Looking Ahead to FY11 Science Budget Priorities
08.9.09 by Michelle Kienholz
Oh joy … bureaucraspeak at its best on the FY11 budget priorities in science and technology from Peter Orzag (OMB) and John Holdren (Obama science adviser).
Let’s see … the Administration is already investing in:
“high-risk, high-payoff research; making permanent the Research and Enterprise tax credit; targeting investment in promising clean energy technologies research; improving health outcomes while lowering costs; and nurturing a scientifically literate population as well as a world-class, diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce.”
Phew. So what’s next?
In preparing FY2011 Budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget, agencies should build on the science and technology priorities already reflected in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the FY2010 Budget.
Hmmmmmm. Further …
Agencies should explain in their budget submissions how they will redirect available resources, as appropriate, from lower-priority areas to science and technology activities that address four practical challenges and strengthen four cross-cutting areas that underlie success in addressing all of them.
So what would these four challenges be?
- Applying science and technology strategies to drive economic recovery, job creation, and economic growth;
- Promoting innovative energy technologies to reduce dependence on energy imports and mitigate the impact of climate-change while creating green jobs and new businesses;
- Applying biomedical science and information technology to help Americans live longer, healthier lives while reducing health care costs; and
- Assuring we have the technologies needed to protect our troops, citizens, and national interests, including those needed to verify arms control and nonproliferation agreements essential to our security.
And the strategies for addressing these challenges?:
- Increasing the productivity of our research institutions, including our research universities and major public and private laboratories and research centers;
- Strengthening science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at every level, from pre-college to postgraduate to lifelong learning;
- Improving and protecting our information, communication, and transportation infrastructure, which is essential to our commerce, science, and security alike; and
- Enhancing our capabilities in space, which are essential for communications, geopositioning, intelligence gathering, Earth observation, and national defense, as well as for increasing our understanding of the universe and our place in it.
My poverty-stricken friends at the Observatory should be happy at least. Would one of the approaches to increasing research productivity possibly involve more funding for research? Unclear, but the memo does urge Agencies to
“empower their scientists to have ongoing contact with people who know what’s involved in making and using things, from cost and competitive factors to the many practical constraints and opportunities that can arise when turning ideas into reality.”
I’m sure you’ll all appreciate this empowerment. But in the meantime, I suggest you get writing for the October-November cycle, including a missive to your Congressional delegation supporting a sustained increase in the NIH base appropriation.
Opinions Sought on Review Process – RC1 et al.
08.6.09 by Michelle Kienholz
Last week, a commenter on the RC1 thread asked for reflections on the two-stage peer review process, particularly the Editorial Boards:
Were you on an Editorial Board? I’d still love to hear more feedback on what the reviewers thought of those.
In fact, I’d love to hear more feedback on what applicants and reviewers felt about the Editorial Board review process in general. Independent of the huge numbers, short time frames and 1-2% success rate. Would you want regular study sections to use this process?
Other questions of interest to this individual (and others who have contacted me directly) include:
Was it rigorous? Did it seem like a waste of time? Were the scored apps of high quality? Did you feel rushed? Do you feel that better science got funded by the Editorial Board review process than if grants were picked by random lottery? Did the second level (after mail review) add anything?
Were new/unknown investigators at a disadvantage? Was science outside the interest/expertise of the Editorial Board members at a disadvantage?
I know some questions have come up about conflicts of interest among reviewers, which the NIH recently addressed in its Challenge Grant FAQ:
How were conflicts of interest managed for the Challenge reviews?
Given the volume of applications received and the compressed timeline for finishing the reviews, the NIH determined that it was necessary to recruit over 15,000 outstanding scientists to serve as mail reviewers (including some who would also be applicants). However, a Challenge applicant could only serve in the Challenge reviews as a mail reviewer and not as a study section member, and only for a study section(s) other than the one reviewing his/her application. Mail reviewers do not participate in the discussion or final scoring of the applications, and do not interact with other study section members.
Hmm. Except Editorial Board reviewers were asked to score applications based on the mail reviewer scores and critiques … though apparently most Editorial Board members felt they could not do so without looking at the original application … often leading to critiques of the mail reviewer critiques … and so on.
And heck, why stop at the special process used to review RC1s …. How do reviewers (and, I suppose, applicants) feel about the new review, scoring, and critique procedures?
One Editorial Board member told me that on more than one application, the mail reviewers had very divergent scores but were in agreement with their critiques/opinions, suggesting the learning curve will be steep on the uniform assignment of scores. Perhaps the NIH could use these thousands of clusters of three naive (in terms of the scoring procedure) reviewers looking at the same application to analyze patterns of score assignment against the written comments. I know just the person to write the grant application to fund this …
And what about the plan for increased use of alternatives to in-person study section meetings, which is when many of these finer points would be addressed and, of course, advocates speak out on behalf of specific applications.
Fire away, folks. The NIH needs all the feedback it can get.
| Posted in Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News | Comments Off
What would science look like if it were invented today?
07.13.09 by Daniel Mietchen
Editor’s Note: The following is an article by guest blogger Daniel Mietchen, PhD, originially written up for the Euroscientist, the blog of Euroscience.org. This first part of a two-part series on “What would science look like if it were invented today?” deals specifically with the implications of the transition from paper-based to electronic communication for the process of knowledge creation. It delves into the importance of collaboration and openness in science. FundScience.org cross-posts this article, as well as the forthcoming second installment, because of our passion to promote open science and collaboration, not only between scientists, but between the scientific community and the public. Note that the drafting takes place in a wiki, so you can join in.
