The US might be losing out to China in its scientific influence in key countries

This week, the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology holds the first of its hearings on the US, China and the fight for global leadership. The martial language is no mistake; to many interested in science and policy, this is a battle.

When he was elected to chair the committee in January, Frank Lucas listed “the threats we face from the Chinese Communist Party” as one of the big issues he wanted to work on, alongside the supply chain for advanced tech, space and clean energy.

The hearing charter notes that the meeting tomorrow will “examine the CCP’s attempts to surpass US scientific leadership and the economic and national security implications that it has for America”.

Of course, fears about China’s meteoric rise as a research power are not new.

Last year, a report from Japan’s science ministry suggested that China had overtaken the US in terms of its number of research papers and most-cited papers. (That report was based on data from Clarivate—Research Professional News is an editorially independent part of Clarivate.)

The warnings that China could overtake the US go back well before that.

But while there has been much attention paid to direct US-China ties and competition, there has been far less focus on how China is increasingly winning the hearts and minds of researchers in developing nations.

China has aggressively courted the global south, notably via its Belt and Road development initiative.

It has also sought to entice foreign researchers to move to China via the Thousand Talents Plan. Research unveiled last week suggests some successes in this drive for ties.

Yusuf Ikbal Oldac, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Policy Studies at Lingnan University in Hong Kong, carried out research comparing how many papers the US and China co-authored with six other countries: Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

While scientists in both the US and China have worked increasingly with their counterparts in those six countries over the years, collaboration with China-based researchers rose at an “astonishing” rate in the past decade, Oldac said as he shared his findings at a seminar hosted by the UK-based Centre for Global Higher Education.

China on the up

The findings look like a sign that China is gaining on the US, which was the world leader in scientific research output for a long time.

There is “a clear pattern of moving away from a single pole in global science. The Chinese system is moving up fast and is gaining increasingly more space from the US science system,” Oldac said.

Using data from the Web of Science and Scopus—the former a Clarivate product—Oldac found that scientific collaboration between the six nations and China was growing at an “exponential” rate compared with a steadier, slower increase in co-authorship with the US.

For 2021, the year of the latest full available data, there were more co-authored publications with China than with the US in total. On average, there were 3,000 co-authored papers between the six countries and the US, compared with 3,440 with China.

Pakistan had just 2,310 co-authored papers with the US in 2021 but a staggering 7,200 with China. There were 1,370 US-Malaysian research collaborations, compared with 2,250 China-Malaysia researcher pairings.

China has invested large amounts in Pakistani scientific and technological infrastructure in particular, Oldac explained, while US investment in the country’s science does not come close.

Malaysia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia collaborated more with China, while researchers in Egypt, Iran and Turkey worked more with the US, the study found.

“These results are illuminating in that scientists may not constantly follow the overall policies and geopolitical stances of their countries,” Oldac said. He pointed to Iran, which he found to collaborate more with the US scientifically despite the longstanding geopolitical tensions between the two nations.

“This situation is a potential indication that scientists and scientific endeavours may not always align and follow national-level policies and stances,” Oldac said.

An uncertain future

Although Oldac said his findings confirmed that the US is losing out to China, he believes this may not last.

Oldac thinks the decrease in global American scientific influence may not just be due to China’s “meteoric” rise but equally down to the US’s increasingly domestic focus in recent years.

This may have “deterred” international research collaborations, he believes. If this outlook changes and a more international agenda rules once again, research collaboration patterns could also change.

Meanwhile, China closing itself off to the world due to Covid-19 could have an impact on international research collaboration.

Collaboration networks are often established after initial face-to-face contact, which builds trust. China closing down its borders could therefore strike a blow to its scientists’ international research connections in the medium and long term, Oldac said.

Trust is in short supply everywhere at the moment, it seems.

And finally…

As we reported last week, researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, are crowdsourcing support to search for alien life.

The project—Are We Alone in the Universe?—wants members of the public to classify radio signals that might hide signs that some other intelligence is out there.

Some researchers have warned for a while that if there are aliens out there, contacting them might be a bad idea as they could come and destroy humanity.

The team behind this latest project might have some explaining to do to the university if that turns out to be right.

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Rachael Pells brings us the news that Republicans in the House of Representatives have launched an investigation into the origins of Covid-19 and the use of taxpayer money for coronavirus research.

She also has the story that postdoctoral researchers and people who work with them are being encouraged to give feedback on how the National Institutes of Health could improve its training programmes.

In our US news roundup, a call from the National Science Foundation and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has awarded funding of $4.1 million to accelerate research into the ethical use of artificial intelligence.

In the news

The New York Times reports that challenges to student loan cancellations have reached the Supreme Court, and the Department of Energy says that a lab leak is likely to have caused the Covid-19 pandemic.

In The Washington Post, the president’s student loan forgiveness programme has come before the Supreme Court, and high-skilled visa holders are at risk of deportation amid tech layoffs.

In The Wall Street Journal, Stanford University faculty say that anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech, the student loan forgiveness case at the Supreme Court hinges on ‘harm’, the Supreme Court’s student loan case will test the limits of presidential power, there’s an explainer on how repaying student loans is changing, and the energy department says that a lab leak is the most likely origin of the pandemic.

Reuters says that Nasa and SpaceX have postponed the launch of the next space station crew.

The Associated Press explains the arguments in the Supreme Court student loan case, a judge has written of the ‘crushing weight’ of student loans, and the Rales Foundation has bet big on Carnegie Mellon University science, technology, engineering and maths students.

Science reports that ‘unfair’ medical screening plagues polar research, journals are hammering out policies on artificial intelligence, quantum computers have taken a key step towards curbing errors, a society has backpedalled from actions against scientists who staged a climate protest, and there’s a look at how to fold indigenous ethics into psychedelics studies.

In Nature, the China Initiative’s shadow looms large for US scientists.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy reports on the Rales Foundation’s support for science, technology, engineering and maths students at Carnegie Mellon University.

The week ahead

Monday

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine hold the first of two national symposia looking at supporting those in science, engineering and medicine with caregiving responsibilities.

Tuesday

The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology holds a meeting on the US, China and the fight for global leadership.

The House Committee on Foreign Affairs is holding a meeting on ‘combating the generational challenge of Chinese Communist Party aggression’.

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability is discussing what can be learned from Covid policy decisions during the pandemic.

The National Academies run a webinar about a report on oil pollution research.

Wednesday

A House subcommittee on consumer protection and commerce discusses innovation and data privacy.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works looks at the nomination of Joseph Goffman to be an assistant administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Senate Committee on Budget looks at climate change and the economic risks to coastal communities.

The National Academies run a virtual event on implicit bias in publications.

The Playbook would not be possible without Robin Bisson, Rachel Magee, Andrew Silver, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post America’s grip loosens? appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: AI ethics, therapeutics production and the search for alien life

In depth: Republicans in the House of Representatives have launched an investigation into the origins of Covid-19 and the use of taxpayer money for coronavirus research.

Full story: House Republicans launch investigation into Covid origins
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

NIH asks for input on its postdoctoral training—Postdocs and people who work with them are encouraged to provide feedback

Uncomfortable truths—Researchers still face struggles against sexual harassment and racial inequality
 

 
Here is the rest of the US news this week…

US and Australia award $4.1m for ethical AI

A call from the National Science Foundation and Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation has awarded funding of $4.1 million to accelerate research into the ethical use of artificial intelligence. US and Australian researchers were invited to submit collaborative proposals on the use of AI to address major societal problems, including drought resilience and infectious diseases. The winning projects include ideas for mitigation of bias in AI-powered modelling of how diseases spread. The current round allocated $1.8m to US applicants and $2.3m to their Australian counterparts.

Darpa aims to speed up production of therapeutics

A project launched by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency aims to develop tools for on-demand manufacturing of protein-based drugs such as antibodies and vaccines. Darpa said the slow pace of development and “substantial costs associated with current protein production methods” were limiting the Department of Defense’s access to critical therapies. The Reimagining Protein Manufacturing project will enable research teams to demonstrate rapid production of protein products to better support urgent care needs.

California researchers crowdsource search for alien life

Researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, are asking citizen scientists to help them find signs of alien life. The project—Are We Alone in the Universe?—is funded by the Planetary Society and Nasa. It invites members of the public to classify radio signals that may have been emitted tens of thousands of light years away. Participants watch a brief online tutorial before answering basic questions about each signal, contributing to a larger dataset for wider analysis.

The post US news roundup: 17-23 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Non-governmental organisation included in investigation strongly rebuts Republicans’ assertions

Republicans in the House of Representatives have launched an investigation into the origins of Covid-19 and the use of taxpayer money for coronavirus research.

Brad Wenstrup, chair of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic, and James Comer, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, this month accused senior officials of a “cover-up” around what the chairs said was the funnelling of US public funding to China “to conduct risky research”.

They called for information from former chief medical adviser Anthony Fauci and from leaders of the EcoHealth Alliance, a US-based non-governmental organisation whose stated aim is to support research into pandemic prevention.

Their move follows an initial request for information sent in December by House Republicans including Comer, with both requests claiming that there is increasing evidence that the virus causing Covid-19 originated at the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.

“Understanding the origins of Covid-19 is essential to providing accountability and protecting Americans in the future,” said Comer this month. “We know EcoHealth Alliance acted as a middleman, improperly funnelling thousands of taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan lab to conduct risky gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses which could have started the pandemic.”

“We will continue to follow the facts to determine what could have been done differently…and hold US government officials that took part in any sort of cover-up accountable.”

Strong rebuttal

A spokesperson for the EcoHealth Alliance told Research Professional News that the group had been in contact with the committees to provide the information requested.

They said that “a number of baseless allegations” had been made about the origins of Covid-19.

“Evidence does not ‘continue to mount pointing to the virus leaking from an insecure lab in Wuhan’,” they said. “In fact, expert scientists who have reviewed the evidence have found no data supporting this hypothesis.”

Statements that the EcoHealth Alliance “improperly funnelled thousands of taxpayer dollars” to the Wuhan Institute of Virology “are also untrue”, the spokesperson said.

“EcoHealth Alliance did provide funds to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, but this was done as part of a standard sub-award of a National Institutes of Health research grant,” they continued. “Neither EcoHealth Alliance nor the Wuhan Institute of Virology conducted gain-of-function research using National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases grant funds.”

Gain-of-function research is work that aims to alter viruses in ways that could affect their ability to cause disease, as a way of increasing knowledge. It has been posited by some as a potential source of Covid-19, although the suggestion is highly controversial.

Research Professional News has asked government offices including the National Institutes of Health and Fauci’s office for comment.

The post House Republicans launch investigation into Covid origins appeared first on Research Professional News.

Postdocs and people who work with them are encouraged to provide feedback

Postdoctoral researchers and people who work with them are being encouraged to give feedback on how the National Institutes of Health could improve its training programmes.

In a blogpost published on 14 February, NIH deputy director Mike Lauer said that recent data from the National Science Foundation showed evidence of a substantial decline in the number of US postdocs, which he said had been attributed to financial challenges and uncertainty following the Covid-19 pandemic.

The NIH is asking for input on several aspects of its postdoctoral training programmes, including recruitment challenges, postdocs’ roles and responsibilities and how NIH policies, programmes or resources could be modified or expanded.

The findings will be collated and addressed by a dedicated working group the NIH set up in November last year.

Lauer said: “It is a high priority for the NIH to identify, grow and retain investigators across these critical career stages, because they convey new insights, develop innovative ideas and advance the translation of scientific research into improved health for all.”

The consultation period is open until 14 April.

The post NIH asks for input on its postdoctoral training appeared first on Research Professional News.

Researchers still face struggles against sexual harassment and racial inequality

The research world is facing up to some very uncomfortable truths.

Last week, two reports once again showed that two of the biggest and nastiest problems in research—sexual harassment and deep-rooted inequalities—continue to fester.

First, let’s look at the National Science Foundation.

Last year, an assessment carried out by the flagship US national agency for non-medical research found dreadful levels of sexual assault, sexual harassment and stalking in the US Antarctic Program, which is managed by the NSF.

