The Forum on Science, Ethics, and Policy

Aug 31 2010

Scientists as elected officials

Category: Uncategorized — Elaine Hillenmeyer @ 10:50 am

How important is it for scientists to participate in the policy process as elected officials? There are several PhD trained scientists currently serving in Congress, but one will be retiring after this year. Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (D-Mich) has served eight and a half terms in the House of Representatives. Rep. Ehlers earned his PhD in nuclear physics from UC Berkeley in 1960. He then taught physics and performed research for 22 years before going into politics full time.

While in office, Rep. Ehlers has supported increased funding for science, technology, engineering, and math and helped write a new statement on US science policy in 1998. In a recent interview in Chemical & Engineering News, Rep. Ehlers discussed the importance of connecting with non-scientists, saying “If you really want to reach the average person, you have to learn to speak about the material and be able to explain it in the terms that the public will understand, and that’s not something that happens very easily.”

As scientists, I think it is important that we educate the public about science and why it is important. But can this be accomplished as a outside adviser? Or is it more effective as a policy maker?

Comments (0)

Aug 24 2010

Court Ruling Prevents Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Category: Ethics, Policy, Scientific Advances — Andy McMillan @ 8:00 pm

Human Embryonic Stem Cells, from "Follow the Money—Russo E "The Politics of Embryonic Stem Cell Research" PLoS Biology 3(7): e234

A court ruling yesterday has halted federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The case is centered around a federal law which prevents the funding of research that involves the destruction of human embryos. This “Dickey-Wicker Amendment” has been part of the NIH funding since 1996, but since 1999 the government has interpreted the law as only applying to the creation of new cell lines, not the use of cells that are already made available. The case was brought by several groups, but all but two were removed from the case due to not having standing to sue because they weren’t directly harmed by the rule. The remaining plaintffs are Drs. James Sherley and Theresa Deisher, two researchers who work with adult stem cells who argued the additional competition for grants interferes with their work.

This ruling was only a preliminary injunction, meaning the funding is prevented while the judge is hearing the case, and isn’t necessarily the same result that will happen after he has heard evidence during the trial. However based on what I read from the ruling, I think the government lawyers may have a lot of convincing to do for the judge to rule in their favor.

The standards for an injunction to be put in place are 1. that the plaintiffs need to have a reasonable expectation that they could win, and 2. need to show irreparable harm would take place 3. without excessively burdening others affected by the ruling. For the first part the judge decided that there the creation of cell lines and the later use of those lines are all fundamentally the same part of research and Congress clearly meant to prevent funding of all aspects that involve the destruction of human embryos. This interpretation seems to prevent research under both the relaxed standards for funding President Obama put in place, as well as the stricter restrictions that were in place under President Bush. Given that this language has been included in funding bills for over ten years, it seems more reasonable that Congress didn’t object to this amendment not acting as a complete ban on funding embryonic stem cell research.

For the second and third aspects the judge decided that the plaintiffs legitimately argued that the funding of other projects could prevent them from receiving grants necessary for their work, while embryonic stem cell work could continue using private funding. I think the judge seriously underestimated the difficulties that would be associated with finding outside private funding and having to separate work that is funded from different sources. Apparently the NIH has decided this ruling doesn’t affect grants that have been paid out, however 22 grants that were previously funded won’t be eligible for renewal next month and an additional 60 were in the process of being reviewed that have to be set aside. This sudden change in funding situation will have serious consequences for how researcher will have to proceed.Even if private funding is available, it leads to researchers having to duplicate many resources if they still receive government funding for other types of work . In contrast Drs. Sherley and Deisher seem to be much less concretely affected by the potential for additional competition with other types of research. Furthermore, saying that other researchers can just go find private funding for their work with embryonic stem cells seems especially odd since the plaintiffs’ research was still eligible for federal funding and the same reasoning could lead to saying they could use other sources for funding if they don’t receive a grant.

The Obama administration has decided to appeal this injunction to continue being able to fund research. I will be interested in seeing how both that appeal and the final decision turn out.

