Science Outreach and Framing Science
10.21.09 by Daniel Gaddy
Yesterday I wrote about influenza and the influenza vaccines. In this post, I referenced two articles demonstrating how popular talk show hosts, on both sides of the political aisle, are irresponsibly promoting irrational fears of the influenza vaccines. I believe this is, at least in part, due to some issues that FundScience was founded to address. Throughout human history, it seems that science has been demonized. Over the past few decades, this has become particularly relevant. As science attempts to address important problems that affect all of us, from climate change to influenza pandemics, science is met by stubborn yet impassioned resistance from people who have no idea what they are talking about!
While writing yesterday’s post, I was reminded of two important articles I read a couple of years ago. The first was written in 2007 by Seth Shostak of the SETI Institute, entitled When Did Science Become the Enemy? In this article, Dr. Shostak attempts to trace the origins of the “mad scientist” perception of scientists. While these perceptions have likely been around throughout recorded history, they have become particularly prevalent over the past few decades due largely to Hollywood.
The peculiar thing is that American heroes aren’t often very good at science. Indeed, in much popular culture, it’s only the villains who’re conversant with Maxwell or Einstein. The “mad scientist” has become such a cultural icon that the Royal Society held a special lecture on the subject. Some of the mad men of science (and they are, overwhelmingly, men) are just evil characters intent on destroying the world, taking over the world, or simply rearranging the world according to their personal predilections. Dr. No and Dr. Evil come to mind, as do Lex Luthor, Dr. Octopus, the overly Teutonic Dr. Strangelove, and the Green Goblin.
How did scientists become the enemy? I mean, really: who would you rather have help you take a calculus final… or for that matter, cure the common cold or figure out the nature of dark energy: Spiderman or Green Goblin? Science is useful.
And if the scientists in popular media haven’t slipped entirely to the dark side, they’ve at least gone bonkers. They’ve become obsessed with some narrow field of research, and lost sight of the big picture. When a prehistoric monster is shambling through a major metropolis, wreaking havoc and destruction, there’s always some lab-coated PhD who’s interfering with the steely-eyed military types, screaming “we have to save it for science!” And just to make sure that these howling academics won’t become your role model, they’re usually portrayed as short, ugly bald guys with social grace and sex appeal on a par with Ben the rodent.
Certainly Hollywood has done its part to denigrate honorable scientific endeavors, but the reasons for that may be partially our fault. This brings me to the second article I would like to quote. Also in 2007, Matthew Nisbet and Chris Mooney wrote about Framing Science. In this article, the authors attempt to inform scientists how to “frame” scientific issues to not only catch the attention of lay-persons, but to “resonate with core values and assumptions.”
Without misrepresenting scientific information on highly contested issues, scientists must learn to actively “frame” information to make it relevant to different audiences. Some in the scientific community have been receptive to this message. However, many scientists retain the well-intentioned belief that, if laypeople better understood technical complexities from news coverage, their viewpoints would be more like scientists’, and controversy would subside….
…the scientific theory of evolution has been accepted within the research community for decades. Yet as a debate over “intelligent design” was launched, antievolutionists promoted “scientific uncertainty” and “teach-the-controversy” frames, which scientists countered with science-intensive responses. However, much of the public likely tunes out these technical messages. Instead, frames of “public accountability” that focus on the misuse of tax dollars, “economic development” that highlight the negative repercussions for communities embroiled in evolution battles, and “social progress” that define evolution as a building block for medical advances, are likely to engage broader support.
The evolution issue also highlights another point: Messages must be positive and respect diversity. As the film Flock of Dodos painfully demonstrates, many scientists not only fail to think strategically about how to communicate on evolution, but belittle and insult others’ religious beliefs.
On the embryonic stem cell issue, by comparison, patient advocates have delivered a focused message to the public, using “social progress” and “economic competitiveness” frames to argue that the research offers hope for millions of Americans. These messages have helped to drive up public support for funding between 2001 and 2005. However, opponents of increased government funding continue to frame the debate around the moral implications of research, arguing that scientists are “playing God” and destroying human life. Ideology and religion can screen out even dominant positive narratives about science, and reaching some segments of the public will remain a challenge.
