tag:theconversation.com,2011:/ca/topics/science-research-8866/articlesScience research – The Conversation2024-03-13T12:42:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2255382024-03-13T12:42:01Z2024-03-13T12:42:01ZCongress’ failure so far to deliver on promise of tens of billions in new research spending threatens America’s long-term economic competitiveness<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/581408/original/file-20240312-20-9x0dhz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=97%2C59%2C4895%2C3270&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Science is again on the chopping block on Capitol Hill.
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://newsroom.ap.org/detail/ScienceMarch/0403cab20ac24aeb8c568b5adadde36f/photo?Query=national%20science%20foundation&mediaType=photo&sortBy=&dateRange=Anytime&totalCount=277&digitizationType=Digitized&currentItemNo=13&vs=true&vs=true">AP Photo/Sait Serkan Gurbuz</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Federal spending on fundamental scientific research is pivotal to America’s long-term economic competitiveness and growth. But less than two years after <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/">agreeing the U.S. needed to invest</a> tens of billions of dollars more in basic research than it had been, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/09/biden-touted-science-funding-but-congress-hollowed-out-his-promise-00146065#:%7E:text=The%20law%20authorized%20NSF%20to,according%20to%20the%20CHIPS%20Act.">Congress is already seriously scaling back</a> its plans. </p>
<p>A package of funding bills recently passed by Congress and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2024/03/08/1237131404/senate-passes-spending-package-hours-ahead-of-shutdown-deadline">signed by President Joe Biden</a> on March 9, 2024, cuts the current fiscal year budget for the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov">National Science Foundation</a>, America’s premier basic science research agency, <a href="https://www.aibs.org/news/2024/240311-fy24-science-funding">by over 8%</a> relative to last year. That puts the NSF’s current allocation <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2024/03/09/biden-touted-science-funding-but-congress-hollowed-out-his-promise-00146065#:%7E:text=The%20law%20authorized%20NSF%20to,according%20to%20the%20CHIPS%20Act.">US$6.6 billion below</a> targets Congress set in 2022.</p>
<p>And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, doesn’t look much better. Even assuming his request for the NSF is fully funded, it would still, based on my calculations, leave the agency a total of $15 billion behind the plan Congress laid out to help the U.S. keep up with countries such as China that are <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/china-to-mobilize-nation-as-it-fights-us-for-tech-supremacy-1">rapidly increasing their science budgets</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://public.websites.umich.edu/%7Ejdos/">I am a sociologist</a> who studies how <a href="https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=26387">research universities contribute to the public good</a>. I’m also the executive director of the <a href="https://iris.isr.umich.edu/">Institute for Research on Innovation and Science</a>, a national university consortium whose members share data that helps us understand, explain and work to amplify those benefits. </p>
<p>Our data shows how underfunding basic research, especially in high-priority areas, poses a real threat to the United States’ role as a leader in critical technology areas, forestalls innovation and makes it harder to recruit the skilled workers that high-tech companies need to succeed.</p>
<h2>A promised investment</h2>
<p>Less than two years ago, in August 2022, university researchers like me had reason to celebrate. </p>
<p>Congress had just <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/08/09/fact-sheet-chips-and-science-act-will-lower-costs-create-jobs-strengthen-supply-chains-and-counter-china/">passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act</a>. The science part of the law promised <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-02086-z">one of the biggest federal investments</a> in the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov">National Science Foundation</a> in its 74-year history.</p>
<p>The CHIPS act authorized US$81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/117/plaws/publ167/PLAW-117publ167.pdf">benefit of all Americans</a>” by investing in research.</p>
<p>But there was one very big snag. The money still has to be appropriated by Congress every year. Lawmakers <a href="https://www.hks.harvard.edu/faculty-research/policy-topics/public-finance/how-cure-government-budget-dysfunction">haven’t been good at doing that</a> recently. As lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on, fundamental research is quickly becoming a casualty of political dysfunction. </p>
<p><iframe id="6k1Rl" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/6k1Rl/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<h2>Research’s critical impact</h2>
<p>That’s bad because fundamental research matters in more ways than you might expect. </p>
<p>For instance, the basic discoveries that made the <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2023/press-release/">COVID-19 vaccine possible</a> stretch back to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02483-w">early 1960s</a>. Such research investments contribute to the health, wealth and well-being of society, <a href="https://new.nsf.gov/tip/updates/nsf-pilot-assess-impact-strategic-investments-regional-jobs">support jobs and regional economies</a> and are vital to the U.S. economy and national security.</p>
<p>Lagging research investment will hurt U.S. leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less support means less new research work gets done, fewer new researchers are trained and important new discoveries are made elsewhere. </p>