Comments (0)

Aug 17 2010

DOE Carbon Capture Program

Category: Policy — Kate @ 10:14 am

From the DOE website:

U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced on July 22nd the selections of six projects that aim to find ways of converting captured carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from industrial sources into useful products such as fuel, plastics, cement, and fertilizers. Funded with $106 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -matched with $156 million in private cost-share -today’s selections demonstrate the potential opportunity to use CO2 as an inexpensive raw material that can help reduce carbon dioxide emissions while producing useful by-products that Americans can use.

“These innovative projects convert carbon pollution from a climate threat to an economic resource,” said Secretary Chu. “This is part of our broad commitment to unleash the American innovation machine and build the thriving, clean energy economy of the future.”

See the press release here.

Comments (0)

Aug 04 2010

TED talks- A source of inspiration

Category: Communication, Education, Policy, Science and the Media, website — Sara @ 3:41 pm

On June 30^th, 2010, the X Prize Foundation (http://www.xprize.org) announced its most recent project, “…a multi-million dollar prize [aimed] at cleanup efforts in the Gulf as a way to incentivize immediately privately-funded innovation and action.” Francis Beland (VP of X Prize) and Dave Gallo (Oceanographer) made the announcement during the TEDxOilSpill Conference in Washington, D.C. This is the 5^th X Prize to be offered and “will be focused on the development of rapidly-deployable methods to clean up crude oil among coastlines and seas/oceans.”

News of this prize was met with enthusiasm and excitement, but what gave it the extra “wow factor” was its debut at the TEDxOilSpill Conference. If you have not yet heard of TED, I urge you to check out their website. TED.com is a non-profit organization (started in 1984) dedicated to “Ideas worth spreading.” Started as a conference to bring together leaders in their respective fields (beginning with technology, entertainment and design), TED has expanded to encompass experts in all fields and move well-beyond the conference setting.

For those individuals who are not selected to attend one of TED’s 3+ annual events (the application process is highly selective and pricey), TED offers a website chock full videos from their conferences (+700 and counting) from years past to present-day. Their website reads: “Riveting talks by remarkable people, free to the world.”

A quick perusal brings up well-known names in science such as: UW’s own John Delaney, talking about “Wiring the Ocean”; Clay Skirky, “HowCognitive Surplus Will Change the World”; Carter Emmart, “A 3D Atlas of the Universe”, to name a few. There are also featured videos by pioneers in economies, politics, policy, art, music, and world health. The archives are staggering. And of course, if you aspire to one-day give a TED talk, you’ll have to keep it short. Talks run about 18-minutes in length and are Powerpoint “lite”.

I urge you to peruse their website, and to listen to talks in areas outside of your realm of expertise. It is inspiring to see how well the featured speakers use interdisciplinary approaches to communicate to their audiences and to the general public. And for those of you interested in the progress of the oil spill and the 5^th X Prize, be sure to visit:

http://tedxoilspill.com/

Several recently added TED talks featured on TED.com (2010)

Comments (0)

Jul 29 2010

Open Science Summit

Category: Communication, Ethics, Policy, Science and the Media — Andy McMillan @ 7:58 pm

I just heard about a conference that’s going on right now in California, the Open Science Summit, with streaming video of the talk also available. It looks like there should be a lot of topics that may be of interest to people reading here. From the description on the streaming page:

From July 29-31, scientists, hackers, students, patients, and activists will convene to discuss the future of our science/technology paradigm. Topics include: Synthetic Biology, Personal Genomics, Gene Patents, Open Access/Data, the Future of Scientific Publishing and Reputation, Microfinance for Science, DIY Biology, Bio-security, and more.

Comments (0)

Jul 20 2010

A Framework for Science Education: Updates to K-12 Science Standards

Category: Education, Policy — Andy McMillan @ 11:55 pm

Back when I was at the AAAS conference I mentioned one of the panels discussing a project being done by the National Research Council or NRC (a division of the National Academies) to update recommendations for K-12 science standards. The draft of this report was released last week, and the NRC panel is accepting comments from the public until August 2^nd. I’ve written up my thoughts about the current draft below.

Continue reading “A Framework for Science Education: Updates to K-12 Science Standards”

Comments (1)

Jul 03 2010

The Dismal Prospects for Scientific Employment

Category: Education, Jobs — Alex B. Berezow @ 12:51 am

One of the most depressing articles I’ve ever read in my entire life describes the problem American students face when pondering a career in science. For years, the conventional wisdom was that our education system was failing to properly educate our children in STEM subjects (science, tech, engineering, and math). However, this article in Miller-McCune directly challenges this assumption.