More than 80 per cent of participants in focus groups of programme staff knew someone who had experienced sexual assault or sexual harassment. Human resource departments at contractors and subcontractors were described as “dismissing, minimising, shaming and blaming victims”.

The assessment led the agency to examine its own policies and put measures in place to protect staff working in isolated research environments. These include creating an NSF office focused on sexual assault and harassment, increasing resources for victims, vetting new personnel, improving training and enhancing physical security measures.

Ingrained problem

On 16 February, the NSF gave an update on its actions to the National Science Board, the agency’s governing body. Karen Marrongelle, NSF chief operating officer, did not mince her words on the challenges of stamping out sexual assault and harassment.

“Really what we are doing is dismantling decades of culture: the norms, the routines, the expectations and the perceptions that have permeated Antarctica,” Marrongelle said.

Asked about how the agency could have let such a situation occur, Marrongelle highlighted blind spots in “power differentials” and communication channels.

“So much of the harassment that has taken place, and especially in remote locations, happens when someone is isolated from their support network and they don’t have lines of communication,” Marrongelle said. “That’s where these power differentials can really create harm.”

The NSF has hired a victim advocate in Antarctica, set up an email address for submitting complaints and is launching a 24-hour crisis hotline in April.

Despite outlining such efforts to improve communication channels, Marrongelle said “we still have more work to do there”.

Daniel Reed, chair of the National Science Board, said that in January the board had taken part in town hall meetings with the NSF at research stations in Antarctica. “We continue to hear additional concerns about the need to improve communication, concerns about fears of retaliation, and challenges related to research infrastructure,” Reed said.

He added that the NSB and the NSF had worked “with a sense of urgency” to tackle unsafe research environments in Antarctica and more broadly across the research community.

While this may come as welcome news to those impacted by sexual assault and harassment, changing an ingrained culture does not happen quickly.

Racism in Stemm

That problem can be seen clearly in a report last week from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on advancing anti-racism, diversity, equity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (Stemm) organisations.

The basic conclusion: research still has a racism problem.

“Racism at the individual and interpersonal levels impedes Stemm careers for people from minoritised groups. This racism is often perpetuated by gatekeepers through stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination,” the report notes.

It points out that people from all racial and ethnic backgrounds show equal interest in these research fields when they begin undergraduate degrees. “By graduation, that equality is gone, resulting in a lack of diversity in those who complete both undergraduate and graduate Stemm degrees.”

This feeds through into science careers in academia and industry, entrenching existing inequalities and prejudices.

“The history of systemic racism in the US—both written laws and policies and a culture of practices and beliefs—has harmed Black people, Indigenous people, Latine, Asian American and other people from minoritised racial and ethnic groups, ingrained patterns that continue to this day,” said committee co-chair Susan Fiske in a statement.

As the report notes, discussion of the deeply ingrained racism in institutions has been fuelled by the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and Rayshard Brooks. But, as it also notes, “even as countless organisations have made public statements in support of these efforts, US society as a whole still lacks a concerted approach to bring about needed sustainable, structural change”.

The report is a vast survey of racism in research and what could be done about it.

Research leaders will find much to ponder in its recommendations, which include that funding agencies should increase grants and awards for work to study how Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Tribal Colleges and Universities have supported their students and faculty. It also recommends that there should be specific hiring of individuals from underrepresented groups, “especially in positions where minoritised role models are often missing (e.g. leadership and mentorship), with the aim of building a critical mass”.

The stark conclusion: “As this report shows, based on decades of research and analysis, racial disparities in Stemm careers do not rest on individual deficiency in candidates or even primarily on the individual racism of institutional and organisational gatekeepers. Racism is embedded in our society.”

Longstanding problems cannot be solved with the publication of a report. But both these reports show major organisations striving to change things that are clearly wrong and have been left unaddressed for too long.

And finally…

There was another awful shooting on a university campus last week, with three students at Michigan State University losing their lives. The university reopens today.

As has been widely reported, some of those forced to flee the gunman—who went on to take his own life—were survivors of previous shootings that appalled the nation.

That touches on the most truly shocking thing – the frequency of these shootings. At some major news outlets, the day was not even over before this latest tragic event was no longer the top story.

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Andrew Silver reports that there is “great urgency” for “major improvements” at facilities managed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, according to an independent study.

Rachel Magee brings us the news that the National Science Foundation has launched a $60 million scheme to strengthen universities’ ability to translate research into real-world applications.

In our US news roundup, the Office of Research Integrity has revealed that Sheila Garrity will be its new director.

In the news

An opinion piece in The New York Times says that biology is dangerously outpacing policy.

In The Washington Post, student loan borrowers’ struggles expose flaws in the system, and Georgetown students are pushing for a stronger university response to hate.

A Politico opinion piece says it’s good that Nasa refused to cancel James Webb.

In The Wall Street Journal, the education department is to review deals between colleges and online degree programmes, two Stanford academics helped secure Sam Bankman-Fried’s release on bail, New Mexico State University has fired a basketball coach, students faced a flood of bad information as the Michigan State University shooting unfolded, the gunman had no ties to the university, and the shooting has put the spotlight on campus security efforts.

The Associated Press says that a suspect has been arrested in the slaying of a university police officer, funerals have been held for the victims of the Michigan State University attack, and the Great Backyard Bird Count shows the power of citizen science.

Science reports that Canada has moved to ban funding for ‘risky’ foreign collaborations, US scientific leaders need to address structural racism, and a journal has declined to retract a fish research paper despite a fraud finding.

Nature says that researchers are scrambling as Twitter plans to end free data access, and there’s an outcry as scientists are sanctioned for a climate protest.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy looks at how one university used data to eliminate zombie proposals.

The week ahead

Monday

Today is Washington’s Birthday, a federal holiday.

Tuesday

The National Academies’ Board on Science Education is webcasting a meeting on equity and inclusion in science education.

Wednesday

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy hosts a webinar on the state of research and evidence use in government.

Thursday

The National Academies present findings from a report on challenges for fundamental research in high-energy density science.

The National Institutes of Health is hosting a meeting of the “next generation of Black leaders in genetic science”.

The Playbook would not be possible without Robin Bisson, Andrew Silver, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post Uncomfortable truths appeared first on Research Professional News.

Dutch company ASML reports “unauthorised misappropriation of data” as MEPs progress EU legislation on microchips

The head of a Dutch company that plays a leading role in global microchip manufacturing has warned that increasing geopolitical tension could threaten innovation.

“If countries or trade blocks withdraw into their own territories, then innovation will be less effective and more expensive,” said Peter Wennink (pictured), chief executive of ASML, which makes machines that are crucial for manufacturing advanced microchips.

Wennink’s comments came as countries and regions around the world are scrambling to increase their share of microchip production, and protect their manufacturing chains and intellectual property from foreign interference.

In October, the US restricted exports of advanced semiconductor technologies to China, amid increasing concerns of alleged state-backed surveillance and intellectual property theft from the Asian country. Europe is still figuring out exactly how to respond.

In ASML’s 2022 annual report, published on 15 February, Wennink said the “bifurcation of socio-economic blocks…is threatening the development of the global village that contributed so much to a lot of the innovation we have seen in recent years”.

The report also said ASML had suffered an “unauthorised misappropriation of data” by a former employee in China. It said the company did not think the data leak was “material to our business” but added that the incident may have violated export controls.

Step towards EU legislation

On the same day, the European Parliament said it is ready for talks with EU member state governments on proposed legislation to boost Europe’s semiconductor industry.

Laying the groundwork for those discussions, the Parliament adopted a negotiating position on the draft European Chips Act, with an emphasis on strengthening European innovation.

As part of proposals to boost the EU’s microchip production from below 10 per cent to 20 per cent of global capacity, the bloc is hoping to pool around €11 billion from EU funding, member states, partner countries and the private sector.

MEPs want to encourage European production of next-generation semiconductors and quantum chips, including by “creating a network of centres to address the skills shortage and attract new talent on research, design and production”.

A separate vote saw overwhelming support for creating a Chips Joint Undertaking—a public-private R&D partnership focused on microchip production. This would build on an existing partnership for Key Digital Technologies, upping EU funding from €1.8bn to €4.2bn.

MEP Dan Nica said the legislation should provide “fresh money” and that “the EU should lead in research and innovation, have a business-friendly environment, a fast-permitting process, and invest in a skilled workforce for the semiconductor sector”.

The post Microchip leader warns of geopolitical threat to innovation appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: new energy foundation, research integrity chief named and Republicans challenge student loan forgiveness

In depth: There is “great urgency” for “major improvements” at facilities managed by the US’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, according to an independent study it commissioned.

Full story: ‘Great urgency’ for major improvements in Nist facilities
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

New US scheme to boost university research translation—National Science Foundation providing $60 million to build capacity and infrastructure

Learning lessons in engagement—As NIH leaders report on their pandemic experiences, some say the learning has just begun
 

 
Here is the rest of the US news this week…

DoE consults on energy foundation

The US Department of Energy is seeking input on plans for its new Foundation for Energy Security and Innovation. The foundation will be tasked with raising and investing money from the private sector and philanthropic organisations to accelerate the commercialisation of new and existing energy technologies. It will be the department’s first agency-related foundation. Energy secretary Jennifer Granholm said the foundation “will serve as a critical new partner to the department in our efforts to strengthen American ingenuity and deliver the technologies of the future [that are] so critical to an equitable clean energy economy”.

New research integrity chief named

The Office of Research Integrity, which oversees integrity in public health research, has revealed that Sheila Garrity will become its new director. Garrity previously worked as associate vice-president for research integrity at George Washington University, where she led policy development and education in research ethics. Before that, Garrity spent more than 20 years at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, where she rose through the ranks to become director of its Division of Research Integrity. She is also a founding member and served as the first president of the Association for Research Integrity Officers. She is set to start the role on 26 March.

Republicans take aim at student loan forgiveness

A group of Republican senators have taken aim at US president Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness scheme. Bill Cassidy, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, joined 42 other senators in filing a statement to two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging the federal programme. The senators are arguing that the scheme is an overreach of Biden’s authority. Cassidy said the scheme “do[es] not ‘forgive’ student debt, but transfers it onto Americans who chose not to go to college or worked hard to pay off their loans”.

The post US news roundup: 10-16 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

National Science Foundation providing $60 million to build capacity and infrastructure

The US National Science Foundation has launched a $60 million scheme to strengthen universities’ ability to translate research into real-world applications.

Through the Accelerating Research Translation (ART) programme, announced on 9 February, the NSF will award universities up to $6 million each over four years to build their capacity and the required infrastructure for research translation. 

“NSF aspires to help academic institutions build the pathways and support structures to create societal and economic impacts at speed and scale,” said NSF director Sethuraman Panchanathan.

“The ART programme will directly support this objective by growing capacity to accelerate the translation of research results to practice.”

As well as developing institutional infrastructure for research translation, the NSF said the scheme is looking for proposals that provide training opportunities to enable students and researchers to become entrepreneurs.

Arati Prabhakar, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the scheme “directly addresses a long-standing gap between academic research and the solutions our country needs”.

“This programme is an important part of advancing the Biden-Harris Administration’s efforts to accelerate science and technology innovation in every part of America,” she added.

The post New US scheme to boost university research translation appeared first on Research Professional News.

Water leaks have damaged equipment and labs, finds study of US standards institute

There is “great urgency” for “major improvements” at facilities managed by the US’s National Institute of Standards and Technology, according to an independent study it commissioned.

The study by an ad-hoc committee of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine was designed to investigate the facilities and utilities infrastructure of Nist, which provides scientific calibrations and references for laboratories and industry.

The committee’s chair, emeritus professor Ross Corotis of the University of Colorado Boulder, said in a study report published on 7 February that “as [the committee] learned more and more about the benefits Nist provides” and “the unsatisfactory physical condition and functionality of much of its facilities”, there was a “shared sentiment of the great urgency for major improvements in those facilities”.

Facility problems

One of the problems identified was that 63 per cent of the research facilities and 69 per cent of non-research facilities at Nist campuses in Maryland and Colorado did not meet Commerce Department standards for acceptable building conditions.

The study found cases of unreliable power and climate control, as well as leaking roofs or plumbing. Leaks and floods, it noted, destroyed a microscope supporting research into semiconductors. They also caused Nist to abandon a lab supporting quantum computing.