It is true that scientists tend to let the facts speak for themselves. This is what we are taught, and what we are good at. But now we have to face the facts. The people making the decisions to give X dollars to science and Y dollars to, say, war are lay-people. The need exists to reach out to society at large and educate people in a way that is not boring. This is not an easy concept for scientists, because the research that is exciting to scientists is not necessarily exciting to non-scientists. Furthermore, there is a fine line between simply reaching out, attempting to appeal to the public, and making a fool of yourself and science in general. If you do not go far enough, you miss an opportunity to gain public support, and possibly even increase funding for your field. If you go too far, you become a quack or a mad scientist, and you risk alienating the public even more and making them even more suspicious of science than they already are. We must find ways to frame science appropriately, while doing our best to protect science from biases. FundScience is trying to be a part of this science outreach effort, and we would like to hear ideas for doing this from our community. Let us know what you think in the comments.
Related articles
- Saving science from “Unscientific America”
- The Vanderbilt Center for Science Outreach
- Stanford Office of Science Outreach
- Science outreach is becoming hip
- Perceptions of Science – Scientist vs Public
Fear the Flu More than the Flu Vaccine
10.20.09 by Daniel Gaddy
I have previously written on this site about the Influenza A(H1N1) virus and the possibility, however unlikely, of this virus becoming a catastrophic pandemic. In my first post, I was concerned that the general public was being driven toward unnecessary panic by a “media firestorm” of negative “swine flu” news coverage. Now, however, I have fears of the exact opposite. It seems that people may not be taking this virus seriously enough! As I said in my first article, we really do not know how deadly this virus will be, and the truth is that there is nothing about this virus, particularly its genome, that suggests it will be a catastrophic killer. However, influenza is always deadly and it needs to be taken seriously.
It seems that these days people are more terrified of vaccines than the diseases they are designed to prevent. This is, at least partially, due to a massive campaign to convince people that vaccines cause autism. However, there has been absolutely no scientific evidence of a vaccine-autism link. None. In relation to influenza vaccines, people are worried about a variety of issues, not the least of which is the speed at which the vaccine was produced and made available. An article in the NY Times last week by Paul Offit, a professor and expert on infectious diseases and vaccines at the University of Pennsylvania, addressed this and several other myths about the H1N1 vaccine.
…Here are some of those myths, and why they’re wrong:
SWINE FLU VACCINE IS UNSAFE The H1N1 virus revealed itself too late for it to be included in this year’s seasonal flu vaccine. But the H1N1-specific vaccine was manufactured in the same way as the regular vaccine: The shot form is made by growing the virus in hen’s eggs, purifying it and then treating it with a chemical that inactivates it. This technology has been used to make influenza vaccines for 60 years, and it has an excellent safety record. The nasal spray form is made by adapting the virus to temperatures below those typically found in the body. This allows it to reproduce in the relatively cool lining of the nose, but not in the lungs where it could cause harm. This technology has been used safely for more than 30 years. FluMist, a seasonal flu vaccine used since 2003, is made the same way.
THE VACCINE IS UNTESTED The H1N1 vaccine has already been given to thousands of volunteers to determine whether it could protect them from the virus and to make sure that it caused no adverse reactions. Only then did the Food and Drug Administration license it.
THE VACCINE CONTAINS A DANGEROUS ADJUVANT Some vaccines, like the hepatitis B and human papillomavirus vaccines, have substances called adjuvants, which are added to enhance the immune response, so that smaller quantities of vaccine can be given. Some people fear that the H1N1 vaccine contains, in particular, squalene, an adjuvant that, while included in other vaccines in Europe and Canada, has never been used in routine vaccines in the United States. But the H1N1 vaccine available in the United States has no adjuvant of any kind.
THE VACCINE HAS A DANGEROUS PRESERVATIVE Thimerosal, a preservative containing ethyl mercury that has been in vaccines since the 1930s, is used to prevent inadvertent bacterial and fungal contamination of multi-dose vials. H1N1 vaccine distributed in multi-dose vials will contain about 25 micrograms of ethyl mercury per dose. The issue of thimerosal received public attention in 1999 when the American Academy of Pediatrics and the United States Public Health Service took the precautionary step of asking that thimerosal be removed from single-dose vials of all vaccines. This was done in such a precipitous and frightening manner that it gave rise to the notion that thimerosal had led to autism or mercury poisoning. It hadn’t.