The authors contend that the real problem facing American students is a lack of careers in science. The case they make is compelling: Although the number of graduates receiving Ph.D.’s has increased, the number of job opportunities has not kept pace. This trend is particularly noticeable in academia, where young Ph.D.’s spend years as post-docs, with only a small chance of ever landing a permanent position as a professor. Indeed, the average age of a scientist who earns his first independent NIH grant– a huge milestone in the medical science field– has risen from a researcher’s late 20s/early 30s to the ripe old age of 42.

One of the biggest causes indicated in this article is the flood of foreigners who are willing to take post-doc positions. It doesn’t take an economist to realize that a massive increase in labor supply will both eat up opportunities and drive down salaries. Post-doc positions, which were once viewed as prestigious, are now treated as temporary, cheap labor. With such a dismal prospect for career advancement and compensation, it’s no wonder that American students would rather get an MBA or MD… or to forgo higher education altogether.

Alex B. Berezow is a Ph.D. Candidate in Microbiology at the University of Washington.

Comments (0)

Jun 23 2010

How much evidence is enough?

Category: Policy — Elaine Hillenmeyer @ 3:53 pm

On June 22, a New Orleans federal judge lifted the ban President Barack Obama had placed on offshore drilling. The six-month moratorium was put banning deepwater drilling like that of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, killing 11 people and spilling thousands of gallons of oil daily into the Gulf.

In his decision, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman described the ban as “overbearing” and said the government does not have evidence to show that all deepwater drilling rigs are unsafe. He also described the economic damage to the people of the region imposed by ban, concluding “the public interest weighs in favor of granting a preliminary injunction” (lifting the ban).

As scientists, we try to be impartial knowledge seekers. But how do we weigh evidence against potential economic outcomes? Results always fall within a confidence interval, and there can be outliers. How much risk are we willing to accept, both in terms of lives and environmental impact, for economic gain? As scientists, it is important to consider these questions, as well as the data-based ones.

If you’re interested in reading the decision, it can be found here.

Comments (1)

Jun 17 2010

“Why yes, I am an oceanographer. No, I do not study oil spills.”

Category: Communication, Policy — Sara @ 12:39 pm

In graduate school, I study oceanography. And within this field, the tiny, single-celled organisms known as phytoplankton. My favorite 1-liner when in a crowd, “Did you know that 1 in every 2 breaths you take was generated by phytoplankton?” It’s a definite crowd-pleaser. What I do not study are whales, dolphins, or seabirds, although I do enjoy learning about them. And contrary to my family’s popular beliefs, I also do not study oil spills. When it comes to off-shore drilling, resource management and energy policy, I have my opinions, but am far from an expert. Last week I headed home for a friends/family Tour de Force. Although prepared to catch up on weddings, graduations and bonding time, I hadn’t prepared myself to become my family’s source for all things oil spill.

And yet there I was, discussing the environmental impacts, outcomes and tragedies of oil-slicked birds to my relatives. The first time I was asked about the spill, I stumbled for words. When my friend asked, “So, how do you feel about the spill?” my first instinct was to say, “I’m horrified, sad, outraged.” What was I supposed to say? Truthfully, I had been avoiding reading the news for weeks. The sight of suffering wildlife, polluted marshlands, and lost livelihoods made my stomach drop. Of course I was outraged, and so first, came the emotional response. Not surprisingly, everyone looked at me with blank stares, as if to say, “Well, duh.”

My next approach was to highlight some of the science that I was aware of. I always threw in a qualifier first, such as, “I study algae, mind you.” I started by discussing ocean circulation patterns; the possibility of the oil reaching the Atlantic Ocean; the effects on aquaculture; the loss of fish habitat. I was ad-libbing, learning as I went, and practicing a skill that we often overlook while in graduate school, science communication. As I continued to visit friends and family, my response became more concise. But, my audience still wanted something more. There was an underlying need for hope or some suggestion on how they could help. Just as they were desperate for information, they also seemed hungry for optimism.