<p>But disrupting federal research funding also directly <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-feels-the-pain-of-science-research-budget-cuts-75119">affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy</a>. </p>
<p><a href="https://nyuscholars.nyu.edu/en/publications/proximity-and-economic-activity-an-analysis-of-vendor-business-tr">Businesses nationwide thrive</a> by selling the goods and services – everything from pipettes and biological specimens to notebooks and plane tickets – that are necessary for research. Those vendors include high-tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They employ your neighbors and friends and contribute to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-federal-budget-funds-scientific-research-its-the-economy-that-benefits-80651">economic health of your hometown</a> and the nation. </p>
<p>Nearly a third of the $10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly <a href="https://irisweb.isr.umich.edu/reports/spending_report/15114/53a139385e/5293dc024f/ne">supported U.S. employers</a>, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>A Detroit welding shop that sells gases many labs use in experiments funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Defense and Department of Energy. </p></li>
<li><p>A Dallas-based <a href="https://www.beckgroup.com/projects/texas-university-systems-national-center-innovation-advanced-development-manufacturing/">construction company</a> that is building an advanced vaccine and drug development facility paid for by the Department of Health and Human Services.</p></li>
<li><p>More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a <a href="https://utahforge.com/">Department of Energy project</a> to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>When Congress shortchanges basic research, it also damages businesses like these and people you might not usually associate with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies earn more than $2 billion each year from <a href="https://irisweb.isr.umich.edu/reports/new-vendor-report/15115/24ae1564e6/3be59f6032/ne">federally funded research</a> done by our consortium’s members.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=380%2C171%2C7799%2C4831&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/569123/original/file-20240112-29-o5dds.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A lag or cut in federal research funding would harm U.S. competitiveness in critical advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/teacher-in-a-stem-class-at-the-lab-developing-a-royalty-free-image/1348130740?phrase=research%20lab%20ai">Hispanolistic/E+ via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Jobs and innovation</h2>
<p>Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly trained people are essential to <a href="https://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac5949">corporate innovation</a> and to U.S. leadership in key fields, such as AI, where companies depend on hiring to secure <a href="https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/the-industry-of-ideas-measuring-how-artificial-intelligence-changes-labor-markets/">research expertise</a>. </p>
<p>In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122,500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them were students or trainees. <a href="https://irisweb.isr.umich.edu/reports/employee-report/15110/e656278fea/1c4bfff4a0">Our data shows</a> that they go on to many types of jobs but are particularly important for leading tech companies such as Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook and Intel.</p>
<p>That same data lets me estimate that over 300,000 people who worked at U.S. universities in 2022 were paid by federal research funds. Threats to federal research investments put academic jobs at risk. They also hurt private sector innovation because even the most successful companies need to hire people with expert research skills. Most people learn those skills by working on university research projects, and most of those projects are federally funded.</p>
<h2>High stakes</h2>
<p>If Congress doesn’t move to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets – and make up for the $11.6 billion it’s already behind schedule – the long-term consequences for American competitiveness could be serious.</p>
<p>Over time, companies would see fewer skilled job candidates, and academic and corporate researchers would produce fewer discoveries. Fewer high-tech startups would mean slower economic growth. America would become less competitive in the age of AI. This would turn one of the fears that led lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act into a reality.</p>
<p>Ultimately, it’s up to lawmakers to decide whether to fulfill their promise to invest more in the research that supports jobs across the economy and in American innovation, competitiveness and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.</p>
<p><em>This is an updated version of an <a href="https://theconversation.com/congress-is-failing-to-deliver-on-its-promise-of-billions-more-in-research-spending-threatening-americas-long-term-economic-competitiveness-215866">article originally published</a> on Jan. 16, 2024.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/225538/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jason Owen-Smith receives research support from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and Wellcome Leap. </span></em></p>A deal that avoided a shutdown also slashed spending for the National Science Foundation, putting it billions below a congressional target intended to supercharge American science research.Jason Owen-Smith, Professor of Sociology, University of MichiganLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/2116662023-08-22T12:25:22Z2023-08-22T12:25:22ZSeeing what the naked eye can’t − 4 essential reads on how scientists bring the microscopic world into plain sight<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543356/original/file-20230817-17-593vu4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2048%2C1839&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">This microscopy image shows the retina of a mouse, laid flat and made fluorescent.