In fact, subsequent studies found that infants could safely receive eight times as much mercury as is contained in the H1N1 vaccine. But the public’s perception of thimerosal was damaged. This year, enough thimerosal-free vaccine is available to inoculate children under age 6, but that does not mean doses with thimerosal are unsafe.
New myths will inevitably arise as some of the millions of people who are inoculated against H1N1 flu suffer unrelated illnesses. Health officials will keep a close eye out for any real problems. One can only hope that the American public will understand that subsequence isn’t necessarily consequence, and not be scared away from a vaccine that can save lives.
The point of my first article was not to declare that we have nothing to fear from the H1N1 virus. To the contrary, since seasonal influenza kills more than 36,000 people in the United States alone, and between 250,000 and 500,000 people worldwide, if H1N1 is even as severe as seasonal flu, we certainly have something to fear! However, many if not most of these deaths are preventable by vaccination! A safe and effective seasonal flu vaccine is already available for everyone (I have already had my shot!) and the H1N1 vaccine, also proven safe and effective, is currently available for high-risk patients. When it is available to the general public, I will be in line to get mine! Will you?
Related articles
- Op-Ed Contributor: Nothing to Fear but the Flu Itself (NY Times)
- Key Facts About Seasonal Flu Vaccine (CDC)
- H1N1 Flu Vaccination Resources (CDC)
- Bill Maher vs. the Flu Vaccine (NY Times)
- Beck and Limbaugh weigh in on swine flu (Los Angeles Times)
Measuring the Treatment of Evolution in Science Classes
08.13.09 by Daniel Gaddy
I recently wrote an Introduction to Evolution on this site outlining the basics of evolution and exploring the disconnect between the scientific community and the education system of the United States when it comes to the teaching of evolution. A new study by Louise Mead and Anton Mates, published in Evolution: Education and Outreach has performed a very thorough analysis of the teaching of evolution in science curricula, comparing each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
The authors compare their results to results of a similar analysis in 2000, which was referenced in my previous article. Essentially, 9 states (California, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) and the District of Columbia received grades of A, meaning the treatment of evolution in science classes was particularly good, while 5 states (Alabama, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Texas and West Virginia) received grades of F, meaning treatment of evolution was particularly poor. Kansas, in particular, is cited as a major success story. After several years of battling over standards for teaching evolution and intelligent design, Kansas “standards have improved immensely.”
While several states, including Kansas and Florida, improved their standards, several states, including Hawaii and Texas, actually regressed, often by the incorporation of creationist jargon. Overall conclusions from the study suggest that standards of teaching science in the United States public school system include more about evolution than in 2000. The authors also offer some advice on how to address science education standards in your state:
Get involved. Check to see when your state is next reviewing state standards, and ask your department of education or state educators’ associations how to participate in that process. Take a careful look at the language of your standards; check not only for explicit creationist claims but also for language that permits or encourages teaching material that makes such claims. Do not confine your attention to life science courses; check whether earth and space science courses discuss cosmological and geological evolution and whether human evolution is discussed in social studies or anatomy courses (as is sometimes the case). And make sure that the groundwork for all of these subjects is laid in K-8, rather than introduced for the first time in high school.
The Importance of Animal Research
08.7.09 by Daniel Gaddy
As a biomedical researcher, I firmly believe that the importance of animal research cannot be overstated. As eloquently expressed on the website of the Foundation for Biomedical Research:
Animal research has played a vital role in virtually every major medical advance of the last century – for both human and animal health. From antibiotics to blood transfusions, from dialysis to organ transplantation, from vaccinations to chemotherapy, bypass surgery and joint replacement, practically every present day protocol for the prevention, treatment, cure and control of disease, pain and suffering is based on knowledge attained through animal research.
Physicians and researchers overwhelmingly agree that animal systems provide invaluable and irreplaceable insights into human systems. The essential need for animal research is recognized and supported by medical societies and health agencies around the world.
Unfortunately, not everyone gets this point. Animal rights activists have fought for many years to end the legal and moral use of animals in research, or what they deem animal cruelty. The truth is, treatment of research animals in the United States is far from cruel. In fact, every institution in the United States that conducts animal research must establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee, which oversees the use of animals in research and establishes guidelines that guarantee safe and ethical treatment of research animals.