Another problem identified was that technical staff have reduced productivity because of increasing repair or workaround efforts. Researchers at one electron microscopy lab reported spending 30 per cent of their time cleaning and shielding samples from airborne particulates.

Funding needed

The study committee endorsed a draft infrastructure plan from Nist that would improve its labs and infrastructure and require Congress to provide between $420 million and $550 million in funding annually over 12 years.

Corotis said: “The findings and recommendations resulting from this study will likely influence the strategies and approaches for the implementation of a Nist capital strategy for buildings and infrastructure across its portfolio of facilities.

“The funding for improving the condition of Nist’s facilities depends mostly on money from congressional appropriations and priorities, though internal Nist budget allocation decisions also play a role in the current situation.”

He added that “only with such an infusion will Nist be able to remain among the best metrology institutes at the forefront of the civilised world”.

A Nist spokesperson told Research Professional News: “We appreciate the time and effort the committee dedicated to reviewing our facilities and the negative impact their current conditions have on Nist’s work. Modern facilities are vital to Nist achieving its mission to ensure the global competitiveness of US companies, as well as the health and safety of Americans.”

A version of this article appeared in Research Europe

The post ‘Great urgency’ for major improvements in Nist facilities appeared first on Research Professional News.

As NIH leaders report on their pandemic experiences, some say the learning has just begun

An article published this month by National Institutes of Health officials has reopened the often bitter discussion about why Covid-19 hit some ethnic and racial groups harder than others, and what researchers could have done differently to address this problem.

NIH officials including Francis Collins, Tony Fauci and Lawrence Tabak and other researchers set out more than a dozen lessons that should be learned from the pandemic response, but the approach to engagement is perhaps the most contentious area.

As the authors outline in Science, during the Covid pandemic, the burden of disease fell heavily on Black, Hispanic and American Indian people. But at the start of phase three vaccine trials, individuals “most likely” to participate, they wrote, were white.

Despite this disparity, the authors praise efforts by the NIH to advance diversity. As examples, they cite an “innovative” partnership with CVS Health Corporation, where those who tested negative for Covid received vaccine trial information, and they note that NIH leaders and others “convened weekly to identify ways to ensure diversity”.

Some medical experts familiar with the rollout of NIH initiatives have described them as a “historic accomplishment” and backed the paper’s almost celebratory tone. Other researchers say the NIH moves were “successful mostly on paper” and argue that the publication “downplays” the problems encountered.

The NIH told Research Professional News in an emailed statement that it “supported significant efforts through the Covid-19 Prevention Trials Network and the Community Engagement Alliance Against Covid-19 to reach underserved communities and groups hardest hit by the pandemic”.

It added that efforts had been “successfully employed” to enrol Black and Indigenous people and people of colour in vaccine trials and to leverage “the expertise of community members on the concepts, language and images that resonate with their community to ‘translate’ the science of the Covid-19 pandemic and vaccines to successfully reach communities” and “change minds”.

‘Historic accomplishment’

Historically, the NIH has its roots in laboratory-based science. The agency, which traces its start back to a single room in 1887, did not traditionally put a strong focus on community engagement and social movements. Researchers say that while it has funded projects in this area in the past, it has had difficulty altering study design to accommodate community engagement, and often would not provide extra funding for it.

According to a meta-analysis published in JAMA Internal Medicine in December of 122 US-based trials for Covid-19 vaccines or treatments, Black and Asian individuals were underrepresented in those for prevention, compared with a US reference population.

But Joe Unger, one of the authors of that paper and a biostatistician at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, says that “the success of federally sponsored clinical trials for Covid-19 in enrolling diverse populations was affirmed by our study and is consistent with patterns for federally sponsored trials that have been previously observed in other disease settings”.

The NIH team behind the latest paper says that “for scientific credibility and public acceptance, it was critical to include volunteers in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials who represented the diversity of the US population”.

To some medical professionals, this was not something that had been emphasised before in most US trials.

Benjamin Linas, medical director of a community research network at Boston Medical Center, said that during the early stages of the Community Engagement Alliance Against Covid-19 he ran into problems as the NIH initially struggled to be flexible enough to allow proper community engagement.

But then Linas, who was not involved in the Science paper, saw funding streams became more flexible, with extensions on deadlines so partners could expend resources. Change had arrived.

“I became convinced that the Community Engagement Alliance Against Covid-19 represents an unprecedented and real effort by the NIH to begin to engage with community in order to rebuild trust in science and medicine,” he said. “I believe that when we look back on this pandemic, the alliance will be a historic accomplishment and the beginning of a new era of diverse and inclusive science.”

‘Successful mostly on paper’

The NIH officials’ article has not been universally well received.

At a clinical research lab in New York City that used the NIH resources discussed in the paper, trial volunteers came from all five boroughs and about 90 per cent of them were white or Caucasian, according to María Verónica Sánchez, a consultant who worked there. She says she observed multiple problems.

One was the language barrier. Staff engaged in mobile outreach did not have NIH-approved printed materials available in non-English languages or speak them, she said, while social media advertising focused on English speakers. Clinical staff were also unable to translate the initial screening and consent when non-English-speaking potential participants called or came into the lab.

“I think the initiatives were successful mostly on paper,” she said. “[They provided] robust networking opportunities among research labs to collaborate and share ideas.”

She added that “I do not find that it was very successful in achieving the stated goals”, and recruiting efforts “failed in many aspects and for many reasons”.

Other groups struggled with access to technology and the training to use it, according to Dara Sorkin, director of the Community Engagement Unit at the Institute for Clinical and Translational Science at the University of California, Irvine. “In Orange County, California, for example, vaccination sign-ups were initially done through an app,” Sorkin said. “People with limited access to devices or low digital literacy were blocked from these early opportunities.”

Katherine Tossas, an epidemiologist at Virginia Commonwealth University involved in community engagement, said that “while [the Science paper] results suggest that these initiatives have contributed to progress in increasing diversity among trial participants, I do think the paper downplays the challenges that were faced during the implementation of these initiatives”.

Tossas said that the initiatives highlighted in Science “are a step in the right direction”.

But there is still a pressing need, she says, “to continue critically examining and addressing systemic barriers to diversity and inclusion in clinical trials”.

In response to concerns, the NIH said that the Science article had “a 2,000-word limit, so it’s only a snapshot of the NIH research response on Covid specifically”, and that the agency has “longstanding programmes” focused on increasing diversity in clinical trials or the workforce, as well as “offices specifically focused on women, tribal and sexual and gender minority health”.

NIH defends progress

The agency noted that in some instances “translation of materials without cultural or contextual adaptation was not sufficient to truly address valid community concerns and decades of strained community relationships”, and “engaging diverse communities as clinical trial participants has proven difficult, especially when potential participants speak languages other than English”.

But it also defended the success of Covid-19 initiatives. It said that across four trials with data as part of the Covid-19 Prevention Trials Network, 47 per cent of participants enrolled were Black, Indigenous or people of colour. This included 2 per cent American Indian or Alaska Native, 15 per cent Black or African American, 0.36 per cent Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 7 per cent Asian. 22 per cent identified as Hispanic or Latino.

“The proportions of [Black, Indigenous and people of colour] participants in the trials closely matched their percentages of the US population,” it said. “The proportion of white participants in the trials ranged from 44 per cent in the Moderna trial to 56 per cent in the AstraZeneca trial.” It added that 21 Community Engagement Alliance Against Covid-19 teams collaborated with nearly 1,000 organisations.

These teams, it said, reached close to 91 million people. One team hosted nine community events in Spanish in the past year, and another is developing a training programme for medical interpreters. Others are “continuing to provide needed interpretation and translations and sharing resources and services or having conversations in community settings”, it said.

The NIH believes this is impressive. There is still much progress to be made, though, in bringing historically underrepresented groups inside the tent.

Donald Nease, vice-chair for community at the University of Colorado School of Medicine’s Department of Family Medicine, told Research Professional News that “broadly speaking, I think the NIH’s efforts have been laudable but have yet to fully bear fruit”.

He added: “Building and sustaining infrastructure to equitably and authentically engage with diverse communities is a long-term process.”

The question now facing the research world is: can these links be built and sustained before the next pandemic arrives?

And finally…

A fourth flying object has been shot down over North America in recent days. After an initial incident over what China says was a research balloon and nearly everyone else seems to think was some kind of spy mission, another three UFOs have been blown out of the sky.

As yet, who owned and operated them is unclear.

This seems a good moment to point out that Georgetown University hosts the Jack Womack Flying Saucer Library, described by the institution as “an astounding collection of popular and fringe thought dedicated to the flying saucer phenomenon that gripped the US during the second half of the 20th century”.

“The onslaught of flying saucer sightings, beginning in the summer of 1947, is remarkable not only because sightings were reported so widely, but because so many people felt compelled to publish books explaining what these saucers might be. The more books that were published, the wilder grew the imaginings and the broader grew the conspiracy theories,” the university says.

A catalogue of the collection was published some years ago, called Flying Saucers are Real!

Womack is a celebrated science fiction writer whose most famous book is Random Acts of Senseless Violence. Let us hope that current events are not heading in that direction.

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Andrew Silver reports on how officials at the National Institutes of Health have set out more than a dozen lessons for biomedical research they say should be learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, including that more behavioural research is needed and clinical trials should be shortened.

Rachel Magee brings us the news that two Republican chairs of House of Representatives committees have called for the release of documents relating to reported Russian hacking attempts on three national laboratories over the summer.

In our US news roundup, the National Science Foundation has signed a deal with India to streamline the funding and selection process for joint research projects.

In the news

The New York Times reports that a university investigated a murder suspect’s behaviour around the time of the killings, disinformation researchers have raised alarms about artificial intelligence chatbots, the road to a Supreme Court clerkship starts at three Ivy League colleges, the College Board has stripped down its advanced placement curriculum for African American studies, and there’s a feature about a specialist who helped unlock the science of the Covid vaccine.

In The Washington Post, someone is demanding $3.6 billion after his family’s name was removed from a university building, and the College Board has accused Florida’s education department of slander.

Politico says that Twitter owner Elon Musk has gone to war with researchers, the College Board has slammed comments on African American studies, and researchers say a cancer cure is a long way off.

The Associated Press reports that several universities are to experiment with micro nuclear power.

Science reports that critics of risky virus studies have launched a not-for-profit organisation to push for tighter safety rules, a US measurement institute’s labs are said to need a major upgrade, and Twitter’s plan to cut off free data access has evoked panic among scientists.

Nature says that highly cited genetics studies have been found to contain sequence errors, academia needs to take faculty mental health more seriously, journal editors are struggling to find willing peer reviewers, four researchers offer tips on how to wrap up research projects gracefully, and there’s a look at what ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence mean for science.

The week ahead

Monday

A House subcommittee on energy and mineral resources heads to the University of Texas Permian Basin for a hearing on how federal energy production supports local communities.

Tuesday

The co-chairs behind a National Academies report on advancing anti-racism, diversity, equity and inclusion in science, technology, engineering and maths organisations will discuss their work in a webcast.

The National Committee for the International Union for Pure and Applied Chemistry and other groups are holding a virtual networking event for “scientists at all career stages interested in the issue of breaking barriers for women and building toward sustainability”.

Wednesday

The Senate Committee on the Budget begins hearings to examine climate-related economic risks and their costs.

Thursday

Department of Energy experts will discuss fusion energy and support for this area in a webinar.

The Playbook would not be possible without Robin Bisson, Andrew Silver, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post Learning lessons in engagement appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: US-India ties, Nasa funding for HBCUs and a Darpa ‘food from air’ scheme

In depth: Officials at the US National Institutes of Health have set out more than a dozen lessons for biomedical research they say should be learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, including that more behavioural research is needed and clinical trials should be shortened.

