More Research on Using Thorium for Nuclear Power Should be Undertaken
03.7.10 by Sarah Deren
The environmental movement has been gaining steam around the world for the past few decades, recently much more so due to the prevalence of arguments concerning global warming and its solutions. No matter whether you believe that global warming is an imminent danger that needs to be dealt with now or just a silly hoax that is being perpetrated by some political or environmental group, understanding and planning our energy futures should be important to everyone since we reap the benefits of having on-demand energy practically every minute of our lives.
We currently get our energy from many sources – we use petroleum-based gasoline in our cars and natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear power to heat and light our homes, offices and everything else. Unfortunately, fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and are estimated to run out within a few generations. Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and even geothermal, have been gaining popularity in recent years but are still not in widespread use due to skepticism and cost prohibitions, among other things.
Nuclear power has been used to create electricity in the United States since the late 1950’s. While nuclear energy does not produce the air pollution and environmental devastation that fossil fuels do, it still has its drawbacks. Nuclear waste storage is always an issue – nobody wants to live next to a waste disposal site, and trying to find places to safely put all of that nuclear waste is becoming a problem as the world becomes ever more populated. Furthermore, the fission process used to create nuclear energy creates weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct, which, when put in the wrong hands, creates the potential for nuclear war.
FundScience Funding Opportunity … & Leave of Absence
03.5.10 by Michelle Kienholz
For the next 10 days, writedit will be electronically untethered and unavailable to monitor queries, comments, etc. … have fun during this unchaperoned spell … but not too much, and try not to trash the place.
Okay – FundScience.
On March 1, FundScience began accepting applications for funding of up to $50K. The deadline for submissions (electronic, at the Website) is April 1, 2010. No joke.
Using expert reviewers (3 per application – you can suggest up to 5 names for reviewers), they will select the 3 best applications that qualify for “up to $50,000 funded and facilitated by FundScience” plus potential access to Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center resources.
Although the press release is a bit short on details, a FAQ lays out a few topical priorities (though opening Website indicates any topic is fair game), preferred applicant status (graduate students are especially encouraged to apply), and help on the application process. Where the $50K comes from is not typical of extramural sponsors:
Each sponsored project will feature a dedicated webpage with an option for visitors to donate to the project. We will market all projects as well as help and encourage you to market the project yourself. The collected funds will be distributed through the affiliated university directly for the use of the project. In return we ask that you update the community on your progress and successes.
You’ll need to register to apply, but the application process is not burdensome … unless, perhaps, you aren’t used to writing a “sales pitch” for your science.
Have fun with FundScience.
ARRA Pathfinder Opportunity
03.5.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Not quite hiking the Appalachian Trail …
The NIH Director’s ARRA Funded Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce (DP4)
LOI: April 5, 2010
Application: May 4, 2010
Total costs for 3-year project may not exceed $2M – up to 5 awards to be made
This new FOA introduces a new research grant program to encourage exceptionally creative individual scientists to develop highly innovative and possibly transforming approaches for promoting diversity within the biomedical research workforce. To be considered highly innovative, the proposed research must reflect ideas substantially different from those already being pursued or it must apply existing research designs in new and innovative ways to unambiguously identify factors that will improve the retention of students, postdocs and faculty from diverse backgrounds. Awardees must commit a major portion (generally 30% or more) of their research effort to activities supported by the Director’s Pathfinder Award and the proposed research must be endorsed by the highest levels of institutional management.
Letters of reference are an important component of the Director’s Pathfinder application. Applicants must arrange to have 3 (and no more than 3) letters of reference submitted on their behalf.
Description of no more than 1 page of the applicant’s single most significant publication or research accomplishment. Applicants should submit one single accomplishment, not a summary of several accomplishments, multiple publications, or background narratives. Publications or other documents will not be accepted.
In 6 pages maximum (Research Strategy upload), describe the applicant’s innovative vision for addressing diversity within the biomedical research workforce, the importance of this problem on an institutional and a national level, and the applicant’s qualifications to engage in groundbreaking research related to workforce diversity. No detailed scientific plan should be provided since the research plan is expected to evolve during the tenure of the grant. The essay should include the following sections in the order given: Science Area, Project description, Evidence of innovativeness, How does the planned research differ from your past or current work, Suitability for Director’s Pathfinder program
References are not required but if included must fit within the 6-page limit. Figures and illustrations may be included but must also fit within the 6-page limit.
Include a biosketch only for the PI. Do not submit biosketches for other senior/key personnel.
Cover Letters should not be included unless related to an application which was corrected during the two day checking period after submission in grant.gov
PO:
Clifton Poodry, PhD
Division of Minority Opportunities in Research, NIGMS
Telephone: (301) 594-3900
Email: poodryc@nigms.nih.gov
Go forth and find the path with the greatest diversity …
FundScience Announces its Acceptance of Applications for Round One of Funding
03.4.10 by Sarah Deren
We here at FundScience are extremely excited to announce that beginning on Monday, March 1st 2010, we are accepting applications for our first round of project funding. Applications can be completed through the website and will be available until April 1st, 2010.