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://flic.kr/p/Mr9Ybe">Kenyoung Kim, Wonkyu Ju and Mark Ellisman/National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research, University of California, San Diego via Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The microscope is an iconic symbol of the life sciences – and for good reason. From the discovery of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/robert-hooke-the-english-leonardo-who-was-a-17th-century-scientific-superstar-119497">existence of cells</a> to the <a href="https://theconversation.com/sexism-pushed-rosalind-franklin-toward-the-scientific-sidelines-during-her-short-life-but-her-work-still-shines-on-her-100th-birthday-139249">structure of DNA</a>, microscopy has been a quintessential tool of the field, unlocking new dimensions of the living world not only for scientists but also for the general public.</p>
<p>For the life sciences, where understanding the function of a living thing often requires interpreting its form, imaging is vital to confirming theories and revealing what is yet unknown.</p>
<p>This selection of stories from The Conversation’s archive presents a few ways in which microscopy has contributed to different forms of scientific knowledge, including techniques that take visualization beyond sight altogether.</p>
<h2>1. Seeing as identifying</h2>
<p>Over the past few centuries, the microscope has undergone a gradual but significant evolution. Each advance has allowed researchers to see increasingly smaller and more fragile structures and biomolecules at increasingly higher resolution – from cells, to the structures within cells, to the structures within the structures within cells, down to atoms.</p>
<p>But there is still a resolution gap between the smallest and largest structures of the cell. Biophysicist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=MZ6qrPUAAAAJ&hl=en">Jeremy Berg</a> drew an analogy to Google Maps: Though scientists could see the city as a whole and individual houses, they couldn’t make out the neighborhoods. </p>
<p>“Seeing these neighborhood-level details is essential to being able to understand how individual components work together in the environment of a cell,” he writes.</p>
<p>Scientists are working to bridge that resolution gap. Improvements to the 2014 Nobel Prize-winning <a href="https://theconversation.com/zooming-across-time-and-space-simultaneously-with-superresolution-to-understand-how-cells-divide-203324">superresolution microscopy</a>, for example, have enhanced the study of lengthy processes like cell division by capturing images across a range of size and time scales simultaneously, bringing clarity to details traditional microscopes tend to blur.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Cryo-ET image of SARS-CoV-2" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=508&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543350/original/file-20230817-29-4xyjde.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=639&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Cryo-electron tomography shows what molecules look like in high resolution – in this case, the virus that causes COVID-19.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://nanographics.at/projects/coronavirus-3d/">Nanographics</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another technique, <a href="https://theconversation.com/visualizing-the-inside-of-cells-at-previously-impossible-resolutions-provides-vivid-insights-into-how-they-work-195873">cryo-electron microscopy, or cryo-EM</a>, won a Nobel Prize in 2017 for bringing even more complex, dynamic molecules into view by flash-freezing them. This creates a protective glasslike shell around samples as they’re bombarded by a beam of electrons to create their photo op. Cryo-ET, a specialized type of cryo-EM, can construct 3D images of molecular structures within their natural environments. </p>
<p>These techniques not only generate images at or near atomic resolution but also preserve the natural shape of difficult-to-capture biomolecules of interest. Researchers were able to use cryo-EM, for instance, to capture the elusive structure of the protein on the surface of the <a href="https://theconversation.com/scientists-uncovered-the-structure-of-the-key-protein-for-a-future-hepatitis-c-vaccine-heres-how-they-did-it-193705">shape-shifting hepatitis C virus</a>, providing key information for a future vaccine.</p>
<p>Further enhancements to science’s visual acuity will reveal more of the fine details of the building blocks of life. </p>
<p>“I anticipate seeing new theories on how we understand cells, moving from disorganized bags of molecules to intricately organized and dynamic systems,” writes Berg.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/visualizing-the-inside-of-cells-at-previously-impossible-resolutions-provides-vivid-insights-into-how-they-work-195873">Visualizing the inside of cells at previously impossible resolutions provides vivid insights into how they work</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>2. Seeing as scoping</h2>
<p>Microscopy images are often framed as snapshots – circumscribed parts of a whole that have been magnified to reveal their hidden features. But nothing in an organism works in isolation. After discerning individual components, scientists are tasked with charting how they interact with each other in the macrosystem of the body. Figuring this out requires not only identifying every component that makes up a particular cell, tissue and organ but also placing them in relation to each other – in other words, making a map.</p>