Full story: US National Institutes of Health sets out lessons from Covid-19 
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Committee chairs seek info on Russian attempts to hack US labs—Hackers targeted research critical to national security, Republican chairs say

Progress by degrees—Minority groups are earning more Stem degrees, but parity is a distant dream
 

 
Here is the rest of the US news this week…

NSF strengthens ties with India

The National Science Foundation has signed a deal with India to streamline the funding and selection process for joint research projects. In the past five years, the NSF has invested over $146 million in collaborative research activities with scientists, engineers and educators across India. The agreement covers a range of opportunities for researchers that can be adjusted to the interests of different disciplines, the NSF said. Its director Sethuraman Panchanathan said the agreement would “open up new vistas for strategic collaborations at speed and scale and leverage the strong scientific and cultural connections between the US and India”.

Nasa funds HBCUs

The US space agency Nasa has awarded $11.7 million to eight Historically Black Colleges and Universities through its new Data Science Equity, Access and Priority in Research and Education scheme. The scheme aims to enable HBCU students and staff to conduct data science research that contributes to Nasa missions. Deputy administrator Pam Melroy said it was “fitting during Black History Month that we make this tangible step to build on the talent pool at HBCUs in our ongoing work to bring to the table all the talents and perspectives we’ll need to send humans to the moon, Mars and beyond, and do amazing science throughout the solar system”.

Darpa seeks food from air

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched a scheme that seeks to create food from air, water and electricity. If the Cornucopia programme is successful, troops will be able to carry a system with them that makes food on demand in remote locations, Darpa said. Three teams have been selected by Darpa to make food containing all four dietary macronutrients that humans require—protein, carbohydrates, fats and dietary fibre. The food will be made in different formats including shakes, bars, gels and jerky.

The post US news roundup: 3-9 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Hackers targeted research critical to national security, Republican chairs say

Two Republican chairs of House of Representatives committees have called for the release of documents relating to reported Russian hacking attempts on three national laboratories over the summer.

According to reports, a hacking team known to support Russian government operations created false login pages and sent emails to researchers at three Department of Energy national laboratories, in an effort to access their passwords. It is not known whether the hackers were successful.

Frank Lucas (pictured), chair of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and James Comer, chair of the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, have written to the Department of Energy to request information and documents on the attempted hacking.

“Although it is unclear whether the attempted intrusions were successful, it is alarming that a hostile foreign adversary targeted government labs working on scientific research critical to the national security and competitiveness of the US.

“The committees request documents and information related to these incidents to determine the impact of the attempted intrusions, and evaluate what the Department of Energy is doing to ensure the continued security of sensitive scientific R&D at its national laboratories,” Lucas and Comer said in the letter to energy secretary Jennifer Granholm.

The labs reportedly targeted were Brookhaven National Laboratory in the state of New York, which studies nuclear and particle physics; Argonne National Laboratory in Chicago, which is a multidisciplinary research centre; and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, which is responsible for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear weapons.

The post Committee chairs seek info on Russian attempts to hack US labs appeared first on Research Professional News.

Lessons include need for investment in behavioural research and faster clinical trials

Officials at the US National Institutes of Health have set out more than a dozen lessons for biomedical research they say should be learned from the Covid-19 pandemic, including that more behavioural research is needed and clinical trials should be shortened.

Writing in a paper published in the journal Science this month, authors including former NIH director Francis Collins said that an overarching theme of the lessons learned was the need to “resist the temptation to slip back into complacency” around pandemic threats.

“We must sustain our current focus on pandemic preparedness,” Collins and co-authors urged. There is a need for ongoing global surveillance of disease-causing pathogenic organisms, requiring “substantial resources” for improvements, they said.

In addition, they said that research organisations and policymakers “must invest…now” in the development of vaccines against, and tests for, future pandemic-causing pathogens.

Lessons for science

The authors suggested 17 specific lessons for biomedical research, under the headings “supporting science”, “responding when a pandemic pathogen emerges” and “moving research findings into the clinic”.

Lessons for science included the need to “invest broadly” in basic research in fields including virology and immunology to build up knowledge.

The authors also said there was a need for the immediate public release of research results, better engagement between researchers and communities, and “major investment” in the behavioural and social sciences to improve crisis management and reduce vaccine hesitancy.

This latter point echoed one made last month at the World Economic Forum in Davos by speakers including European Research Council president Maria Leptin.

Pathogen response

Among their lessons for responding when pandemic-causing pathogens emerge, the authors flagged a need to engage partners from all R&D sectors from the very start, to enable the rapid and large-scale development of treatments and other technologies.

Also required are agreements among research organisations on making research data open rather than prioritising the allocation of credit for discoveries, as well as ensuring that advanced purchase agreements with biotechnology companies give researchers access to data, specimens and products.

Several of the lessons relate to clinical trials. The authors called for the development of template trial protocols that could be adopted worldwide, shorter timetables for trials, and a diversity of participants to ensure that trial results are equitable and convincing for all parts of society.

In the US, the burden of Covid-19 fell heavily on Black, Hispanic and American Indian people, but these people were underrepresented in early vaccine trials, the authors said.

Translational research

On moving research from the laboratory to the clinic, the authors suggested three lessons.

One was the need to closely involve regulators in such translational research, “to avoid missteps that can cost months” in the development of treatments and other technologies.

The other two lessons were a need for trustworthy guidelines for using research results in clinical settings and a need for rapid communication to clarify the provisional nature of research findings, “especially to underserved communities”.

Concluding their paper, the authors stressed: “Perhaps the most valuable lesson that Covid-19 has taught the research community—and hopefully society more broadly—is the importance of collective effort and continuous investment in basic and applied research.”

The post US National Institutes of Health sets out lessons from Covid-19 appeared first on Research Professional News.

Minority groups are earning more Stem degrees, but parity is a distant dream

In recent years, myriad efforts to advance diversity in science, technology, engineering and mathematics have been implemented in the US.

Data published last week by the National Science Foundation (NSF) suggest these Stem efforts may be having some positive impact, but the speed of progress is still worrying some experts.

“The growth with women has been great,” Ansley Abraham, director of the Southern Regional Education Board’s doctoral scholars programme, told Research Professional News. “The number of especially Black and Hispanic males earning degrees and American Indian males who are earning degrees is just woefully behind, and that is symptomatic of a lot of ills.”

Since 1977, the NSF has tracked underrepresented groups in Stem. Since 1994, it has also tracked representation of people with disabilities.

Its reports on these trends, published every two years since 1980, show how far things have come in making the research world a place where all are welcome. And how far there is to go.

Pain and gains

The latest report, published by the NSF’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, does not reveal what is causing the changes it tracks. But it shows that between 2011 and 2020, the number of degrees in science and engineering fields awarded to women of any race or ethnicity increased by 34 per cent at bachelor’s level, 45 per cent at master’s level and 18 per cent at doctorate level.

There were also increases in degrees awarded to men from underrepresented minority groups. The number of bachelor’s degrees awarded to Hispanic or Latino men increased by 120 per cent, with an increase of 89 per cent at the master’s level and 53 per cent at doctorate level.

But the picture is less rosy for Black or African American men. At bachelor’s level, there was an increase of 33 per cent for this group, and rises were similar for higher degrees: 46 per cent at the master’s level and 36 per cent at doctorate level.

But at least this was an increase. Degrees at bachelor’s level and above awarded to American Indian or Alaska Native men declined across the board.

The slow pace of growth in degree earning alarms Abraham and others.

“The advancements aren’t at the level we need them if diversity and parity is what we’re trying to get to,” he said. “Yes, the good news is it’s trending in the right direction—we are seeing gains. But are we seeing enough gains to really impact the representation within the Stem disciplines?”

And underlying the positives of the increases, there is a stark fact: those from minority groups are still nowhere near parity.

In total, Hispanic, Black and American Indian or Alaska Native persons made up 37 per cent of the population aged between 18 and 34 in 2021. But they claimed only 26 per cent of science and engineering bachelor’s degrees, only 24 per cent of master’s degrees and only 16 per cent of doctorates.

Data driven

The data may not be surprising to those who study diversity in research. But it is helpful to have numbers for future planning or study.

What stood out to Johnna Frierson, associate dean of equity, diversity and inclusion for the basic sciences at Duke University, is that Hispanic students have seen representation increases in many data points collected.

“Among racial and ethnic groups, those with a Hispanic background have seen the highest rate of increase over the 10-year period, so I think it would be really interesting to dig deeper and understand what the differences are with those rates and what is underlying the difference in those rates of increase,” Frierson said.

She added that she thinks universities should take the report’s findings and “go back and say: ‘Does this change our approach to how we’re trying to increase representation at our universities? Does this change our approach with who we’re collaborating and partnering with in order to help make that change?’”

More work needed

Some academics warn against drawing too many conclusions from the data.

“It is hard to say from this report whether past efforts are or are not working,” said Neil Lewis, a behavioural scientist at Cornell University who co-directs a programme working to address issues concerning equity in society.

Lewis notes that “they are reporting large-scale descriptive statistics; additional data would be necessary to make inferences about why we are seeing these patterns”.

“To figure out whether particular programmes or initiatives are working to change the makeup of the Stem workforce, we need more evaluations of programmes,” he added.

A committee of the National Academy of Sciences is currently working on a report that will include recommendations for “actionable anti-racist mechanisms to advance diversity, equity and inclusion” in Stem organisations. A spokesperson declined to make committee members available for an interview on the NSF report, but they said that work would be available on 14 February.

Advancing diversity in Stem, research has suggested, might require significant changes. Lewis and others, in a study published in Nature Human Behaviour in December, analysed three federal databases and determined that at the current rate, parity in faculty representation will never be reached.

They estimated that efforts would need to be 3.5 times faster to reach parity by 2050.

Some fear diversity could also be further reduced by upcoming political decisions, such as if the Supreme Court ends affirmative action in higher education. “How will that affect recruitment of underrepresented minorities in Stem fields in institutions of higher education?” asked Natalie Milman, chair of the department of educational leadership at George Washington University.

Abraham said further work would have to tackle parts of an interconnected system.

“Diversifying the faculty is connected to PhD production and baccalaureate production,” he said. “All these elements are connected, and I think a lot of it just depends on which element in the equation you’re focused on trying to do something about.”

And finally…

Tensions with China have risen again, even as a Chinese balloon went firmly in the opposite direction.

The spy mission or inadvertently off-course research project (delete as per your personal views) was shot out of the sky last week after intruding in US airspace.

China insists that the now ex-balloon “is a civilian airship used for research, mainly meteorological, purposes”. A foreign ministry spokesperson said: “We have no intention to violate and have never violated the territory or airspace of any sovereign country.”

If relations were better, the US could tap up many of its university researchers with deep expertise in scientific balloon flights to help their Chinese colleagues avoid similar problems in future.

As it is, expect the issue of Chinese students at universities and research labs to become a talking point again.

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Rachel Magee reports that a federal taskforce has unveiled its roadmap for creating a US national infrastructure intended to expand access to artificial intelligence R&D.

Andrew Silver has the original news about the subject of this Playbook: that diversity in the US science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce has increased significantly in recent years, according to a study published by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

In our US news roundup, the not-for-profit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has criticised part of a set of model policies the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy released earlier this year for US agencies to strengthen their scientific integrity.

In the news

The New York Times reports that the governor of Florida is taking on the education establishment.

In The Washington Post, Nasa and Darpa are working on a nuclear-powered rocket that could go to Mars.

Politico looks at what’s really in the African American studies class rejected by Florida’s governor.

In The Wall Street Journal, a probe has highlighted deep ties between the president’s family and the University of Pennsylvania, the College Board has released a revised curriculum for African American studies after criticism from Florida’s governor, and the president of the New College of Florida has been fired.

Science says that US scientists are bracing for tighter scrutiny of potentially risky research, a biologist fired for sexual misconduct has landed millions from private donors to start a new lab, and Alondra Nelson is to leave the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Nature reports that a postdoc survey has confirmed widespread dissatisfaction among US researchers.

The Chronicle of Philanthropy covers a donation to the University of Virginia and says that college fundraisers need to think big, use data and innovate.

The week ahead

Tuesday

The National Academies’ Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable is hosting a meeting for members and guests on how to boost economic competitiveness via intellectual property reforms.

Wednesday

The National Science Board’s Committee on Science and Engineering Policy holds an open teleconference on policy focus areas and other issues.

The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology holds a meeting to adopt committee rules and take care of other business.

Thursday

The Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation meets to consider its committee rules.