Whether you are a fledgling or an experienced researcher, we hope that you will send us your research proposals. All research proposals will be scientifically vetted and up to three will be chosen as the recipients of up to $50,000 in research grant money, or you can receive the use of CPU cycles from our friends at the Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center.
We are proud that we are now able to put one of our main goals into action, namely that of providing science funding to young researchers and their projects through public philanthropy. This will also allow us to continue with our aim of educating the public about science, as this will be an interactive process and we will be constantly educating about the research process and updating about the status of the chosen research projects.
We will also be writing blog posts about topics that are related to our chosen research projects so that everyone may learn more about the areas of science that are being researched and whet their appetites for discovering our wonderfully scientific world.
The best of luck to all of our applicants!
-The FundScience Team
One that Won’t Make it to ORI
03.4.10 by Michelle Kienholz
A colleague from a prior institution alerted me to this unusual case of a scientist behaving badly.
In September 2004, Dr. William Fals-Stewart (University at Buffalo and Research Institute on Addictions) was accused of fabricating data in NIDA-funded studies; there were discrepancies between the number of subjects reported on progress reports and the actual number of consent forms signed. In December,
a University at Buffalo Inquiry Panel found the data fabrication charges to be warranted and recommended a formal investigation be undertaken.
At that point, this could almost have just been an accounting error that needed to be clarified, but probably a bit more as Fals-Stewart was apparently pressured to leave the University in 2005. And clearly there was serious fabrication of one at least one according to a news release from NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:
… during a subsequent formal investigation launched by the University, three witnesses testified by telephone because Fals-Stewart claimed they were out of town. In reality, they were actors who thought they were taking part in a mock-trial. Fals-Stewart paid the actors to testify. He also provided them with scripts to use during the proceedings that were riddled with inaccuracies regarding his research. Fals-Stewart told the three actors, who he had hired before for legitimate training videos, that they would be performing in a mock trial training exercise. They were not aware that they were testifying at a real administrative hearing, nor did they know they were impersonating real people. Because of these false testimonies, Fals-Stewart was exonerated at the administrative hearing.
Claiming that the misconduct allegations tarnished his reputation, Fals-Stewart sued the University, seeking $4 million from the state in damages. The Office of the Attorney General, in its role of defending the University and the state in the court action, conducted a thorough investigation of the claims against the University. It was during this investigation that Cuomo’s office discovered the alleged fraud, forced Fals-Stewart to withdraw his lawsuit and initiated a criminal investigation.
Fals-Stewart was arrested February 16th on multiple felony charges (attempted grand larceny, perjury, identity theft, offering a false instrument and falsifying business records) … and was found dead at his home on February 23rd. Cause of death, after autopsy but probably not all toxicology results, remains unknown (or unreported). The Buffalo News suggests he may have been ill in recent years.
But wait, there’s more. Between 2005 and 2010, Fals-Stewart was not idle. According to the University of Rochester Campus Times:
After leaving UB, Fals-Stewart worked at Research Park Triangle in North Carolina before coming to UR, where he was hired as a professor at the School of Nursing in 2007.
He resigned in November 2009, and in January he filed against UR in the State Supreme Court, claiming that he should have been granting tenure at the University.
I assume the Campus Times means he thinks he should have been granted tenure versus doing the granting … fortunately, his response to denial of tenure did not inflict tragedy on others.
One that Won’t Make it to ORI
03.4.10 by Michelle Kienholz
A colleague from a prior institution alerted me to this unusual case of a scientist behaving badly.
In September 2004, Dr. William Fals-Stewart (University at Buffalo and Research Institute on Addictions) was accused of fabricating data in NIDA-funded studies; there were discrepancies between the number of subjects reported on progress reports and the actual number of consent forms signed. In December,
a University at Buffalo Inquiry Panel found the data fabrication charges to be warranted and recommended a formal investigation be undertaken.
At that point, this could almost have just been an accounting error that needed to be clarified, but probably a bit more as Fals-Stewart was apparently pressured to leave the University in 2005. And clearly there was serious fabrication of one at least one according to a news release from NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:
… during a subsequent formal investigation launched by the University, three witnesses testified by telephone because Fals-Stewart claimed they were out of town. In reality, they were actors who thought they were taking part in a mock-trial. Fals-Stewart paid the actors to testify. He also provided them with scripts to use during the proceedings that were riddled with inaccuracies regarding his research. Fals-Stewart told the three actors, who he had hired before for legitimate training videos, that they would be performing in a mock trial training exercise. They were not aware that they were testifying at a real administrative hearing, nor did they know they were impersonating real people. Because of these false testimonies, Fals-Stewart was exonerated at the administrative hearing.
Claiming that the misconduct allegations tarnished his reputation, Fals-Stewart sued the University, seeking $4 million from the state in damages. The Office of the Attorney General, in its role of defending the University and the state in the court action, conducted a thorough investigation of the claims against the University. It was during this investigation that Cuomo’s office discovered the alleged fraud, forced Fals-Stewart to withdraw his lawsuit and initiated a criminal investigation.