The Internet represents an opportunity to change this system, one which has created a 300-year-old, collective long-term memory, into something new and more efficient, perhaps adding in a current, collective short-term working memory at the same time. With new online tools, scientists could begin to share techniques, data and ideas online to the benefit of all parties, and the public at large. (Robert J. Simpson, paraphrasing Michael Nielsen)
Sure, it is hard to imagine you reading this blog post in a world which hadn’t yet engaged in science but the question “What would email look like if it were invented today” was recently addressed during the presentation of the Wave protocol, and entertaining some similar ideas on reinventing science may perhaps be worthwhile: how would a system have to be designed that creates and structures knowledge such that these two complex processes can effectively feed on and adapt to each other, making use of the most appropriate technologies at hand? Both processes are highly interrelated but to facilitate the discussion, we will first consider them separately (in this and the next issue of the Euroscientist), and then provide a synthesis (to which you can contribute).
| Posted in Research Resources | Comments Off
Perceptions of Science – Scientist vs Public
07.10.09 by Michelle Kienholz
As summarized this week in Science, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported results of a series of 3 surveys of the public and scientists on their perception of science and scientists as well as the public’s general knowledge of science:
The survey of the general public was conducted on landlines and cell phones among 2,001 adults April 28-May 12; the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS from May 1-June 14. Science knowledge questions were included in a separate survey of the general public, conducted on landlines and cell phones among 1,005 adults June 18-21.
Not sure what to make of the public ranking members of the military as those who most “contribute a lot to society’s well-being” … 84% versus 70% for scientists and … in a little dig to that other class of doctors … 69% for medical doctors.
A bigger concern is the public response to “which comes closer to your view …”
Govt investment in research is essential for scientific progress – 60% [!!]
Private investment ensures enough progress w/out govt investment – 29% [!!!]
No wonder Congress doesn’t have a fire lit under them to increase and stabilize research funding …
You can take the general science knowledge quiz and, when you are done, raise your eyebrows at the perhaps not entirely surprising results in the elegant Tufte-esque display of the data by demographic and question.
FundScience Receives $100,000 Donation
06.26.09 by FundScience
FundScience Receives $100,000 Donation
Pittsburgh, PA – June 21, 2009
FundScience, an organization dedicated to enabling public funding of scientific research projects, announced today that it has received its first corporate donation in the amount of $100,000. The donation was received from Check Giant, a financial services company. This initial donation will support first year operating costs and allow FundScience to carry out its central goals, including the funding of small research projects.
About FundScience
FundScience is an online charitable organization which aims to create an open platform for funding the research of promising young scientists. Its mission is to generate start-up funding for pilot projects while raising public awareness of basic research. Founded in 2008 by David Vitrant and Mark Friedgan with the goal of creating a virtual collaborative ecosystem for scientists and the general public, by drawing on the growing online giving market as well as social networking , thus promoting science education and reducing the average age of independent scientists. FundScience is based in Pittsburgh, PA, USA and is currently accepting public donations. For more information, visit http://fundscience.org.
Media Contact:
Getting The Public Invested in Science
06.25.09 by FundScience
Below is a reprint of our most recent press release. Read the actual press release here.
Getting The Public Invested in Science
Pittsburgh, PA – June 1, 2009
FundScience is an online charitable organization which aims to create an open platform for funding the research of promising young scientists. Its mission is to generate start-up funding for pilot projects while raising public awareness of basic research. The organization intends to fill a well recognized funding gap of the major players in research funding: the government, foundations and the private sector, which tend to focus on seasoned scientists. FundScience identifies itself alongside these groups but provides an unconventional source of funding by drawing on the growing online giving market as well as social networking.
FundScience has discovered a market that is excluded by the current funding process: young researchers needing small amounts of funding to initiate research projects and create the data necessary for accessing larger and more sustainable forms of funding. By communicating these funding opportunities to the general public in an accessible fashion FundScience can help these young researchers generate the funds necessary to get their research started. By providing opportunities for these researchers at an earlier stage in their career, FundScience can lower the average age of researchers receiving large funding grants, provide money for training, and get young researchers trained for the competitive grant writing environment. It aims to educate the public about science and the research process, from grant writing to funding, all the way to the results, enabling everyone to be a part of scientific discovery. FundScience will create an ecosystem for scientists to collaborate with each other and general public.
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.
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:
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.
Science Stimulus
03.10.09 by Daniel Gaddy
On February 13th, the United States Congress passed an economic stimulus bill that provides significant improvement to federal science funding, and President Obama signed the bill into law on February 17th. Below are two newsletters that have been forwarded to many of us in the science community. These reports provide details about the package and its impact on science funding. The first report is from the US Congress, outlining where the $787 billion will be spent. The second report is from Howard Garrison, the Director of Public Affairs at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, and specifically deals with the funds allocated to the NIH.
United States Congress
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Creating Jobs, Supporting the States and Investing in Our Country’s FutureThe United States is facing its deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, one that calls for swift, bold action. The goals of this legislation are the same as they have been from day one: to strengthen the economy now and invest in our country’s future.
This legislation will create and save jobs; help state and local governments with their budget shortfalls to prevent deep cuts in basic services such as health, education, and law enforcement; cut taxes for working families and invest in the long-term health of our economy. We do all of this with unprecedented accountability, oversight and transparency so the American people know their money is being invested responsibly.
To accomplish these goals, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides $311 billion in appropriations, including the following critical investments:
- Investments in Infrastructure and Science – $120 billion
- Investments in Health – $14.2 billion
- Investments in Education and Training – $105.9 billion
- Investments in Energy, including over $30 billion in infrastructure – $37.5 billion
| Posted in NIH Advice, NSF Info, Research News | Comments Off