The Playbook would not be possible without Robin Bisson, Andrew Silver, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post Progress by degrees appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: White House scientific integrity policy criticised and Congress member alleges congressional oversight “ignored”

In depth: A federal taskforce has unveiled its roadmap for creating a US national infrastructure intended to expand access to artificial intelligence R&D.

Full story: US taskforce publishes roadmap for AI research infrastructure
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

US Stem diversity increasing, but further improvements needed—Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native people constitute just a quarter of Stem workforce
 

 
Here is the rest of the US news this week…

Science group criticises federal integrity policy

The non-profit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has criticised part of a set of model policies the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released earlier this year for US agencies to strengthen their scientific integrity. Peer said a recommendation that agency employees “refrain from making or publishing statements that could be construed as being judgments of, or recommendations on, [agency] or any other federal government policy, unless they have secured appropriate prior approval”, could be used to “punish scientists or stifle controversial research”. The OSTP did not respond to a request for comment from Research Professional News.

Lucas blasts OSTP for ‘ignoring congressional oversight’

The chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Republican Frank Lucas, has accused the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy of a “pattern of ignoring congressional requests and oversight”, which he said is “alarming, especially in the wake of concerns regarding the leadership and culture of the OSTP”. Lucas made the accusation in a letter to the OSTP, saying that previous letters he had sent the office concerning Jane Lubchenco, the office’s deputy director for climate and environment, had gone unanswered. The OSTP did not respond to a request for comment from Research Professional News.

$100m to head off future pandemics

Seventy scientists have been awarded a total of $100 million to work on preparations for future pandemics. The funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s three-year Emerging Pathogens Initiative will support projects studying the origins, mechanisms and evolution of novel pathogens that could threaten human health. “With this programme, we hope to gain some of the knowledge and tools we need to get a scientific head start on future epidemics,” said HHMI vice president and chief scientific officer Leslie Vosshall.

The post US news roundup: 27 January to 2 February appeared first on Research Professional News.

Roadmap outlines $2.6 billion in spending to expand access to artificial intelligence research

A federal taskforce has unveiled its roadmap for creating a US national infrastructure intended to expand access to artificial intelligence R&D.

The plan, released on 24 January, sets out the steps the government should take to create an “integrated portal” for AI that will provide researchers and students with a range of computational and data resources, including software and support services.

In 2020, Congress directed the National Science Foundation and the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy to create the roadmap to make carrying out R&D on AI easier for researchers at less well-resourced organisations.

Now, their taskforce has estimated that a National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource should have a budget of $2.6 billion over an initial six-year period.

The creation of the NAIRR should “begin immediately”, the plan says, directing Congress to authorise the appropriate funds now to establish the infrastructure within four years.

‘Tremendous promise’

“AI advances hold tremendous promise for tackling our hardest problems and achieving our greatest aspirations,” said Arati Prabhakar, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and assistant on science and technology to president Joe Biden. “We will only realise this potential when many more kinds of researchers have access to the powerful capabilities that underpin AI advances.”

The taskforce’s plan says the infrastructure “must be broadly accessible to a range of users and provide a platform that can be used for educational and community-building activities in order to lower the barriers to participation in the AI research ecosystem and increase the diversity of AI researchers”.

It adds that the NAIRR should be established with four goals in mind: spurring innovation, increasing the diversity of talent, improving R&D capacity and advancing trustworthy AI.

A single federal agency should serve as the administrative home for the infrastructure, according to the roadmap, but with a steering committee composed of representatives from all federal agencies involved with AI research.

The NAIRR must also be “proactive in addressing privacy, civil rights and civil liberties issues by integrating appropriate technical controls, policies and governance mechanisms from its outset”, it adds.

Supporting responsible research

Ensuring that AI R&D is carried out in a responsible way has been a growing concern for academia and government, due to increasing recognition that biased algorithms or data use can have negative consequences for society.

National Science Foundation director Sethuraman Panchanathan said that democratising access to the infrastructure that underpins AI will help support responsible research in the area.

“By creating an equitable cyber infrastructure for cutting-edge AI that builds on-ramps for participation for a wide range of researchers and communities, the NAIRR could build AI capacity across the nation and support responsible AI research and development, thereby driving innovation and ensuring long-term US competitiveness in this critical technology area,” he said.

According to the roadmap, the NAIRR should be divided into an open science zone, which should adopt best practices in open science, and a secure zone, which will comply with a set of security controls for legally protected data.

The post US taskforce publishes roadmap for AI research infrastructure appeared first on Research Professional News.

Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native people constitute just a quarter of Stem workforce

Diversity in the US science, technology, engineering and mathematics workforce has increased significantly in recent years, according to a new study published by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

But the results suggest there is still much more work to do to achieve a Stem workforce that reflects the diversity of the general population.

The study, published on 30 January, found that more women, Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native people joined the US Stem workforce over the past decade.

Compared with previous years, those groups also earned more degrees in Stem fields. The total number of associate-level Stem degrees awarded to Hispanic students, for example, tripled between 2011 and 2020.

But those groups and people with disabilities remained underrepresented in Stem compared with their overall distribution in the wider US population, the study found.

Black, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native people made up 31 per cent of the US population in 2021 but only 24 per cent of the Stem workforce. They also had lower median earnings than white or Asian Stem workers.

Women represented just 35 per cent of the Stem workforce, and their wages were consistently lower than men’s. This was despite women earning half of all Stem bachelor’s degrees and 49 per cent of associate’s degrees.

“The Diversity and Stem report provides objective, reliable data on where our nation has made progress towards access and equity in Stem education and careers, as well as where we must do more,” said Sethuraman Panchanathan, director of the National Science Foundation, within which the centre sits.

The post US Stem diversity increasing, but further improvements needed appeared first on Research Professional News.

Authorship records bring sobering evidence to debate over goals and approaches, says Gali Halevi

Efforts to increase diversity in research still meet resistance. Some academics argue that considering factors such as ethnicity and gender in hiring and promotion decisions, making efforts to attract under-represented groups to educational programmes, and implementing mandatory diversity statements and policies all introduce politics into decisions that should be solely based on intellectual excellence. 

In 2020, an essay published in the chemistry journal Angewandte Chemie argued that, since the introduction of diversity training, a “candidate’s inclusion in one of the preferred social groups may override his or her qualifications”. It caused an outcry, and has been deleted. Those who support such initiatives believe that politics is already present, that it is essential to redress past inequalities, and that making research more diverse and inclusive will improve its performance.

Policies on conferences, which are crucial to form social networks and collaborations but can also be cliquey, are a particular flashpoint. A recent article in Inside Higher Education looked at this issue in the US mathematical community. It implied that disagreements around messaging and policies on equity, diversity and inclusion—and especially around official statements and action on these topics—had been a factor in ending the agreement between America’s two biggest professional bodies for mathematicians, the American Mathematical Society (AMS) and the Mathematical Association of America (MAA) to organise the Joint Mathematics Meeting, the world’s largest maths conference. 

Mathematical fallout

The AMS, which focuses on mathematical research, is seen as less in favour of mandatory policies—in 2019, an AMS vice-president wrote an article arguing against them—while the MAA, which focuses on mathematical teaching, is in favour. 

As evidence of inequality and bias continues to emerge, bibliographic data can add another layer of evidence to this debate. Scholarly journals have only recently begun collecting diversity data on their authors— an initiative covering 50 publishers and 15,000 journals launched last year. Some countries, such as Germany, have restrictions on collecting such data. But, even when author ethnicity is not known, it can be inferred by comparing bibliographic data with other sources.

By comparing the ethnicity that people report to the US census, for example, with last names, we can work out the proportion of people with a particular name identifying in different ethnic groups. This fraction can then be applied to authorship data to estimate the make-up of different fields.

In a report published last year, the Institute for Scientific Information used this method to analyse publications by US-based authors in several scientific fields, including mathematics, between 2010 and 2020. Depending on the field, we were able to match 75-80 per cent of author names to census data. 

The mathematics dataset contained 48,080 publications and 17,909 unique names. For accuracy, we only analysed papers with solely US authors. 

No change in ethnic diversity

The data show clearly that ethnic diversity in mathematical research has hardly changed in the past decade. There has been a slow increase in authors of Asian and Pacific origin, but other groups are showing stagnation and low rates of participation in mathematical research. 

White mathematicians make up the largest group, estimated at 47 per cent of authors in the field, followed by authors identifying as Asian or Pacific Islander, the proportion of whom rose from 15 to 19 per cent over the decade. 

Black and Hispanic authors are severely under-represented in US mathematics. Respectively, these groups make up 12 and 16 per cent of the US population, but they account for just 4.6 per cent and 3.8 per cent of authorship in mathematics research, a figure that remained static through the decade. The proportion of Native American or Alaska Native authors, at 0.28 per cent, is much lower than this group’s 1 per cent share of the population. 

Debate around policies and statements is legitimate. But the data, in mathematics and in other fields, make a strong case for recognising the lack of diversity and creating opportunities for participation by under-represented groups. 

Diversity is not just a question of equity and social justice, important as these are. It has been shown to lead to accelerated innovation and improved decision-making. Whether through education, mentorships, training or creating advancement opportunities, all academic disciplines should be working to become more diverse and inclusive, to ensure that they produce impactful research. 

Gali Halevi is the director of the Institute for Scientific Information. Research Professional News is an editorially independent part of Clarivate, ISI’s owner

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post Data show how far diversity in science still has to go appeared first on Research Professional News.

Two powers sign agreement for researchers to collaborate in using AI to address global challenges

The EU and US have signed an agreement to boost their research cooperation on artificial Intelligence and computing.

Under the deal, announced on 27 January, researchers from the EU and US will work together to develop real-world applications of AI, with a focus on addressing global challenges in the fields of climate change, health, energy, agriculture and natural disasters.

The agreement comes after the two powers signed a deal in December to collaborate on research in the area, which had a focus on developing joint approaches to evaluating and measuring the trustworthiness of AI.

“Based on common values and interests, EU and US researchers will join forces to develop societal applications of AI and will work with other international partners for a truly global impact,” said EU internal market commissioner Thierry Breton.

The European Commission said the increased collaboration will “help identify and further develop promising AI research results”.

It added that the EU and US will aim to share findings and resources with international partners that “lack relevant capabilities” to help them manage emergencies after the Covid-19 pandemic highlighted both the need for a “truly global approach” to solving major societal challenges and a “divide between countries”.

“Extreme weather and natural disasters such as floods or fires are becoming more common and destructive across the globe, and AI will play an increasingly important role for prediction and simulation, which will help for disaster preparedness and emergency response,” the Commission said.

It added: “AI research and computing also has the potential to greatly improve crop yields, efficiency and sustainability, thanks to analysis and modelling of natural conditions such as soil and atmospheric conditions, bird and insect trends, as well as planting, irrigation, pesticide and fertiliser use and harvesting cycles…[and] AI is already boosting medical research.”

The post EU and US plan more cooperation on artificial intelligence research appeared first on Research Professional News.

With Republicans pulling levers to limit spending, US research may end up being squeezed

The new Congress has been in place for less than a month and Republicans are in no mood to waste time in making the most of their stronger position, having taken control of the House of Representatives.

Battle lines are being drawn over budgets that could have major impacts on research spending. Despite lawmakers having okayed a major government spending package for 2023 before Christmas, the fights now being limbered up for could hit research in months rather than years.

The heavyweight looming issue is the debt ceiling.

Unlike many other countries, the US has a limit on how much the government can borrow to pay for spending, and this limit is set by Congress.

Earlier in January, treasury secretary Janet Yellen wrote to congressional leaders warning that the debt ceiling of $31.4 trillion was going to be hit and that “extraordinary measures” would then need to be used to stop the US defaulting on its debt.

Yellen also warned that the treasury might only be able to use such measures until June and appealed to Congress to act “in a timely manner to increase or suspend the debt limit” or risk “irreparable harm” to the economy if the government couldn’t pay its debts.

If not resolved, hitting the debt ceiling could have huge impacts across all government-funded science.

Options on the table include simply putting off all government payments, impacting every government agency—an option that treasury officials said was the “least harmful” of “very bad options” the last time there was a crisis over the debt ceiling in 2011. (The ceiling has been raised or suspended numerous times since, including under former president Donald Trump.)