As for the activists, they do not simply protest and voice their opinions. Animal rights activists are becoming increasingly violent. The video below describes a recent attack against Novartis:
A vacation home belonging to Novartis CEO Daniel Vasella was burned in a suspected arson, a week after his mother’s grave was vandalized by animal rights protesters. The words “Drop HLS Now” were spray painted on the grave, CNBC reports. The protesters want Novartis to sever its ties to Huntingdon Life Sciences, a contract company that does animal testing for drug companies.
When considering animal research, there are a few points that are important to remember. First of all, both humans and animals benefit from animal research. The US Department of Health and Human Services estimates that animal research has helped extend the human lifespan by approximately 23.5 years. Furthermore, those of us who are animal lovers and love our pets will be happy to know that animal research has significantly helped advance veterinary medicine. Again from the FBR website:
Many people believe that research with animals is conducted for the exclusive benefit of humans. In fact, practically all biomedical research with lab animals also advances veterinary medicine and helps companion animals live longer, happier and healthier lives. Dozens of diseases, affecting both humans and animals, are prevented through the administration of vaccines. Many other conditions are successfully treated, in both humans and animals, with antibiotics. From asthma and epilepsy, from high blood pressure to cancer, people and their pets share myriad diseases and therapies. And thanks to animal research, effective new drugs have been designed, sophisticated medical devices have been developed and remarkable surgical procedures have been perfected – for human and veterinary medical care.
For years, there was basically one way to treat sick pets: Put them to sleep. But today they can live happy, long lives. Because animal research has resulted in medical advances for both you and your four-legged family members.
Another thing that is important to remember is that scientists are not crazed villains seeking to destroy animal-kind. Scientists who conduct animal research, including myself, view animal research as a necessary evil. Unfortunately, until better alternatives are found, animal models represent the best methods to study diseases of both human and animal origin.
Luckily, it seems that the majority of people understand this and disapprove of the violent actions of animal rights groups. CNBC currently has a blog post discussing the above-mentioned Novartis attacks. On the site is an unscientific poll asking readers whether they believe animal research is necessary or should be abolished. Currently, 89% of respondents believe animal research is necessary.
This is good news, suggesting that the vast majority of the readers of an economic blog support the ethical use of animals in research. However, one of the primary goals of FundScience is to raise money to support research projects. Since some of these projects will, undoubtedly, require the use of animals, we want to poll our own readers and potential donors. What do you think of animal research? Feel free to leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments. If you support the ethical use of animals in research, please sign the petition here.
[polldaddy poll=1852820]
The Obesity Epidemic
08.2.09 by Daniel Gaddy
The following is from an article in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette describing the obesity epidemic in the United States and the repercussions on our current attempts at health care reform.
This article is very effective at stating the obvious: obesity is a growing problem in this country, and increasingly a problem around much of the developed world, but no one has any ideas of how to adequately address the issues. Just how bad is the problem?
The CDC estimates nearly 40 percent of American adults are considered obese based on their body mass index, a mathematical formula that considers a person’s height and weight. That extra weight frequently leads to additional health problems such as heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and pulmonary difficulties.
A RTI study estimates $1,429 a year is added to the nation’s health care costs for each obese patient. The overall cost is about 42 percent more annually for obese people and even higher for obese patients on Medicare. Obesity adds 9.1 percent to the annual cost of health care.
The truth is, far too many parties have too much invested in keeping America unhealthy. From the food industry to the health care industry, big profits are made when we are sick. The food is cheap, but poisoned by mass-production and cheap chemicals like high fructose corn syrup, which induces leptin resistance and leads directly to overeating.
The most expensive form of health care is treatment, while the most effective and inexpensive form is prevention. If the country wants to save money here, more effort needs to be placed on education and the prevention of obesity at an early age. Unfortunately, until fresh, healthy foods are cheaper than the unhealthy crap, far too many of us are going to continue to consume the poisons. If the poisons are all you can afford, at least they fill your belly! One part of the solution is to ban high fructose corn syrup or eliminate government corn subsidies, which would make the cost of high fructose corn syrup more than that of natural sugar. Another option on the table now is to tax soft drinks.
Regardless of the methods employeed, the change will not be overnight. This sickness is now ingrained in our society. Changes will require not only government regulation, but drastic changes to our social and psychological consciousness. Perhaps that is already starting to happen.