Although I find the Gulf situation extremely upsetting (I don’t expect rainbows and unicorns to appear in the area anytime soon), I forced myself to find something; some sound byte, similar to my phytoplankton 1-liner. “It was only a matter of time, BP is the unfortunate one; it could have happened to any of them,” I would say, followed by, “Hopefully, this will force us to reconsider our offshore drilling regulations.” This message resonated well with my audience, as they shook their heads ‘yes’. They also seemed to understand that our relationship to oil and to our environment is extremely fragile, and often taken for granted. Not only was the science of the spill reaching them, but the consequences, too. As I drew from the long list of potential impacts, it appeared that everyone was aware of at least 1 tragic consequence: fisheries have been shut down, causing an immense blow to the economy of the Gulf states; 1 of 2 fragile breeding grounds for the threatened blue fin tuna has been tarnished; communities that thrive on tourism have been vacated due to tar balls washing onshore.

The Gulf Oil Spill crosses energy, the environment, policy, and economics with one another, and it serves as an excellent platform for much-needed change through public outreach. We can’t undo the damage that we have caused in the Gulf, at least not immediately, but we can look to the future and protect what resources we have left. As scientists, we can educate ourselves on the environmental impacts of the spill, at least enough to provide the public (or our friends and family) with the information they so-desperately seek, as well as with that 1-liner, the small nugget of hope. It’s not pretty, it is devastating, but sometimes it takes a tragedy to cause the public to reassess its priorities.

Sara Bender is a graduate student studying oceanography at the University of Washington.

For information and insightful blogging on the Gulf Oil Spill:

http://www.nature.org/

http://tedxoilspill.com/expedition/

http://deepseanews.com/

Comments (0)

Jun 16 2010

Artificial Intelligence and Society – Review of the Documentary Plug & Pray

Category: Communication, Ethics, Science and the Media, Scientific Advances — Andy McMillan @ 1:16 pm

Last week as part of the Seattle International Film Festival I saw the documentary Plug & Pray which dealt with the development of artificial intelligence and it’s implications for society.

The tone of the film was set in the opening credits showing Joseph Weizenbaum, who was involved in the early development of computers and artificial intelligence, trying to start up his laptop and play some music, saying “you plug it in and it works … except when it doesn’t”. Most of the film went back and forth between researchers explaining their work and how it will improve society, with Weizenbaum coming in to argue that a lot of the benefits are overstated and too few people are thinking about the negative costs. This contrast is particularly striking in the scenes with Ray Kurzweil, about whom it would be an understatement to say he is optimistic about the potential for technology to improve humanity.

I think the film did a good job of presenting the importance for scientists to consider the impact of the work on society. Weizenbaum brought up the fact that when students would come to him for advice about thesis projects he would tell them to imagine being able to push a button to reverse all the work they had done. If a student thought they would want to be able to have that button, then they shouldn’t work on that project. Weizenbaum himself ultimately decided he didn’t want to be involved in the kind of research that was being done and finished his career teaching mathematics instead of computer science. Similarly, in the Q and A afterwards the director told how off-camera one of the researchers told him he couldn’t think too much about the long-term effects of his research, since then he wouldn’t be able to do it. I did wonder if that comment was being misinterpreted, since the director seemed to imply the researcher thought the consequences weren’t good. When I heard Weizenbaum’s advice about the button, I also thought that many people wouldn’t be able to do research if they thought that way; not because we think we’d regret doing the work, but because there are so many unknowns to take into account. Just considering all the possibilities would take so much work that it wouldn’t be possible to actually do the research.

I also saw what might have been a bit of disconnect when the director said that, other than Kurzweil, few of the researchers seemed to have really thought through the philosophical implications of their work. While it may have been edited to show the times they did discuss those issues, I thought several of them seemed well aware of the issues their work could bring about. However they also were often discussing it in terms of the inherent good of learning about how intelligence works. This valuing of knowledge for the sake of knowledge is something I see commonly in my fellow scientists, but often is less recognized by non-scientists – such as the director.

In general Plug and Pray brought up some interesting ideas that I’m still thinking about almost a week later. I’d definitely say it’s worth people trying to track down if it shows near you or once it comes out on DVD.

Comments (0)

Sign up for FOSEP News emails: