is in the U.S.  There’s not enough detail to be sure, but this would not be a ministerial position in either case.

In a general sense, I don’t think you can claim that one of the three major parties is head and shoulders above the others on science and technology (The Science Party is a whole other thing).  If you drill down to issues within science and technology, then I think you will find starker differences between the parties, and that may nudge your vote in a particular direction.  But if you are a U.K. voter that wants to vote on science, you’re probably better off looking at your local candidates (or the likely science ministers) than at the people who would be Prime Minister.

White House Weighs in on Open Government Plans

The Open Government Plans issued by agencies earlier this month have been evaluated by the White House staff responsible for the Open Government Directive.  You can see the scorecard from the Open Government Dashboard.

The main takeaway is that there is still work to be done.  Only three agencies – NASA, Health and Human Services, and Transportation – received overall grades of green (based on a traffic light scale – green, yellow, red).  To rate an overall green the agency must hit every box on the checklist.  However, this less than perfect performance was to be expected, with the language behind this project emphasizing that open government is a work in progress.

To that end, the White House has posted a list of ‘leading practices‘ – not so much a next version of a plan as requirements for advanced standing in the current iteration.  I would expect to see any leading practices in current plans to migrate to that page eventually (May 1st, according to the Open Government Blog).  At least one agency – the Office of Science and Technology Policy – has revised its open government plan since the initial release.  Remember, not all agencies are required to submit a plan, although their parent organization probably does.  You can follow an agency’s open government work by adding /open to the agency’s URL.

Climate Scientists And The Military Take a Page From Newman

Paul Newman, anyway.

What they appear to have here, is a failure…to communicate effectively.  At least that’s the verdict from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) and its recent report, Lost in Translation: Closing the Gap Between Climate Science and National Security Policy. The military has been concerned about climate change and its impacts on military missions for some time.  CNAS just released a report on suggested military changes resulting from climate change as well.

While not found in the CNAS announcement on the report, ScienceInsider noticed this telling quote:

“At times, the scientific and security researchers found each other mutually unintelligible,”

I think this goes beyond not producing what Science Policy Assessment for Research on Climate folks would consider Usable Science (though having that discussion at some point would probably help), to an inability to understand what each other needs or can provide.

The report gets into specifics about how to better bridge this gap, but I want to take a moment to highlight a statement from the report that is more broadly applicable than the gap between climate scientists and national security decision makers.  From page 34 (and a pull quote on 35).

U.K. Election Will Actually See Less Science in Government; But Still More than the U.S.

In what might be a surprise for many, particularly those who are a bit chuffed by the surge of the Liberal Democrats, the next U.K. Parliament will actually see a decline in members with science expertise.  The Times Eureka section staff crunched the numbers, and with general predictions, even down to the level of local constituency, you can make some judgments about the likely science background of the next Parliament.  The science-specific conclusions.

“In the last Parliament, there were 86 MPs (out of 646) who were science-friendly according to our criteria. In the next one, if the results go to current form, we expect there to be only 77 (out of 651). Even if we’re wrong about some of our predictions, science is unlikely to fare much better: we think there are only nine science-friendly candidates not currently projected to win who have a realistic chance of victory.”

To compare with the U.S., in order for there to be a comparable number to the last Parliament, there would need to be 71 members of Congress (out of 535) that fit the Times‘ criteria.  This would mean a Senator or Congressman with either a science, engineering or mathematics Ph.D., experience with a science-based business, or political engagement with scientific issues (such as active participation in the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee).

In all of the hullabaloo ScienceDebate 2008 raised on the issue, they failed to make similar calculations at the Congressional level, relying on an issue-based questionnaire similar to what they sought from the Presidential candidates (the same with SEFORA).  My sense is that our numbers are smaller, but I’m basing that on what I understand to be the current number of science, engineering or mathematics Ph.D. holders in Congress (less than 20).  If you were to match the Times criteria, that number would go up, but I would be surprised to see it come close to the 71 needed to match the last Parliament, or the 63 necessary to meet the next Parliament (assuming the Times predictions hold).

I make a point of this not just to slag on my own country’s inability to attract science-experienced folks into elective office, but as a way to note an important aspect of asking about the ‘science vote.’  Discussing the science vote in terms of who would live in Number 10 Downing unnecessarily narrows the conversation.

Science and Technology Guests on Late Night, Week of April 26

We have a rare instance of a daytime talker on the list, as Steve Spangler will return to the Ellen show on Monday.  Also on Monday, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will visit The Daily Show.  Fresh from last week’s appearance with David Letterman (still not online), she should be ready to roll with whatever Jon Stewart has in mind.

This week is front-loaded, with no other appearances of note this week.