Consumer demand led to $46 billion of global sales of organic food and drink products in 2007, with an average annual growth of $5 billion over the last decade. The European Union (EU) accounts for 54 percent of this revenue, and organic products make up 4-6 percent of food sales in some countries. The United States accounts for 43 percent of the global revenue stream, with organic now commanding 3.5 percent of total food and beverage sales, up 1 percent since 2005.
At least it is a move in the right direction. It is up to all of us to keep this momentum going, and reclaim our health from corporations seeking nothing but profit to the detriment of human welfare.
Related articles
- The decline and fall of high-fructose corn syrup. (slate.com)
- Food Companies Fight Soda Tax Proposal Despite Rising Obesity (Video) (takepart.com)
- King Corn – a belated review (bmimedical.blogspot.com)
- Healthy School Food (chefann.com)
- It’s time to declare our food source independence (timesunion.com)
- Rising Obesity Carries Hefty Price Tag (abcnews.go.com)
Science Exhibitions: Dissiminating Science to the Public
07.31.09 by Daniel Gaddy
The following information was brought to our attention, and FundScience would like to invite our community to collaborate on this book exploring science exhibitions and mechanisms by which to effectively disseminate science to wide audiences.
CALL FOR PAPERS
THE SCIENCE EXHIBITION: CURATION, DESIGN, COMMUNICATION
We invite papers for a forthcoming book which will explore three related themes in relation to science exhibitions in museums:
* the processes involved in developing new science exhibitions in and for museums;
* the issues involved in transforming scientific ideas or events into exhibitions;
* the challenges faced by museums in communicating science to a wide audience.We are particularly interested in new, innovative and successful initiatives in this field.
Much has been written about the difficulties of disseminating science to the public through a variety of new and traditional media. It is, indeed, a complex subject to tackle in the exhibition space, yet a challenging and multidimensional one.
How best to understand the process of working from scientific data to the ideas-based exhibition? What exactly is lost during the transformation of factual information into an exhibition environment? And more importantly, how can the exhibition work most effectively as a tool for narrating science, its past and present?
We welcome a range of submissions including, but not limited to, the following issues/themes:
* both theoretical perspectives and case studies relating to science exhibitions
* exhibition design for science: problems and opportunities
* successful design techniques and approaches in relation to science displays
* science communication in the museum: interpretation issues
* learning activities and science collections
* developing learning resources for science exhibitions
* object stories and science learning
* exhibitions interpreting the history of scienceDeadline for abstracts and bio: 30 September 2009
Selection for inclusion: 30 October 2009Please submit an abstract (up to 400 words) and a biographical note (up to 250 words) by email to both:
Dr Anastasia Filippoupoliti
Museologist and Historian of Science
Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
afilipp@gmail.comGraeme Farnell
Publisher, MuseumsEtc Ltd, UK
graeme@museumsetc.com–
H-MUSEUM
H-Net Network for Museums and Museum Studies
E-Mail: h-museum@h-net.msu.edu
WWW: http://www.h-museum.net
The Future of Brain Tumor Therapy
06.14.09 by Daniel Gaddy
A little over a year ago, the announcement that Senator Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor brought a lot of attention to brain cancer research. Brain cancers are among the most perplexing types of cancers. Indeed, until now, it was not even known how brain cancers form. It was believed for many years that brain tumor metastasis, or the process whereby cancerous cells move from the location where a tumor has initially grown and spreads to other parts of the body, was the product of “brain-specific homing” of metastatic cancer cells from other areas of the body, followed by direct interactions of the cancer cells with neural tissues. However, recent research from Oxford University, published in the journal PLOS One, demonstrated that metastatic cancer cells in mouse and human tissue utilized “vascular cooption” for seeding brain tumors rather than invading and growing within the neural tissue. What this means is that cancer cells enter blood vessels, where they can then be transported throughout the body. This information is not new. What the Oxford researchers, led by Professor Ruth Muschel, showed is that once in the blood vessels, cancer cells can establish residence and begin to grow along the blood vessel walls. By thus co-opting blood vessels in the brain, tumors can utilize readily available nutrients and oxygen from the blood without having to grow their own blood vessels, which occurs via processes known as neovascularization and angiogenesis.