Fals-Stewart was arrested February 16th on multiple felony charges (attempted grand larceny, perjury, identity theft, offering a false instrument and falsifying business records) … and was found dead at his home on February 23rd. Cause of death, after autopsy but probably not all toxicology results, remains unknown (or unreported). The Buffalo News suggests he may have been ill in recent years.
But wait, there’s more. Between 2005 and 2010, Fals-Stewart was not idle. According to the University of Rochester Campus Times:
After leaving UB, Fals-Stewart worked at Research Park Triangle in North Carolina before coming to UR, where he was hired as a professor at the School of Nursing in 2007.
He resigned in November 2009, and in January he filed against UR in the State Supreme Court, claiming that he should have been granting tenure at the University.
I assume the Campus Times means he thinks he should have been granted tenure versus doing the granting … fortunately, his response to denial of tenure did not inflict tragedy on others.
OpenNSF Dialogue Now Open for Discussion
03.2.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Quite simply, an open invitation from the NSF to the scientific community:
NSF is developing an Open Goverment Plan, which will serve as the roadmap for our plans to improve transparency, better integrate public participation and collaboration into our core mission, and become more innovative and efficient. As we begin to consider these topics, we’d like to hear your ideas and suggestions. Please visit our OpenNSF dialogue between February 6 and March 19 to give us your input.
Act FAST for 100th Anniversary Edition Offer
03.1.10 by Michelle Kienholz
I love Ron Abeles … from the BSSR Guide to NIH Grants, Issue No. 100, March 1, 2010:
============================================================
Issue No. 100, March 1, 2010
ONE-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE
To mark the 100th issue of this electronic service,
the first 10 readers to submit an application will receive a R .01 Award.
Submit your name and US postal address to abeles@nih.gov.
============================================================
Joint NIH-FDA Leadership Council Announced
02.26.10 by Michelle Kienholz
The NIH and FDA announced “a new collaboration on regulatory and translational science to … help speed the translation of research into medical products and therapies.”
Oh, you know this is going to be good, starting with their description of the two, um, partners in this collaboration:
The initiative involves two interrelated scientific disciplines: translational science, the shaping of basic scientific discoveries into treatments; and regulatory science, the development and use of new tools, standards and approaches to more efficiently develop products and to more effectively evaluate product safety, efficacy and quality. Both disciplines are needed to turn biomedical discoveries into products that benefit people.
And, indeed, the NIH is just the partner to make it happen, according to Francis Collins:
“This collaboration … will use the NIH’s breadth of experience as a leader in biomedical sciences, to help make the regulatory review process at the FDA as seamless as possible.”
Hmm. Somehow I missed that improving the FDA’s regulatory review process was a major priority in biomedical research, though clearly the FDA does need help in that department. But wait, there’s more …
As part of the effort, the agencies will establish a Joint NIH-FDA Leadership Council to spearhead collaborative work on important public health issues. The Joint Leadership Council [chaired by NIH Director and FDA Commissioner plus 6 members from each agency] will work together to help ensure that regulatory considerations form an integral component of biomedical research planning, and that the latest science is integrated into the regulatory review process.
I have not yet had time to view the entire hour-long videocast of this announcement, so I didn’t hear how much the NIH budget would be increased to absorb this additional effort (which will clearly need more than $6.75M to succeed).
However, this new emphasis on regulatory science does explain the latest unusual RFA issued from the Office of the Director (supported with $6M from the NIH Common Fund and $650K from the FDA), Advancing Regulatory Science through Novel Research and Science-Based Technologies (U01), which offers up to $675K in direct costs per year for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The RFA describes 5 broad areas of research to be supported … by 2-3 awards.
More big applied science, one hopes not at the expense of the most basic biomedical research needed to fill the translational pipeline with science to “shape into treatments.”
PLoS Tobacco Ban
02.24.10 by Michelle Kienholz
PLoS Medicine has joined PLoS Biology and PLoS ONE in not accepting “papers where support, in whole or in part, for the study or the researchers comes from a tobacco company.”
Long-time readers of the blog will know that I say, Bravo! I particularly appreciate their rationale:
First, tobacco is indisputably bad for health. … Tobacco interests in research cannot have a health aim—if they did, tobacco companies would be better off shutting down business—and therefore health research sponsored by tobacco companies is essentially advertising.
Second, we remain concerned about the industry’s long-standing attempts to distort the science of and deflect attention away from the harmful effects of smoking. … we do not wish to provide a forum for companies’ attempts to manipulate the science on tobacco’s harms.
They acknowledge this policy will have minimal impact on submissions as PLoS Medicine has not received any manuscripts involving tobacco support and PLoS ONE only two. However, they note that
the business model used to support our open access publishing (the research funder covers publication costs, unless the author requests a waiver) means we would essentially be accepting money from the tobacco industry by publishing their papers. This is unacceptable to the editorial team of PLoS Medicine.
Again, I applaud PLoS for another commendable contribution to the scientific community.
