Hunting ‘Anti-Science’ At The AAAS Meeting?

This piece from The Guardian on the Annual Meeting for the organizations formerly known as the American Association for the Advancement of Science is bothersome.  In it are accounts of people who I think should know better making some dubious claims.  Some of it is the same conflation of opposing particular policies with being ‘anti-science’ (or confusing goals with tactics, if you prefer) that happens far too often.

Then we have something which is, to my estimation, a broader example of making things all about science than I can recall.

“This point was backed by Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), although she added that one specific event had brought matters to a head this year: the decision by the United States supreme court to overrule the law that allowed the federal government to place limits on independent spending for political purposes by business corporations.

“‘That has opened the gates for corporations – often those associated with coal and oil industries – to flood the market with adverts that support rightwing politicians and which attack government bodies that impose environmental regulations that these companies don’t like,’ she said. ‘The science that supports these regulations is attacked as well. That has made a terrible difference over the past year and it is now bringing matters to a head.'”

So, the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United has accelerated attacks on science underlying regulations?  I’ve read the report that the UCS released, and I don’t think they make the case.  If the science could be made unassailable (for the sake of argument) those groups that Grifo complains about would find other things to use to achieve their goals.  To them it’s not about the science.  That’s one of the places where Mooney fails to get it – if there really is/was a ‘Republican War on Science,’ only the scientists think that science is the battlefield.  It’s a tool.

Thankfully, at least some people speaking at the AAAS Meeting have a more rational understanding of how science can and should inform and interact with policy.  It doesn’t hurt that the presenters have experience in the field.  I found the four principles Irish Chief Scientific Adviser Patrick Cunningham recommended for scientists interested in acting in policy a useful counter to the Mooney-like rabble-rousing from the earlier piece.

• Integrity: to uphold the inherent honesty of scientific enquiry and debate
• Openness: to keep the lab door open, and making clear any special interests
• Clarity: to speak in terms the public can understand
• Engagement: to demonstrate that we take our duty to society seriously

Irregular Update Saturday: That Italian Earthquake Trial Could Test Risk Models

I recently read this Scientific American update (via Nature) on the manslaughter trial of several Italian scientists.  The case arose after the city of L’Aquila was devastated by a magnitude 6.3 earthquake in 2009.  The allegations of manslaughter come from statements made by the scientists at a meeting and a press conference in the days before the quake.  Several tremors had been felt in the region, and the claim is that the scientists did not sufficiently warn the public to take appropriate action.  At least one civil official has been indicated (and will likely soon have company), and I find it plausible that they may be seeking political cover via the scientists.  Wiretap evidence mentioned in the article could support such a scenario.

The latest update focuses on the testimony of former chief seismologist for the State of California’s Department of Transportation.  Lalliana Mualchin was a notable exception to the strong scientific outcry against the indictment of the scientists, and he pulled no punches on his estimates of the models used to assess earthquakes in the region.  Mualchin is arguing that the probabilistic risk models used in many countries systematically underestimates seismic hazards because rare and extreme events are not considered.  He argues for a return to the deterministic models previously used in the seismology community.  Differing conceptions of risk could be at play, and the Italians may change how they map seismic risk in the future.  However, Mualchin’s testimony about new building codes (he thinks the changes won’t have much impact) leaves that possibility in doubt.

As I noted earlier, I’m willing to acknowledge the possibility of scientific negligence here, but I’m not sure manslaughter quite fits the bill.  However, I am not a lawyer, and I am even less familiar with Italian law.  I do expect this trial to continue for a while, so there is more to come.

Scientific Integrity Roundup – Internationally, Status Quo Ante “Bellum”

The organization formerly known as the American Association for the Advancement of Science is holding its annual meeting in Vancouver, Canada.  (A first step at global hegemony?  I hope not.)  One of the panels in the communication category focuses on the issue of Canadian government scientists not being allowed to speak to the press without clearance – clearance that often never comes.  It’s not a new concern, and I think Tweets like this will become perennial.

https://twitter.com/#!/cswa_news/status/170282969636941826

As I noted last year, I think that access to the papers, and perhaps to the research data itself, mitigates the need to speak to the scientists.  In the Canadian cases I am familiar with, the papers are available, and often co-authors as well.  I do find it interesting that the scientific integrity policy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is cited as the benchmark policy.