The normal course of treatment for malignant brain tumors is radiation and chemotherapy. The ability of newly established tumors to utilize existing vasculature may account for the resistance of some brain tumors to many chemotherapy drugs that target neovascularization and angiogenesis. Drug resistance, in part, leads to the poor prognosis for patients with malignant brain tumors. Because existing treatments are largely futile, novel therapies are always being investigated. The research of Dr. Muschel and her colleagues not only identified a novel mechanism of tumor metastasis to the brain, but also identified the integrin family of cellular adhesion proteins as the key molecules that mediate attachment of metastatic cancer cells to blood vessel walls. This discovery could, potentially, lead to novel brain tumor therapies.
Another novel therapy, which I have had the opportunity to work with, is the oncolytic virus, vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV). As a graduate student, I worked with a mutant VSV that had a preference for infecting and killing tumor cells, while sparing normal cells. A primary application for oncolytic VSV is in the treatment of brain tumors, because VSV naturally targets the brain. Many studies have successfully demonstrated the ability of VSV to kill brain cancer cells in vitro and in mouse models. To my knowledge, these studies have not been extended to human clinical trials, but the last I heard they were very close. Similar oncolytic (meaning they “lyse” or kill tumors) viruses have moved into clinical trials, with varying levels of success. Novel therapeutics such as oncolytic viruses, gene and cell therapies and immunotherapies offer the greatest promise for treatment, and potentially even cures, of some of mankind’s deadliest and most debilitating diseases. While these therapeutics are still met with some disdain in the United States (because genetically modified organisms are categorically evil!), other parts of the world are embracing them. These therapies are continuously being shown to be both safer and more effective than traditional therapies. While more research is certainly needed, the potential remains for these therapies to change the face of modern medicine.
Citation: Carbonell WS, Ansorge O, Sibson N, Muschel R (2009) The Vascular Basement Membrane as “Soil” in Brain Metastasis. PLoS ONE 4(6): e5857. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005857
Spreading Science to the Masses
05.29.09 by Daniel Gaddy
One of the key goals of FundScience is to provide a fun, interactive method to educate the public regarding the science that directly affects their lives. Interestingly enough, a lot of other people are now attempting to do the same thing. I was listening to NPR’s Science Friday just now and host Ira Flatow was discussing DNA Art with two artists who incorporate DNA and genetics into their artwork. Furthermore, yesterday The Scientist had an article about GQ magazine’s “Rock Stars of Science” spread, which organizers “hope will help heighten the public’s awareness of these biologists and their work while showcasing the need for greater science funding.” In addition, last week Nature News profiled SciFlies, an organization very similar to FundScience. Their website has the following to say:
At SciFlies.org, we envision a world in which people have a better awareness of how science supports them sustains their well being. Our mission is to create a movement that connects people from all walks of life with scientists and researchers, and provides a vehicle for them to fund micro-research projects that expedite the discovery of new breakthroughs and advance scientific progress in labs across the globe.
Using social networks, video, new media, and other online tools, we want to broaden the experience of discovery for everyone, especially young people. Getting kids excited about careers in science, technology, engineering and math is a great way to ensure the competitiveness of our nation and improve the quality of life for people everywhere.
We believe scientists are heroes. If you do too, please investigate the work of the scientists and researchers showcased on this web site and support them with a donation.
This suggests that many groups within our society are independently coming to the conclusion that science is interesting and needs increased public awareness. More importantly, funding for science is an absolute necessity. It is time for the scientific community to embrace modern, “outside-the-box” methods of funding, including avenues such as FundScience and SciFlies. Public funding for scientific research is a largely untapped reservoir. While some segments of our society may be resistant, I think the majority are thirsting for science, technology, innovation and information. The problem is reaching these people, and letting them know how they can participate and help. This is where organizations such as FundScience come in. However, in order for us to grow and be successful, we need your help. Spread the word about FundScience – tell your friends, family and coworkers about us. You can now follow us on Twitter @fundscience and we are working on moving into other social media sites. Finally, we are now accepting public donations, so if you feel that what we are trying to do is important, please consider supporting us.