<p>Researchers have been charting the brain by stitching together multiple snapshots like a photo mosaic. They use different techniques to label a specific cell type and then image the whole brain at high resolution. Layer by layer, each run-through creates an increasingly detailed and more complete model. Neuroscientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WOQx1ksAAAAJ&hl=en">Yongsoo Kim</a> likens the process to a <a href="https://theconversation.com/mapping-how-the-100-billion-cells-in-the-brain-all-fit-together-is-the-brave-new-world-of-neuroscience-170182">satellite image of the brain</a>. Combining millions of these photos allows researchers to zoom into the weeds and zoom out to a bird’s-eye view.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Stiched high-resolution microscopy image of mouse brain." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/432261/original/file-20211116-25-1vtphzf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Zooming in on this image of a mouse brain reveals rectangular lines where images were stitched together, with each colored dot representing a specific brain cell type.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://kimlab.io">Yongsoo Kim</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But building a map of a city, however detailed, is not the same as understanding its rhythm and atmosphere. Likewise, knowing where every cell is located relative to each other doesn’t necessarily tell researchers how they function or interact. Just as important as charting out the landscape of an organ is coming up with a working theory of how it all fits together and performs as a whole. Right now, Kim notes, analysis lags behind technical advances in data collection.</p>
<p>“Incredibly rich, high-resolution brain mapping presents a great opportunity for neuroscientists to deeply ponder what this new data says about how the brain works,” Kim writes. “Though there are still many unknowns about the brain, these new tools and techniques could help bring them to light.”</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/mapping-how-the-100-billion-cells-in-the-brain-all-fit-together-is-the-brave-new-world-of-neuroscience-170182">Mapping how the 100 billion cells in the brain all fit together is the brave new world of neuroscience</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>3. Seeing as recognizing</h2>
<p>Every improvement in technology brings a parallel improvement in the data it collects, both in quality and in quantity. But that data is only useful insofar as researchers are able to analyze it – high granularity isn’t helpful if those details aren’t appreciable, and high output isn’t beneficial if it’s too overwhelming to organize.</p>
<p>Automated microscopes, for example, have made it possible to take time-lapse images of cells, resulting in massive amounts of data that require manual sifting. Neuroscientist <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=en&user=cQdBoWUAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&alert_preview_top_rm=2&sortby=pubdate">Jeremy Linsley</a> and his team encountered this dilemma in their own work on neurodegenerative disease. They’ve been relying on an army of interns to scour hundreds of thousands of images of neurons and tally each death – a slow and expensive process.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Microscopy images showing rat neurons before and after treatment with glutamate; the neurons are colored green when alive and yellow when dead" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=354&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/443244/original/file-20220128-14047-1wva32o.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=445&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">These images show living neurons colored green and dead neurons colored yellow.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf8142">Jeremy Linsley</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>So they turned to artificial intelligence. Researchers can train an AI model to recognize specific patterns by feeding it many sample images, pointing out structures of interest and extrapolating the algorithm to new contexts. Linsley and his team developed a model to <a href="https://theconversation.com/new-ai-technique-identifies-dead-cells-under-the-microscope-100-times-faster-than-people-can-potentially-accelerating-research-on-neurodegenerative-diseases-like-alzheimers-174154">distinguish between living and dead neurons</a> with greater speed and accuracy than people trained to do the same task. </p>
<p>They also opened the <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-is-a-black-box-a-computer-scientist-explains-what-it-means-when-the-inner-workings-of-ais-are-hidden-203888">black box</a> of the model to figure out how it was finding dead cells, revealing new signals of neuron death that researchers previously weren’t aware of because they weren’t obvious to the human eye.</p>
<p>“By taking out human guesswork, (AI models) increase the reproducibility and speed of research and can help researchers discover new phenomena in images that they would otherwise not have been able to easily recognize,” writes Linsley.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/new-ai-technique-identifies-dead-cells-under-the-microscope-100-times-faster-than-people-can-potentially-accelerating-research-on-neurodegenerative-diseases-like-alzheimers-174154">New AI technique identifies dead cells under the microscope 100 times faster than people can – potentially accelerating research on neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>4. Seeing as appreciating</h2>