One of the speakers from the panel referenced above is with the Union of Concerned Scientists, which is concerned with corporate interference with science (the modifier strikes me as counterproductive, but I don’t work for them).  They recently released a report (summary also available) indicating that not much has changed in terms of interference with science.

https://twitter.com/#!/UCSUSA/status/170528056769904641

This reinforces the conclusions of a similar report in 2010, which suggested that rank and file government scientists don’t feel all that differently in the current administration compared to the previous one.  The report’s recommendations are pretty heavy on transparency, which is arguably not a strong emphasis of the Obama Administration’s emphasis on scientific integrity.

Speaking of which, that project continues to stumble toward relevancy.  Presidential science adviser John Holdren posted on Wednesday that agencies will have until March 30 to release “their final policies or their latest draft versions.” Ruminate over that last phrase.  So, at a point that will be over three years since this initiative was announced, an agency can still manage to NOT have a final policy.  Whatever teeth their might have been in the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to coordinate national scientific integrity policy have decayed further.

Also absent from Dr. Holdren’s post is any reference to OSTP’s own policy, and whether or not that office will have any oversight of scientific integrity policies in other agencies.  I am not optimistic by this absence.  But I am no longer surprised.

Dual Purpose Lab Packs?

While online courses are on the rise, lab elements or lab courses are a bit harder to manage online.  This short piece from The Scientist describes how online science lab packs have made that a little easier for students taking online science courses.  Lab kits have been available since at least 2005, and my quick perusal of a couple of providers indicates one can be purchased for relatively small (but non-trivial) amount of money.  Some even allow for customization.

My first thought, beyond marveling at what is essentially a souped-up chemistry (or other subject) set for adults, is how it could be used for citizen research.  Now, I’m not fully plugged into citizen science like SciStarter, so there may be similar kits available for community-based research (monitoring local environmental quality, public health surveys, etc.), or developed by companies or labs seeking to gather a lot of data via volunteer assistance.  Unfortunately, the relatively small cost for a custom kit (probably on the order of $300-$400, based on the higher end pre-packaged kits available) may make it prohibitive for some of the most needed projects.

Keeping in mind that I may be very late to this party, I’d love to know what other kinds of portable lab kits are available and how they might be usable in citizen science projects.  I’ll certainly keep an eye out.

Last Fortnight the Bioethics Commission Tangled with Genetic Testing

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues met earlier this month in San Francisco.  The posted agenda is kind of thin, so I’d really recommend checking out the blog coverage (link is to the first post) to see if the webcast is something to watch.

The two issues for the meeting were genetic testing and neuroethics, areas the Commission indicated it would examine.  The Commission intends to issue a report on genetic testing in the last part of 2012.  Another topic the Commission will deal with this year (though not at this meeting) will be the treatment of children in the event of a bioterror attack.

The first day focused on genetic testing.  Panels covered the benefits of the testing, as well as what infrastructure may be needed to protect the genetic information of those who are tested.  How to handle consent for genetic testing was also discussed.  There are legitimate, and perhaps competing, concerns over how broadly individual genetic information will be used and to what extent individuals can have access to their own information.  Privacy is likely to be an overarching theme of the report the Commission will issue.

The second day engaged with the topic of neuroethics.  The sessions dealt first with the notion of self, and how changes to the brain may or may not affect that self.  The Commission suspects that matters in the burgeoning field of neural imaging.  Not so much with the quality of the images, but of the potential applications of those scans.  That’s where the Commission will be working.  They next meet in Washington, D.C. this May.

NIH is Still Working on That Workforce Study

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is entering into its second year of an assessment of the biomedical workforce.  When I posted about it last May, I was concerned about the makeup of the Working Group leading the assessment.  Based on their backgrounds, I was skeptical of the group’s ability to assess the biomedical and behavioral research workforce in context.  Last fall they issued a request for information to determine what issues stakeholders felt were important to consider, and a relative ranking of those issues.

In late January the NIH issued a report summarizing the comments.  They received over 200 comments, with about three-quarters coming from individual respondents (compared to twenty percent from organizations and five percent from NIH staff).  While issues identified by individuals and by organizations did not line up precisely in terms of relative rankings, the general priorities were not terribly different.  Issues of supply and demand and the Characteristics of the PhD experience were frequently mentioned, Industry Partnerships and Early Education Interventions came in at the bottom of the list.

Commenters believe the biomedical research enterprise is producing more scientists than its workforce can handle, in part because alternative career pathways are not well-integrated into PhD programs and related career training.  My initial read of the report suggests that you can substitute agency and discipline names and make much of this report sound like it’s about any number of non-biomedical fields.

The working group is still working on its recommendations.  The co-chair of the working group gave no hint of when they might be released.

Science and Technology Guests on Late Night, Week of February 13

A brief note before proceeding to this week’s lineup.  I noted on January 30 that The Daily Show had not announced a guest for its February 2 show.  It happened to be Dr. David Agus, who, with Kristin Loberg, has written The End of Illness.  Agus is an oncologist and entrepreneur who is interested in the application of proteomics and genomics to cancer.

Turning to this week’s guests, we actually have a healthy selection.  The Colbert Report is apparently on a small politics guest purge during this lull in campaigning.  Environmentalist Bill McKibben joins the show tonight (Monday).  On Tuesday William Broad comes by to talk about his book on the science of yoga.  Science Bob Pflugfelder will return to Jimmy Kimmel’s program on Wednesday.  On Thursday Stephen Colbert welcomes an expert on introverts to talk about research the differences between them (of which I am one) and extroverts.

Though I’m not sanguine about animal expert segments, Dave Salmoni will be on The Tonight Show Friday.

The Daily Show has not announced its guest for Wednesday.  I’ll do a better job this week of checking to see if that person should be in this post.

NIH Focuses on Its Other Merger Process

With the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences now a reality, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is focusing on another merger they announced over a year ago.  The two institutes focused on addiction are to be combined. As no new institute is created, less Congressional action will be needed, though I could see the annual failure to pass a budget on time delaying the official changeover.

Between now and May 11, the NIH is taking comments on a draft Scientific Strategic Plan for this new institute, tentatively titled the National Institute on Substance Abuse and Addiction Disorders.  There will also be a series of public meetings to take feedback on the plan.  NIH intends to release the draft plan in 2012, and they plan to have the new, combined institute operational by 2014.

Meanwhile, Back at PCAST

The boy with the marshmallow cannon grabbed the attention, but the White House Science Fair wasn’t the only Presidential-level science activity on Tuesday.  The President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology released its second report on science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) education (and tenth overall).  The first STEM report focused on K-12 education, and this one targets undergraduate education.  There was a release event, which you can watch/read online, should the agenda pique your interest.

Titled Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, the report outlines the need and the challenge of the big goal implied by the title.  To accomplish this, the current annual graduation rate of undergraduates in STEM disciplines must increase by one third.  As you might suspect, we’re not in a position to ramp up that quickly.

There are four broad recommendations in the report, which focuses not only on four-year colleges, but also technical and community colleges.

1. Catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices.
2. Advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses.
3. Launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the math preparation gap.
4. Encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers.

While the recommendations are generic, and to me not terribly new for those who follow the field, there could be some merit in hearing it from a Presidential-level Council.  The report claims the recommendations can be handled by a reshuffling of existing federal investments in STEM education.  With STEM education programs a target for federal budget cuts (based on what some consider unnecessary duplication), such revenue-neutral suggestions stand a better chance of getting anywhere.

The Latest Open Access Legislative Dance Can Begin

Yesterday Representative Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania) introduced H.R. 4004, the Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) of 2012.  This bill would extend the general terms of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy to research funded by other major federal research agencies.  The major difference with this bill appears to be a shorter window for articles to be made freely available following journal publication (6 months rather than 12).  Doyle’s bill has co-sponsors from each party, and is looking for more.  An identical bill (S.2096) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Cornyn (R-Texas), also with bipartisan co-sponsors.

Before everyone gets all excited, this isn’t really news, or rather, this isn’t really new.  As Congressman Doyle notes, he has introduced this bill in previous Congresses, and has worked on this specific issue since 2006.  The same is true for this bill in the Senate, and for the Research Works Act, which would seek to roll back NIH Open Access Policy.  Editions of this bill have also been introduced in previous Congresses.  As you might surmise, neither kind of bill has passed Congress.

While there’s a lot more public attention this time around, I still don’t expect either bill to pass.  For instance, this year’s FRPAA in the House has been assigned to the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.  The chair of that committee is Representative Darrell Issa (R-California).  He’s the chief sponsor of the Research Works Act, which is essentially the opposite version of FRPAA.  There’s also the question of whether this will get much Congressional attention at all.  Maybe if the Executive Branch does something with its comment period on open access, Congress will feel inclined to act.  But both branches have other things to keep them occupied, and it’s an election year.