Challenge Grant Applications and General Government News
05.21.09 by Daniel Gaddy
Predictably, the National Institutes of Health is reportedly overwhelmed by the submission of approximately 20,000 Challenge Grant applications, which is more than double the amount typically received in a normal review period. NIH is supposed to award the grants by the end of September. In order to review this number of grants in such a short time period, it has recruited more than 15,000 extra reviewers and will take an editorial board-style approach. One obvious issue with so many applications and reviewers is that the pool of reviewers comes from the same pool of applicants. This creates potentially serious conflicts of interest, and unprecedented headaches for the NIH staff to find reviewers with expertise in a particular field, but who did not submit grant applications to the NIH branch that represents their field of interest!
Furthermore, grants are primarily submitted through the website Grants.gov, which accepts grant applications from 26 federal agencies including the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Energy, and National Science Foundation. The system is already inundated with around 20,000 submissions, causing countless submission problems ranging from generally sluggish performance to system crashes. With the application deadline of May 29th looming, many more applications are expected, along with additional problems. As alternatives to Grants.gov, DoE is accepting applications through their e-Center portal, NSF is accepting applications through Fastlane, and other agencies have established alternative mechanisms of grant submission. However, it would not be terribly surprising if the grant awards were delayed due to the unprecedented number of submissions.
In related news, NIH is examining its financial conflict of interest policies following a number of high-profile incidents involving extramural researchers. Comments are due by July 7.
Finally, in accordance with President Obama’s Open Government Initiative, the federal website Data.gov has been created. The website has the following to say:
The purpose of Data.gov is to increase public access to high value, machine readable datasets generated by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government.
As a priority Open Government Initiative for President Obama’s administration, Data.gov increases the ability of the public to easily find, download, and use datasets that are generated and held by the Federal Government. Data.gov provides descriptions of the Federal datasets (metadata), information about how to access the datasets, and tools that leverage government datasets. The data catalogs will continue to grow as datasets are added. Federal, Executive Branch data are included in the first version of Data.gov.
Participatory Democracy
Public participation and collaboration will be one of the keys to the success of Data.gov. Data.gov enables the public to participate in government by providing downloadable Federal datasets to build applications, conduct analyses, and perform research. Data.gov will continue to improve based on feedback, comments, and recommendations from the public and therefore we encourage individuals to suggest datasets they’d like to see, rate and comment on current datasets, and suggest ways to improve the site.
Goal
A primary goal of Data.gov is to improve access to Federal data and expand creative use of those data beyond the walls of government by encouraging innovative ideas (e.g., web applications). Data.gov strives to make government more transparent and is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. The openness derived from Data.gov will strengthen our Nation’s democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.
Some existing datasets relate to Health/Nutrition and Science/Technology. It will be interesting to see what types of datasets appear on this site in the future.
New Embryonic Stem Cell Policy
05.15.09 by Daniel Gaddy
New guidelines for the use of embryonic stem cells have been proposed by the National Institutes of Health. Many scientists were excited when President Barack Obama announced on March 9th that restrictions enforced by the Bush administration would be overturned. Under the Bush administration policy, only 21 embryonic stem cell lines that had been established prior to August 2001 qualified for federal funding. The new policy draft was released April 18th and, after much scrutiny from the science community, has been deemed by many scientists to be even more restrictive than the Bush administration policy.
The new policy requires consent forms that specifically mention human embryonic stem cell research, forbid donating eggs for the benefit of a specific person, and contain multiple other stipulations that were generally mentioned on older consent forms, but not specifically defined. The new rules are to be applied retroactively to existing embryonic stem cell lines, and therefore could have a serious impact on existing and proposed research. In fact, the vast majority of the 700+ existing embryonic stem cell lines would be ineligible for federal funding under the new policy.
The NIH has issued a Request for Comment in regards to the proposed “Draft National Institutes of Health Guidelines for Human Stem Cell Research Notice”. Prior to enacting these changes, the NIH must obtain public comment. These comments are taken seriously in determining whether the proposed changes will be enacted.
Stem cell research has been a hotly debated issue and responding to the request for comment is a way for individuals, scientists and lay-persons, to have a say in the discussion. We encourage you to make your voice heard.
The deadline for a response is May 26, 2009. The notice can be found at: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/E9-9313.htm. You may submit a comment through the following website: http://nihoerextra.nih.gov/stem_cells/add.htm.
| Posted in Research Resources | Comments Off