Such extreme measures are unlikely. But raising the debt ceiling would require bipartisan support and Republicans are reported to be organising to use the situation to extract concessions from president Joe Biden on future spending.

In 2011, then-president Barack Obama brokered a deal with Republican opposition that put caps on government spending that lasted 10 years. The practical result was a damper on many areas of spending. An analysis in 2021 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science estimated that these spending caps meant over $200 billion that would have gone to government-funded R&D never materialised.

“Most agencies saw a shortfall of 15 per cent below what would have been their historical trendline, and some much more,” the analysis found.

As well as shortfalls on trendlines, there were more direct impacts. For example, the National Institutes of Health saw its budget go down in 2013 as a direct result of the automatic spending cuts agreed under the deal Obama made.

Death knell

If the Republicans achieve anything similar this year, that could be the death knell for ambitions to accelerate R&D spending mandated in legislation passed in 2022. The Chips and Science Act authorised steep spending increases from 2023 onwards for agencies including the National Science Foundation in order to boost innovation.

Larger-than-average budget increases at R&D agencies in 2023 were still lower than authorised under the Chips and Science Act, and current Republican agitating makes hitting longer-term spending targets look increasingly unlikely.

Despite increased R&D being something many Republicans can get behind, the goal of shrinking government spending often trumps such support, particularly on the right of the party.

Shenanigans over the election of a Republican speaker of the House have also seen right-wingers extract concessions that could scotch ambitions for growing R&D spending in future years.

It took 15 rounds of voting for Kevin McCarthy to be elected, the most protracted process in over 150 years. Things were only resolved by McCarthy making key concessions to members of the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus.

Some of these were included in a legislative rules package for imposing restraint on government spending that was quickly passed, but it has been reported that further, and stricter, concessions were also agreed to by McCarthy.

These include an agreement that Republicans will only consider government spending bills for 2024 that would return spending to 2022 levels, according to reports. This would amount to a $131bn cut, from $1.6tn of government spending in 2023 to $1.47tn in 2024.

More than just reversing increases in government R&D spending in 2023, such an agreement could reduce science agency budgets to pre-2022 levels because Republicans have made it clear they will not cut military spending.

“There have been reports that House Republicans support cutting our national defence. Let me be clear—this House Republican does not support that position,” said Kay Granger, the new Republican chair of the House appropriations committee.

The upshot of this would be far less money for everything else, including R&D.

It is also likely that Republicans will aim to protect spending on veterans and homeland security, shrinking the pot for making $131bn of savings even further—more than 20 per cent before inflation, by some estimates.

Whether this comes to pass is, of course, deeply uncertain.

The Senate is still under Democrat control and Biden is still in the White House. Neither will accept major spending cuts, and the US could be facing a government shutdown before the year is out if the two sides can’t reach a compromise.

With the battle lines drawn, there could be more than a skirmish on the horizon.

And finally…

Earlier this month, Playbook noted unhappiness among climate researchers about the appointment of the head of the United Arab Emirates’ National Oil Company to oversee the UN’s Cop28 climate meeting the country is hosting later this year. At the time, US climate envoy John Kerry seemed unconcerned.

Now, Democrats in Congress have weighed in. Led by senator Sheldon Whitehouse and congressman Jared Huffman, they have written to Kerry to urge him “to push the United Arab Emirates to withdraw the appointment of Sultan Al Jaber”.

“To help ensure that Cop28 is a serious and productive climate summit, we believe the US should urge the United Arab Emirates to name a different lead for Cop28 or, at a minimum, seek assurances that it will promote an ambitious Cop28 aligned with the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change findings and take concrete steps to demonstrate domestic and regional leadership toward this end,” they added.

Kerry is going to need all his diplomatic skills to resolve this policy problem.

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Andrew Silver reports that a think tank has told the US Department of Defense to improve its support for collaboration with other countries on basic research, amid fears that working with the department may be losing its attractiveness to some scientists abroad.

Rachel Magee brings us the news that a federal government advisory committee has said the US should broaden the scope of its oversight of risky research on pathogens that could cause pandemics.

In our US news roundup, the American Association of Colleges and Universities, which has more than a thousand members from the US and abroad, has released a strategic plan for the next five years.

In the news

The New York Times reports that an expert panel has voted for stricter rules on risky virus research, a report has said that the National Institutes of Health did not properly track a group studying coronaviruses, the Environmental Protection Agency is struggling, and there’s a look at where physics is heading.

In The Washington Post, data show student debt relief applicants in each state as auditors question the cost.

In Politico, the College Board says that states such as Florida have not influenced a new African American studies course.

The Wall Street Journal reports that professors are turning to ChatGPT to teach students a lesson.

Reuters says that the US is to test nuclear-powered spacecraft by 2027, and a rocket lab has expanded its launch footprint with its first mission from the US.

The Associated Press reports that trustees may change a progressive college.

Science says that human geneticists have apologised for past involvement in eugenics, a federal watchdog has found problems with the National Institutes of Health’s oversight of a grant funding bat virus research in China, women at an oceanography institute have half the lab space of men, and researchers are weighing the costs and benefits of making data freely available.

Nature reports that scientists are petitioning the University of California, Los Angeles, to reverse an ecologist’s suspension, stricter US guidelines for ‘gain of function’ research may be on the way, tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science, and there’s an editorial on whether science is really getting less disruptive.

The week ahead

Monday

A National Academies webinar is due to hear from a Nasa representative about limitations to research on the International Space Station.

Tuesday

The National Science Foundation will hear from IT expert Jack Dongarra about the future impact of high-performance computing on science.

The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics will discuss a report on women, minorities and people with disabilities in science, technology, engineering and maths.

Wednesday

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability holds a meeting on “federal pandemic spending: a prescription for waste, fraud and abuse”.

Thursday

The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is holding a hearing on the Department of Energy’s implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

The Playbook would not be possible without Robin Bisson, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post Budget battles and R&D ambitions appeared first on Research Professional News.

Pilot later this year will involve “an exchange of cyber experts”

The EU is planning to launch a cybersecurity-focused fellowship programme with the US, as the two declared “a new chapter in our transatlantic partnership” on the topic.

In a joint statement on 26 January, the EU commissioner for the internal market, Thierry Breton, and the US secretary for homeland security, Alejandro Mayorkas, said the programme will begin with a pilot involving “an exchange of cyber experts”.

It should launch this year and will be led by the European Commission communications and technology department and the US Department of Homeland Security, they said.

Research Professional News understands that officials in EU institutions, bodies and agencies and US government administrations will be eligible for exchanges of 1-2 weeks.

The fellowship programme was announced as part of a broader set of increased joint cybersecurity activities, including on information sharing and critical infrastructure.

“Cyberspace knows no borders and it is only by working closely together with our allies and like-minded partners that we will succeed in securing our people, critical infrastructure and businesses against malicious cyber activities,” the statement said.

It follows a pledge between the Commission and US presidents in 2022 to create “deeper cooperation and more structured cybersecurity information exchanges on threats”, which was in part a response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The post US and EU to launch cybersecurity fellowship appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: a five-year university group plan, an AI clash and liquid-mirror telescopes

In depth: The US Department of Defense should improve its support for collaboration with other countries on basic research, a think tank has recommended, amid fears that working with the DoD may be losing its attractiveness to some scientists abroad.

Full story: Study suggests ways to boost US defence R&D collaboration
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Experts call for broader US review of risky biological research—Current definition of pathogens is “too narrow” and some research could be “overlooked”, group warns
 

Here is the rest of the US news this week…

University association releases five-year plan

The American Association of Colleges and Universities, which has more than a thousand members from the US and abroad, has released a strategic plan for the next five years. The plan commits the association to four strategic objectives to guide its work: sustaining an association prepared to thrive and champion liberal education globally; creating a model for institutional transformation on campuses; partnering with educators and institutions to transform the student learning experience; and fully engaging its members around the world.

Committee chairs probe AI guidance

Two newly appointed Republican chairs of House committees have sent a letter to the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy raising concerns about what they said was “conflicting” guidance on artificial intelligence from the administration. Frank Lucas, chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, and James Comer, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, said in the letter that the OSTP’s recently released Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights “conflicts” in “numerous” ways with the 2020 bipartisan agreement to create an AI Risk Management Framework. They said the proposed bill and pre-existing agreement clash on “fundamental” issues including defining AI and establishing principles for trustworthiness in AI systems. The OSTP did not respond to a request for comment from Research Professional News.

Darpa launches programme for liquid-mirror telescopes

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has launched a programme to investigate the use of liquid-mirror technology in telescopes. Darpa said that glass-based telescopes were “limited” in their ability to image objects due to their size, complexity and vulnerability to damage. Liquid-mirror telescopes have better scalability while being easier and cheaper to make, but they are hampered by several factors including only being able to look straight up from Earth. The programme, called Zenith, aims to create a generation of liquid-mirror telescopes that can be pointed in any direction. “Liquid-mirror telescopes address all the shortcomings of glass optics but present their own unique challenges that we aim to overcome in this programme,” said programme manager Michael Nayak.

The post US news roundup: 20-26 January appeared first on Research Professional News.

Rand recommends Department of Defense boosts awareness of collaboration opportunities and reduce bureaucracy

The US Department of Defense should improve its support for collaboration with other countries on basic research, a think tank has recommended, amid fears that working with the DoD may be losing its attractiveness to some scientists abroad.

“Concerns are growing that the research strength and practices of strategic competitors, particularly the People’s Republic of China, threaten the position of the US as a partner of choice for some foreign researchers,” the Rand Corporation wrote in a report published on 23 January.

The report presented the findings of a study commissioned by the Basic Research Office within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering to provide suggestions for improving the DoD’s use of international collaboration on basic research.

According to the study, which interviewed people in the DoD, other parts of government and academia, there are several challenges impeding such collaboration.

The study found that there was a need for better ways to find and evaluate collaboration opportunities—for example, because of a lack of integration among DoD databases.

It also found that some researchers opt to avoid engaging with the DoD due to concerns such as that they might unintentionally violate rules or cause a security breach, and because of the time and effort needed to collaborate, such as by navigating language barriers or bureaucracy.

Backing for collaboration

Despite such challenges to collaboration, the report strongly backed its importance for US innovation.

It said that while collaboration “can position partners to compete with the US to turn the resulting discoveries into defensive and economic advantages”, more important is that “excessive restrictions on scientific international engagement could, paradoxically, reduce American competitiveness in critical technologies and weaken the US defense industrial base”.

It added: “Multiple studies have concluded that keeping results of fundamental (basic and non-proprietary applied) research largely unrestricted is in the best interests of the US, even when the actions of adversaries are considered.”

The report therefore recommended that the DoD provide special knowledge-management tools to researchers it funds, to help them identify, evaluate, establish and conduct international collaborations.

It also recommended that the DoD improve and better publicise its collaboration policies so that researchers do not “unnecessarily” choose not to work with high-quality potential partners outside of the US, and that it should streamline related approval processes.

The Rand Corporation is funded by US government agencies, US state and local governments, industry and other institutions. The DoD did not respond to a request for comment on the report from Research Professional News.

A version of this article appeared in Research Europe

The post Study suggests ways to boost US defence R&D collaboration appeared first on Research Professional News.

Current definition of pathogens is “too narrow” and some research could be “overlooked”, group warns

A federal government advisory committee has said that the US should broaden the scope of its oversight of risky research on pathogens that could cause pandemics.

In 2022, the US government asked the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to assess current policies on the risks associated with research involving pathogens—organisms that cause disease.

In a draft report published this month, the biosecurity board said that the current definition of pandemic-potential pathogens used in US biosecurity policies is “too narrow” and “overemphasises” that pathogens with pandemic-causing potential are highly likely to be both transmissible and have severe effects on a person’s health.

According to the board, the definition of pandemic-potential pathogens should also include that they would be likely to pose a threat to public health, the capacity of public health systems to function or national security.

The narrow definition could result in some research involving the creation, transfer or use of pathogens being “overlooked” by biosecurity policies, the document said.

The board recommended that a federal department-level review be carried out using the wider definition of what constitutes a pandemic-potential pathogen.

The post Experts call for broader US review of risky biological research appeared first on Research Professional News.

Could universities with Confucius Institutes be funded by the NSF and Department of Defense again?

In recent years, politicians in the US have put academic partnerships with China under intense scrutiny.

Often in the crosshairs is China’s network of Confucius Institutes—language and cultural centres established at universities across the globe, backed by Chinese government funding.

The US is hardly alone in its scepticism of them. Concerns from politicians and some in academia who fear that the centres compromise universities’ independence have been voiced in Canada and across Europe too.

In the US, universities with Confucius Institutes are banned from receiving any of the hugely important R&D funding that flows from the Department of Defense and the National Science Foundation. Special waivers exist but are rarely applied for and—to date—never granted.

The Department of Defense has received waiver requests but none were granted. The NSF has not received any.

Dozens of Confucius Institutes have shut down in recent years. As of December, there were thought to be just seven formal Confucius Institutes left at US institutions.

Now a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine has suggested a way forward and raised the possibility that universities could find a way to take money from China for Confucius Institutes and still receive funding from the Department of Defense and the NSF.

The report was produced by a National Academies committee at the request of the Department of Defense. Its authors suggest how the agency could go back to providing funding to hosts of the institutes. This includes by universities showing they have full control over the curriculum and teachers at Confucius Institutes, and codifying freedom of expression in their institutional policies.

The chair of the committee has suggested that the waiver criteria might be useful to the NSF as well.

‘Focused on facts’

In the past, the Chinese government has vehemently protested against interference in the Confucius programme. In response to a threat from then-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo in 2020 to close all Confucius Institutes, a foreign ministry spokesperson said that Pompeo and some other politicians “undermined” cooperation between the two countries by “interfering with [the institutes’] normal operations”.

Neither the Chinese International Education Foundation, a not-for-profit headquartered in Beijing that supports the Confucius Institutes, nor China’s embassy in Washington DC responded to requests for comment for this story by the time it was published.

Although it seemed the political tide had decisively turned against them, the Confucius Institutes still have advocates.

Paul Manfredi, who directs the Pacific Lutheran University’s Confucius Institute in Tacoma, Washington State, says that in his own experience, the host institution decides what activities to undertake and a partner in China can only decide whether to provide funding.

He argues that the report contains a “fundamental misunderstanding” on the level of influence of authorities and is wrong to assert that Confucius Institutes are “answerable to the Chinese government, at least in part”.

But he still thinks the report is a useful step forward and he plans to post a link to the document on his Confucius Institute’s website. He is also thinking about providing it to administrators from other institutions who might have heard or have concerns about the programme.

“It’s high quality—the people that are involved seem well meaning and interested and focused on facts and real circumstances and reality, rather than a kind of dangerous political fiction that I think is in widespread circulation, unfortunately,” he told Research Professional News.

Looming geopolitics

The report authors say their advice would “allow institutions of higher education to retain access to resources and opportunities in Chinese language learning and related programmes while safeguarding institutions from inappropriate engagements with the Chinese government on US campuses”.

Manfredi and Elvira Masson, former director of a now-closed Confucius Institute at New Mexico State University, say they were already following the guidelines in the report. Masson’s programme closed in 2020; her university said this was partly influenced by “issues with funding” and enrolment levels, and was part of a broader “reorganisation”.

While the report authors might see a possible rapprochement between federal funders and Chinese institutes, others are not so sure. The American Council on Education and other US academic groups still see the overall trend of collaboration between the two powers as being affected by geopolitics.

Sarah Spreitzer, assistant vice-president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said the report had good recommendations for institutions considering establishing Confucius Institutes or something similar. But she added: “The relationship between the US and China is changing and I think that is impacting higher education, and I don’t see that changing in the short term.”

Tobin Smith, senior vice-president for science policy at the Association of American Universities, agreed that existing trends did not appear to be on track for reversal. “I fully expect that more scrutiny will be given by universities when entering into research collaborations with China, not less,” he said.

Smith added that he had concerns about whether the report’s suggestions would be adopted by government agencies. The university community, he said, views the report’s criteria as positive and hopes they are adopted by the Department of Defense and the NSF. But because some in Congress are still concerned about the Confucius Institutes, he worries that there may be “Congressional pushback”.

Follow-up report

The Department of Defense did not respond to a request for comment on how it would use the report. But Rebecca Keiser, the NSF’s chief of research security strategy and policy, told Research Professional News that the two agencies would develop a “harmonised approach” on Confucius Institutes after the follow-up was released.

“The National Academies will deliver a second part of the report in the spring,” she said. “The NSF will then coordinate with the Department of Defense in a harmonised approach to the research community that may include a waiver process while ensuring the NSF abides by the Chips and Science legislative requirements.” The US Chips and Science Act, signed into law last year, includes the NSF restriction.

The follow-up report, due by 30 June, will focus on consolidating information on other foreign-funded institutes at US universities, such as “flags” suggesting a need for further vetting prior to entering partnerships, and practices to ensure “appropriate operations”. It will also explore the role of research sensitivity in appropriateness of partnerships.

Dartmouth College president Philip Hanlon, chair of the National Academies committee that produced the report, declined to provide examples of possible partnerships to be studied for the follow-up, but he suggested that the proposed waiver criteria for the Department of Defense would also be applicable for the NSF.

“I think that there is nothing preventing other federal agencies making use of the recommendations and findings” from the first report, he said.

Yet even if such rules are adopted, institutions might be reluctant to make requests. “Any sign of greater flexibility is a step in the right direction, but under the circumstances the process is still quite complex and will probably not be enough to encourage more universities to apply for the waiver or open a Confucius Institute,” said Madelyn Ross, president of the US-China Education Trust.

“I think most higher education institutions will focus on trying to continue the Chinese classes and other Chinese culture-related activities by other means,” Ross said.

This month, the House of Representatives formed a select committee on “strategic competition” with China. A spokesperson for Republican Mike Gallagher of Wisconsin, the investigative panel’s chair, did not respond to a request for comment on the report’s proposed waiver criteria and whether the Congressman had any concerns.

There is an expectation that the issue will heat up further before it cools down.

And finally…

A new face for the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology is arriving, in the shape of George Santos.

Santos has faced a raft of serious and at times bizarre allegations, including that he misled people over his business experience and ancestry, and that he took money intended to help a veteran’s dog.

He faces growing calls to resign, but he is standing firm at the moment and denying many of the allegations.

In an interview with one podcast before the news of his appointment to the committee broke, he reportedly said: “Whatever committee I’m given—whether it’s, I don’t know, science and technology, or education and labour, or whatever committee is thrown my way—I will deliver 110 per cent.”

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Andrew Silver brings us news that the White House has published advice for US government agencies responsible for scientific research, intended to strengthen the integrity of their work.

Rachel Magee reports that two of the key committees in the US House of Representatives that make decisions on R&D have announced their new chairs, after Republicans wrested control of the chamber from Democrats in November’s midterm elections.

In our US news roundup, the US and Japan have signed an agreement to build on their longstanding history of collaboration in space exploration.

In the news

The New York Times reports that New York University has withdrawn from a diabetes vaccine trial, college admissions may be changed forever if affirmative action ends, there’s a look at what we owe lab animals, and Florida has rejected an African American studies class.

In The Wall Street Journal, Harvard University has reversed course and will offer a position to a critic of Israel, Columbia University has named Nemat Shafik as president, and Harvard Medical School has withdrawn from a US news ranking.

The Associated Press covers concerns over China’s artificial intelligence programme.

Science reports on calls for rules around risky virus research to be expanded to more pathogens, teaching evaluations may perpetuate academia’s gender biases, a US judge has lectured the government on how academic research works, an Omicron origin study has been retracted, the National Institutes of Health may revamp how grant proposals are scored, a science oversight board is about to get much more diverse, and there’s a piece on whether fictional mad scientists would pass ethical review.

Nature says that a study of journal editors has highlighted ‘self-publication’ and the gender gap, ChatGPT has been listed as an author on research papers, young physicists say ethics rules are being ignored, a chemical engineer has avoided prison after a conviction for hiding ties to China, multimillion-dollar trade in paper authorships has alarmed publishers, the Hubble telescope is still in the game, PhD training is said to be no longer fit for purpose, a view piece says that preprint review should form part of PhD programmes and postdoc training, and there’s a look at how Nasa is incentivising open science.

The week ahead

Tuesday

The National Academies’ Government-University-Industry Research Roundtable is holding a webinar on the National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan.

Wednesday

A two-day National Academies meeting will hear from experts about whether National Security Decision Directive 189—which governs the transfer of federally funded research—needs to be reexamined.

A National Science Foundation webinar will outline a new funding programme targeting synthetic and engineering biology research projects and run by the Department of Energy’s Bioenergy Technologies Office and the National Science Foundation.

Thursday

The National Science Foundation is running a Q&A regarding its Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programme.

The Playbook would not be possible without Andrew Silver, Robin Bisson, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post Cooperation and compromise appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: US-Japan space collaboration, an NSF commercialisation partnership and a humanities boost

In depth: The White House has published advice for US government agencies responsible for scientific research, intended to strengthen the integrity of their work, as it also launched initiatives to make federally funded research more open for scrutiny and reuse.

Full story: White House moves to strengthen integrity of science agencies
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

Power changes hands at top of US House committees—Key committees for R&D get new chairs after Republicans gain majority in House of Representatives
 

Here is the rest of the US news this week…

US and Japan cement space cooperation

The US and Japan have signed an agreement to build on their longstanding history of collaboration in space exploration. The agreement covers a broad range of joint activities between the two countries, including in space science, Earth science, aeronautical science and space technology. “The future of space is collaborative,” said US secretary of state Antony Blinken, who signed the agreement for his country. “Through this agreement, our nations have strengthened our partnership in space and here on Earth. We will go farther and learn even more together.”

NSF announces commercialisation partnership

The National Science Foundation has announced a $5 million partnership to speed up the commercialisation of research into biotechnology. It has teamed up with the research consultancy NobleReach Emerge to deliver a pilot scheme to train scientists in how to bring their research to market and help them assess paths to product development. Entrepreneurs will then be hired to help the research teams tackle key areas including go-to-market strategy and economic analyses. The NSF said the scheme would serve as a model for creating a sustained national technology commercialisation programme.

NEH welcomes appropriations uplift

The National Endowment for the Humanities has received $207 million in federal funding for 2023, which is an increase of $27m on its 2022 appropriations. The money will provide support to the NEH’s grant-making divisions and support local and regional humanities programmes. It will also go towards a new initiative—American Tapestry: Weaving Together Past, Present and Future—which emphasises the role of the humanities in tackling contemporary social challenges. NEH chair Shelly Lowe said the funding for 2023 would “allow the NEH to reach even more institutions and communities through our grant-making, and increase the impact of our investment in humanities programmes, education and research”.

The post US news roundup: 13-19 January appeared first on Research Professional News.

Key committees for R&D get new chairs after Republicans gain majority in House of Representatives

Two of the key committees in the US House of Representatives that make decisions on R&D have announced their new chairs, after Republicans wrested control of the chamber from Democrats in November’s mid-term elections.

Republican congressman Frank Lucas (pictured right) was elected by his party’s conference as chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee this month. Lucas has served as ranking member of the science committee since 2019 and was vice chair before that.

A representative for Oklahoma, Lucas said he will focus on securing America’s supply chain for advanced technologies, renewing its leadership in space, researching ways to make energy cleaner and more affordable, and combatting threats from China.

He added that the committee will conduct “critical oversight on the billions and billions of dollars the Democratic-led Congress and administration have poured into our agencies over the last two years, to hold them accountable and ensure taxpayer dollars are protected from waste, fraud and abuse”.

But he said the committee has a history of bipartisan work and he hopes to continue a “productive and collaborative relationship with our colleagues across the aisle”.

California Democrat representative Zoe Lofgren has become her party’s ranking member on the committee.

Texas representative Kay Granger was named chair of the House Appropriations Committee, which oversees all federal funding, including R&D. She is the first Republican woman to lead the committee and said she will prioritise national security spending.

“It’s our responsibility to reduce spending where we can and ensure that we prioritise resources on national security,” Granger said. “As the former chair of the defense subcommittee, and as someone who has thousands of service members and hundreds of defense contractors in my district, I know how important it is that we have a strong defense.”

The post Power changes hands at top of US House committees appeared first on Research Professional News.

Framework says agencies should prevent political interference and have non-restrictive social media policies

The White House has published advice for US government agencies responsible for scientific research, intended to strengthen the integrity of their work, as it also launched initiatives to make federally funded research more open for scrutiny and reuse.

Announced by the Office of Science and Technology Policy on 11 and 12 January, the recommendations and initiatives follow months of review and discussion of the relevant policies with federal agencies.

On integrity, the OSTP said that “effective practices protecting scientific integrity are essential for the development of evidence-based policies” across government.

Its advice came in the form of a Framework for Federal Scientific Integrity Policy and Practice, based in part on a January 2022 report by its National Science and Technology Council (NSTC), which also developed the framework.

Integrity framework

The framework defines scientific integrity as “the adherence to professional practices, ethical behaviour, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of and communicating about science and scientific activities”, adding: “Inclusivity, transparency and protection from inappropriate influence are hallmarks of scientific integrity.”

It also includes a roadmap for achieving “an ideal state” of integrity, metrics the OSTP will use to measure progress and a charter for a new NSTC Subcommittee on Scientific Integrity that will help the OSTP with agency monitoring and improvement.

A set of model policies for agencies includes ensuring that scientific findings are “not suppressed, delayed or altered for political purposes”, and says agencies should examine their social media rules to ensure they are “not overly restrictive”.

The framework has won praise from the research community. Jacob Carter, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, described it as a “landmark policy”.

“The new framework sends a strong message to everyone who carries out scientific work, and to the political appointees and public servants who oversee those agencies,” he said.

But he warned that how the framework is implemented will be crucial.

“Every agency now has a responsibility to make sure its expert staff know their rights, and that political appointees know that these rules will be taken seriously and they will be held accountable if they break them.

“And as important as these commitments from the administration are, we also need Congress to act and pass a scientific integrity bill that codifies these protections into law, so they don’t fade away under a future presidency.”

Open science

The OSTP initiatives on open science also included a cross-government definition that the term refers to “the principle and practice of making research products and processes available to all, while respecting diverse cultures, maintaining security and privacy, and fostering collaborations, reproducibility and equity”.

The office said that having a “unified, official definition will galvanise federal efforts, promote interagency collaboration and drive progress” on opening up federally funded research.

This calendar year has been declared the Year of Open Science, with actions planned to implement policies and open up research results.

These include that federal agencies will update the OSTP and White House Office of Management and Budget on their open science activities throughout 2023, while an NSTC Subcommittee on Open Science has worked with 10 agencies to launch an online resource for learning about open science. 

A version of this article also appeared in Research Europe

The post White House moves to strengthen integrity of science agencies appeared first on Research Professional News.

Why has the NIH been without a boss since 2021?

The National Institutes of Health has been without a permanent leader for over a year, and questions are starting to be asked.

Francis Collins stepped down at the end of 2021 after 12 years at the helm of the world’s preeminent public biomedical research funder, whose budget in 2023 is $47.5 billion.

When Collins took up the role in 2009, the agency’s budget was $29.5bn, and he is widely seen as having been an effective leader.

“There’s no question that Collins is the most impactful science policy person of my lifetime,” Holden Thorp, editor of the Science family of journals, told Research Professional News.

In December, Thorp used the editorial pages of Science to decry as “inexcusable” the fact that candidates for the top NIH job were vetted but then dropped out after long delays.

While the names of those under consideration are kept under wraps, in May 2022 The Washington Post reported that Mary Klotman from Duke University was a “strong contender”.

But in June, Duke announced that Klotman had been reappointed as dean of the university’s school of medicine for a second five-year term.

There was also speculation in July that Laurie Glimcher, chief executive of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, could be in the running for the NIH job, but that trail also ran cold.

The midterm elections in November may have thrown a spanner in the works, partly because president Joe Biden’s administration could not be certain that it would have a majority in the Senate, which would have to confirm any new director after nomination by the White House.

“They don’t have that excuse now,” said Thorp.

Boat unrocked

He suggested that one reason White House officials could be dragging their feet is that they are happy with the status quo and “don’t want the boat rocked”.

“Biden has always been very comfortable with Collins,” Thorp said. “Even though Francis is not the director right now, all of his people and all the people and processes that he put in place are there.”

Prior to taking the top job, Collins was director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, one of the NIH’s 27 different arms, and he was instrumental in the scientific milestone of mapping the human genome. But that insider route to the top job set him apart from previous directors.

The likelihood is that a new director, coming from the outside, would precipitate a shake-up of NIH leadership as they sought to make their mark. The current interim director is Lawrence Tabak, who, along with Mike Lauer, chief of the NIH’s external grants operation, has been at the agency for many years.

While Thorp says the current team has done “great things”, he suggests that “it’s time for some new people to do things differently, and for people who look different”.

“We’ve got a much more diverse scientific workforce now and they deserve to have leaders who look like them from time to time,” Thorp added.

Diverse appointments

Indeed, one of the most urgent challenges facing the next director is to make headway on increasing the diversity of the researchers it funds, with worryingly small numbers of Black applicants for NIH research grants and a recalcitrant, albeit shrinking, gender gap.

It is notable that the two names linked to the top job in 2022 were both women. A female leader would be a first at the NIH, and Biden’s administration has form in making science appointments that have been cheered by advocates for diversity.

Monica Bertagnolli has recently taken the helm at the National Cancer Institute, another of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centres.

And Arati Prabhakar was picked to lead the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy last June, the first woman and person of colour to do so. This was maybe slightly overshadowed, though, by the fact that her appointment came after Eric Lander, Biden’s initial pick, resigned amid a bullying scandal.

There is another high-profile NIH vacancy to fill, too. Anthony Fauci, arguably the most well-known US scientist, has stepped down as head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a position he had held since 1984.

Thorp is sceptical that the appointment of Fauci will come before Collins is replaced, however. “If they were to do it now, it would have to be somebody who didn’t know who their boss was going to be,” he said.

Battles ahead

If the White House is happy with Collins’s legacy NIH continuing for now, it may not stay that way for much longer. After Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in the midterms, it will be important for the Biden administration to have a strong NIH voice in Congress on divisive issues.

“There are certain bipartisan issues like cancer that anybody can get through,” said Thorp, but more nuance is needed on issues like opioids, orphan diseases and health disparities.

“Someone who has the clout of the Senate confirmation really needs to be the person working those priorities,” Thorp said.

And there are a number of other issues that need forward-looking leadership at the NIH, including support for junior researchers and White House pressure to accelerate moves towards open access. In August, the Office of Science and Technology Policy announced that by the end of 2025, all federally funded research must be made publicly available in freely accessible repositories at the time of publication.

There is also the prospect of Republicans using their control of House committees to launch investigations into the origins of the Covid-19 pandemic. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the new chair of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, has taken aim at Fauci.

Republicans allege that Fauci may have supported NIH funding of research that could have led to the virus leaking from a Chinese laboratory, a theory disputed by scientists whose research suggests the pandemic started at a live animal market.

While potential candidates for NIH director may not relish the thought of defending the agency from such accusations, there’s no doubt that strong leadership will be needed. And soon.

And finally…

There has been some disquiet among climate researchers at the United Arab Emirates’ decision to put the head of its National Oil Company in charge of the Cop28 climate meeting the country is hosting at the end of this year. Sultan Ahmed Al Jaber is also UAE minister for industry and advanced technology, but having an oil company boss running a climate meeting is an interesting look, to say the least.

US climate envoy John Kerry isn’t concerned, though. He thinks Al Jaber’s role is an asset. Kerry told the Associated Press: “I think that Dr Sultan Al Jaber is a terrific choice because he is the head of the company. That company knows it needs to transition.”

The previous Cop meeting was already facing allegations it had been captured by fossil fuel interests and was sidelining science. Calls for countries and groups of nations to push on with emissions reduction without waiting for the mega meeting are only likely to grow.

Highlights from Research Professional News this week

Rachael Pells reports that universities hosting Chinese Confucius Institutes could become eligible for public defence funding under proposals set out by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

She also brings us the news that total R&D spending in the US rose by $74.9 billion in 2021, but R&D intensity—spending as a share of GDP—remained flat following several years of increases.

In our US news roundup, new funding for novel space technologies, such as to make it possible to live on the moon and on Mars, has been awarded by Nasa.

In the news

The New York Times reports that universities, alarmed by artificial intelligence chatbots, have started revamping how they teach, an Indiana University student has been stabbed in a ‘racially motivated attack’, and the former head of Nasa’s science directorate ‘was OK with some missions failing’.

In The Wall Street Journal, a man suspected of killing four University of Idaho students will remain in jail until his next court hearing in June.

The Associated Press says that wealth looms big as ever in post-scandal college admissions, an Indiana University student was stabbed ‘because she is Asian’, Hamline University is under fire for an art professor’s dismissal, and Hawaii has stopped prosecuting elders who protested against the construction of a telescope.

Science says that Nasa has unveiled initial plans for a multibillion-dollar telescope, there is frustration at the National Science Foundation’s decision not to track sexual orientation among the scientific workforce, and there are new hopes for a giant telescope in Hawaii.

Nature reports that researchers have blasted the NSF for not collecting LGBT+ data, lab heads are tightening supplies budgets, and there’s a look at how philanthropy can nurture your research.

The week ahead

Monday

Today is Martin Luther King Day, a federal holiday.

Tuesday

There are no committee meetings scheduled in Congress this week.

The advocacy group Research!America is running an online discussion with Pamela Davis of Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, the winner of its 2023 Herbert Pardes Family Award for National Leadership in Advocacy for Research.

Wednesday

The National Science Foundation is holding a webinar on its Growing Research Access for Nationally Transformative Equity and Diversity initiative, “a wholly unique new funding opportunity” that aims to build US research capacity.

Nasa administrator Bill Nelson and other staff from the space agency will hold a press conference on the Sustainable Flight Demonstrator project, which focuses on airliner innovation.

Thursday

The National Science Foundation is running a webinar on the revised versions of its Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support formats, which will become mandatory for proposals from 30 January.

The Playbook would not be possible without Robin Bisson, Martyn Jones, Craig Nicholson, Daniel Cressey and Sarah Richardson.

Thanks for reading. Have a great day.

The post A ship without a captain appeared first on Research Professional News.

This week: novel ideas for space technology, Hillary Clinton joins Columbia University and more

In depth: Universities hosting Chinese Confucius Institutes could become eligible for public defence funding under proposals set out by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine.

Full story: Plan to restore defence funding to universities with China centres
 

 
Also this week from Research Professional News

US R&D spending up $75bn in 2021, but intensity flat—R&D spending as share of GDP flatlined for the first time in years, report estimates

US research in 2023: more money, fewer problems?—Boosted US science budgets are still short of ambition, say some in the research world
 

 
Here is the rest of the US news this week… 

Nasa funds visionary technology ideas 

New funding for novel space technologies, such as to make it possible to live on the moon and on Mars, has been awarded by Nasa as part of its Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) programme. The latest round of funding will provide $175,000 grants to each of 14 research projects, including a proposal for a new kind of space observatory. Other funded projects include an investigation into the chemistry of Saturn’s largest moon, oxygen transportation between moon settlements, and self-growing bricks for homes on Mars.

Clinton joins Columbia

Former US senator, secretary of state and presidential runner-up Hillary Clinton is joining Columbia University as a professor of global affairs. Clinton, who ran as the Democratic Party nominee in the 2016 presidential elections, will start her new role at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs from 1 February and will begin teaching in the 2023-24 academic year. Columbia University president Lee Bollinger welcomed Clinton’s “extraordinary talents and capacities”, which he said would benefit the university’s teaching and research.

Arpa-Energy chief starts work

The government’s latest energy research director has been officially sworn in to assume her new role. Evelyn Wang, who was announced as director of the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy in December, previously served as head of the mechanical engineering department at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. At Arpa-E, Wang will be tasked with leading the agency’s mission to further early stage research into energy generation, storage and use.

The post US news roundup: 6-12 January appeared first on Research Professional News.