<p>Even before they had the instruments to zoom in on samples, researchers had a tool in their arsenal to study the living world that they still use today: art.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Illustration of cells in a cork from Robert Hooke's Micrographia" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=875&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1100&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1100&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/543351/original/file-20230817-7317-pfm7di.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1100&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">This illustration from Robert Hooke’s ‘Micrographia’ shows the structure of cells in a cork.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Micrographia_Schem_11.jpg">Robert Hooke/National Library of Wales via Wikimedia Commons</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Centuries ago, scientists and artists examined plants, animals and anatomy through illustration. Sketches of unfamiliar species in their natural environments aided in their classification, and drawings of the human body advanced study of its structure and function. With the help of the printing press, these artistic renderings – which later included the <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/15491">view under the lenses</a> of early microscopes – popularized scientific knowledge about the natural world.</p>
<p>Though hand drawings have since given way to advanced imaging techniques and computer models, the legacy of communicating science through art continues. Scientific publications and <a href="https://theconversation.com/art-illuminates-the-beauty-of-science-and-could-inspire-the-next-generation-of-scientists-young-and-old-168925">BioArt competitions</a> highlight laboratory images and videos to share the awe and wonder of studying the natural world with the general public. Using visualizations in classrooms and art museums can also promote science literacy by giving students a chance to look through the eye of the microscope as a scientist would.</p>
<p>Biologist and BioArt Awards judge <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine-Curran">Chris Curran</a> believes that making visible the processes and concepts of science can grant a greater depth of understanding of the natural world necessary to being an informed citizen. </p>
<p>“That those images and videos are often beautiful is an added benefit,” she writes.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ajuxeOly2UE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">This video of cells migrating in a zebra fish embryo won first place in the 2022 Nikon Small World in Motion Competition.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the abstract qualities of science can be made tangible in ways that don’t involve sight. Proteins, for instance, can be <a href="https://theconversation.com/the-music-of-proteins-is-made-audible-through-a-computer-program-that-learns-from-chopin-168718">translated into music</a> by mapping their physical properties into sound: amino acids turn into notes, while structural loops become tempos and motifs. Computational biologists <a href="https://scholar.google.com.sg/citations?user=Ic2nqDsAAAAJ&hl=en">Peng Zhang</a> and <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=784B-f0AAAAJ&hl=en">Yuzong Chen</a> enhanced the musicality of these mapping techniques by basing them on different music styles, such as that of Chopin. Consequently, a protein that prevents cancer formation, p53, sounds toccata-like, and the protein that binds to the hormone and neurotransmitter oxytocin flutters with recurring motifs.</p>
<p>Framing scientific images as art often requires no more than a change in perspective. And uncovering the poetry of science, many researchers would agree, can help reveal the artistry of life.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/art-illuminates-the-beauty-of-science-and-could-inspire-the-next-generation-of-scientists-young-and-old-168925">Art illuminates the beauty of science – and could inspire the next generation of scientists young and old</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/211666/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
Visualization is an essential part of the scientific process. Advances in imaging have enabled eye-opening discoveries, not only for scientists and researchers but also for the general public.Vivian Lam, Associate Health and Biomedicine EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1908762022-11-23T13:19:17Z2022-11-23T13:19:17ZWhat is ethical animal research? A scientist and veterinarian explain<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493593/original/file-20221104-24-tgu2zn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=23%2C17%2C1972%2C1478&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Animal research's benefits are clear -- but public awareness of what it involves is not.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/photo/woman-wearing-boiler-suit-and-mask-standing-in-room-royalty-free-image/200399533-001?phrase=%22woman%20wearing%20boiler%20suit%22&adppopup=true">Javier Pierini/DigitalVision via Getty Images</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>A <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/switzerland-vote-becoming-first-nation-ban-animal-testing-2022-02-13/">proposed measure</a> in Switzerland would have made that country the first to ban medical and scientific experimentation on animals. It failed to pass in February 2022, with only 21% of voters in favor. Yet globally, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8699?s=1&r=8">including in the United States</a>, there is concern about whether animal research is ethical.</p>
<p>We are scientists who support ethical animal research that reduces suffering of humans and animals alike by helping researchers <a href="https://fbresearch.org/medical-advances/animal-research-achievements/">discover the causes of disease and how to treat it</a>. One of us is a <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JxIoO1sAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">neuroscientist</a> who studies <a href="https://www.apa.org/ptsd-guideline/treatments/prolonged-exposure">behavioral treatments</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-01952-8">medications</a> for people with post-traumatic stress disorder – treatments made possible by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.nlm.2013.11.014">research with dogs and rodents</a>. The other is a <a href="https://www.enprc.emory.edu/research/divisions/animal_resources/Stammen_Rachelle_L.html">veterinarian</a> who cares for laboratory animals in research studies and trains researchers on how to interact with their subjects. </p>
<p>We both place high importance on ensuring that animal research is conducted ethically and humanely. But what counts as “ethical” animal research in the first place?</p>
<h2>The 4 R’s of animal research</h2>
<p>There is no single standard definition of ethical animal research. However, it broadly means the humane care of research animals – from their acquisition and housing to the study experience itself.</p>
<p>Federal research agencies follow <a href="https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/gov-principles.htm">guiding principles</a> in evaluating the use and care of animals in research. One is that the research must increase knowledge and, either directly or indirectly, have the potential to benefit the health and welfare of humans and other animals. Another is that only the minimum number of animals required to obtain valid results should be included. Researchers must use procedures that minimize pain and distress and maximize the animals’ welfare. They are also asked to consider whether they could use nonanimal alternatives instead, such as mathematical models or computer simulations.</p>
<p>These principles are summarized by the “<a href="https://flexiblelearning.auckland.ac.nz/medsci303/15/1/1/files/overview_of_3rs.pdf">3 R’s” of animal research</a>: reduction, refinement and replacement. The 3 R’s encourage scientists to develop new techniques that allow them to replace animals with appropriate alternatives. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="Two men bend over a microscope in an office with big glass walls overlooking water." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/493596/original/file-20221104-11-6zdg0h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">L'Oreal Brazil CEO Marcelo Zimet looks at microscope samples at the Episkin laboratory, which has developed alternative methods to animal testing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/loreal-brazil-ceo-marcelo-zimet-looks-on-a-microscope-news-photo/1240792707?phrase=%22animal%20testing%22%20brazil&adppopup=true">Mauro Pimentel/AFP via Getty Images</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Since these guidelines were first disseminated in the <a href="https://caat.jhsph.edu/principles/the-principles-of-humane-experimental-technique">early 1960s</a>, new tools have helped to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0101638">significantly decrease</a> animal research. In fact, since 1985, the number of animals in research has been <a href="https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/statistics/">reduced by half</a>.</p>
<p>A fourth “R” was formalized in the late 1990s: <a href="https://doi.org/10.4103%2F2229-5070.113884">rehabilitation</a>, referring to care for animals after their role in research is complete.</p>
<p>These guidelines are designed to ensure that researchers and regulators consider the costs and benefits of using animals in research, focused on the good it could provide for many more animals and humans. These guidelines also ensure protection of a group – animals – that cannot consent to its own participation in research. There are a number of human groups that cannot consent to research, either, such as infants and young children, but for whom regulated research is still permitted, so that they can <a href="https://philarchive.org/archive/MARART-26">gain the potential benefits from discoveries</a>. </p>
<h2>Enforcing ethics</h2>
<p>Specific <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/research/resources/offices-policies/animal-care/">guidelines</a> for ethical animal research are typically established by <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK24650/">national governments</a>. <a href="https://www.aaalac.org">Independent organizations</a> also provide research standards.</p>
<p>In the U.S., the <a href="http://www.nal.usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-act">Animal Welfare Act</a> protects all warmblooded animals except rats, mice and birds bred for research. Rats, mice and birds are protected – along with fish, reptiles and all other vertebrates – by the <a href="https://olaw.nih.gov/policies-laws/phs-policy.htm">Public Health Service Policy</a>. </p>
<p>Each institution that conducts animal research has an entity called the <a href="https://olaw.nih.gov/resources/tutorial/iacuc.htm">Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee</a>, or IACUC. The IACUC is composed of veterinarians, scientists, nonscientists and members of the public. Before researchers are allowed to start their studies, the IACUC reviews their research protocols to ensure they follow national standards. The IACUC also oversees studies after approval to continually enforce ethical research practices and animal care. It, along with the <a href="https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/SA_AWA/CT_AWA_Inspections">U.S. Department of Agriculture</a>, accreditation agencies and funding entities, may conduct unannounced inspections.</p>
<p>Laboratories that violate standards may be fined, forced to stop their studies, excluded from research funding, ordered to cease and desist, and have their licenses suspended or revoked. Allegations of misconduct are also investigated by the <a href="https://olaw.nih.gov/home.htm">National Institutes of Health’s Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare</a>.</p>
<p>Above and beyond the basic national standards for humane treatment, research institutions across 47 countries, including the U.S., may seek voluntary accreditation by a nonprofit called the <a href="https://ar.aaalac.org/about/index.cfm">Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care</a>, or AAALAC International. <a href="https://www.unthsc.edu/research/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/Benefits-of-AAALAC-Accreditation.pdf">AAALAC accreditation</a> recognizes the maintenance of high standards of animal care and use. It can also help recruit scientists to accredited institutes, promote scientific validity and demonstrate accountability.</p>
<h2>Principles in practice</h2>
<p>So what impact do these guidelines actually have on research and animals?</p>
<p>First, they have made sure that scientists create protocols that describe the purpose of their research and why animals are necessary to answer a meaningful question that could benefit health or medical care. While computer models and cell cultures can play an important role in some research, others studies, like those on <a href="https://theconversation.com/expanding-alzheimers-research-with-primates-could-overcome-the-problem-with-treatments-that-show-promise-in-mice-but-dont-help-humans-188207">Alzheimer’s disease</a>, need animal models to better capture the complexities of living organisms. The protocol must outline how animals will be housed and cared for, and who will care for and work with the animals, to ensure that they are trained to treat animals humanely. </p>
<p>During continual study oversight, inspectors look for whether animals are provided with housing specifically designed for their species’ behavioral and social needs. For example, mice are given nesting materials to create a <a href="https://med.stanford.edu/animalresearch/animal-care-and-facilities/animal-well-being-at-stanford.html">comfortable environment for living and raising pups</a>. When animals don’t have environmental stimulation, it can alter their <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-2236(00)01718-5">brain function</a> – harming not only the animal, but also the science.</p>
<p>Monitoring agencies also consider animals’ distress. If something is known to be painful in humans, it is assumed to be painful in animals as well. Sedation, painkillers or anesthesia must be provided when animals experience more than momentary or slight pain.</p>
<p>For some research that requires assessing organs and tissues, such as the study of heart disease, animals must be euthanized. Veterinary professionals perform or oversee the euthanasia process. Methods must be in compliance with guidelines from the <a href="https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/avma-guidelines-euthanasia-animals">American Veterinary Medical Association</a>, which requires rapid and painless techniques in distress-free conditions. </p>
<p>Fortunately, following their time in research, some animals can be <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/research/resources/offices-policies/animal-care/">adopted</a> into <a href="https://homesforanimalheroes.com/">loving homes</a>, and others may be retired to <a href="https://chimphaven.org">havens and sanctuaries</a> equipped with veterinary care, nutrition and enrichment.</p>
<h2>Continuing the conversation</h2>
<p>Animal research benefits both humans and animals. Numerous medical advances exist because they were initially studied in animals – from treatments for <a href="https://www.understandinganimalresearch.org.uk/application/files/7016/4380/3819/medical-advances-and.pdf">cancer</a> and <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1985.tb37592.x">neurodegenerative disease</a> to new techniques for surgery, <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218274/">organ transplants</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/ilar.49.1.1">noninvasive imaging and diagnostics</a>. </p>
<p>These advances also benefit zoo animals, wildlife and endangered species. Animal research has allowed for the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3201%2Feid1612.100923">eradication of certain diseases in cattle</a>, for example, leading not only to reduced farm cattle deaths and human famine, but also to improved health for wild cattle. <a href="https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10089/chapter/7">Health care advances for pets</a> – including <a href="https://doi.org/10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-16-0637">cancer treatments</a>, effective vaccines, nutritional prescription diets and flea and tick treatments – are also available thanks to animal research.</p>
<p>People who work with animals in research have attempted to <a href="https://www.bradglobal.org/">increase public awareness</a> of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-022-01039-z">research standards and the positive effects</a> animal research has had on daily life. However, some have faced harassment and violence from <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915174319.htm">anti-animal research activists</a>. Some of our own colleagues have received death threats.</p>
<p>Those who work in animal research share a deep appreciation for the creatures who make this work possible. For future strides in biomedical care to be possible, we believe that research using animals must be protected, and that animal health and safety must always remain the top priority.</p>
<p><em>Editor’s note: One photo depicting a species that is highly restricted for use in biomedical research has been removed from the article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/190876/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lana Ruvolo Grasser, Ph.D. is the 2022-2023 American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Americans for Medical Progress Biomedical Research Awareness Day Fellow. She has previously received funding from the National Institute of Mental Health, Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Michigan, and Wayne State University; none of which has supported the work described herein. She is a member of the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, International Society for Developmental Psychobiology, and Michigan Society for Neuroscience. Dr. Grasser contributed to this article in her personal capacity. The views expressed are her own and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institutes of Health or the United States Government. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rachelle Stammen works as a Clinical Veterinarian at the Emory National Primate Research Center. She is a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, American Association of Laboratory Animal Science, Association of Primate Veterinarians, and a Diplomate of the American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine. This work is not affiliated with or reflect the opinions of Emory University or Emory National Primate Research Center. </span></em></p>Guidelines and regulations weigh the medical and health benefits of animal research with researchers’ ability to ensure humane care of their subjects from start to finish.Lana Ruvolo Grasser, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Neuroscience, National Institutes of HealthRachelle Stammen, Clinical Veterinarian, Emory National Primate Research Center, Emory UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1669402022-04-19T12:20:59Z2022-04-19T12:20:59ZHow a South African community’s request for its genetic data raises questions about ethical and equitable research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/447331/original/file-20220218-43570-jbyp9t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C2941%2C1959&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Many researchers are interested in the genetic history of the Khoe-San.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dana Al-Hindi</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists believe Africa is where <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/cradle-of-modern-human-life-found-in-botswana-maybe">modern humans first emerged</a>. For the past decade, our team of <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=sDUNh9UAAAAJ&hl=en">genetic</a> <a href="http://hennlab.ucdavis.edu/dana-al-hindi.html">researchers</a> from the <a href="http://hennlab.ucdavis.edu/">Henn Lab</a> have worked among the Khoe-San and self-identified “<a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/What%27s-in-a-name-Racial-categorisations-under-and-Posel/81e1ad38d1f37b37fe1cddd8a81081b378242217">Coloured</a>” communities in South Africa, which comprise multiple ethnic groups in the region, requesting DNA and generating genetic data to help unravel the history and prehistory of southern Africans and their relationship to populations around the world. </p>
<p>While we have learned a great deal from these communities, we have been unable to fulfill a common request: providing them their individual genetic ancestry results. In our attempts to overcome the logistical challenges of providing this information, we’ve grappled with the common question of how to ensure an equitable balance of benefits between researchers and the community they study. What we’ve found is that there is no easy answer. </p>
<h2>The history of the Khoe-San</h2>
<p>Community member requests to see their genetic results came as no surprise. Many South African groups were stripped of their identities and collapsed into one overarching racial category known as “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S1090-9524(03)00007-X">Coloured</a>” during the early 1900s. Early <a href="https://muse.jhu.edu/book/35209">European colonizers</a> initially used this term to refer to indigenous Khoekhoe and San groups long before it was codified by the apartheid government in 1948. It persists today as an ethnic category, broadly encompassing Khoe-San groups, various East African, Indian and Southeast Asian populations brought by the slave trade, and people of mixed ancestry. </p>
<p><a href="https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.116.187369">We</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1227721">other</a> research groups have shown that some Coloured communities are largely descendants of the Khoe and San peoples. Other ancestries present in Coloured communities are from Bantu-speaking populations that migrated into the region from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddaa274">western Africa</a> around 1,500 years ago and from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-020-0746-1">Europe</a> a little under 400 years ago. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-020-0746-1">Asian ancestry</a> is also present as a result of the aforementioned slave trade.</p>
<p>The Khoe and San are considered the most <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1017511108">genetically diverse</a> human populations currently known, meaning they have a large amount of genetic differences within and between each community. Though they are distinct groups, they share genetic similarities with each other. As a result, geneticists collectively refer to them as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/464487a">Khoe-San</a>, using a hyphen to acknowledge their cultural distinction.</p>
<p>Today, few people identify as Khoe or San in South Africa. Rather, many people call themselves Coloured, though they are deeply aware of the term’s racist legacy. </p>
<h2>Logistical challenges and potential risks</h2>
<p>In our 12 years of fieldwork, we have returned to South Africa on a nearly annual basis to update community-level genetic results. At each visit, most of our participants ask about their personal genetic ancestry results. </p>
<p>But there are several hurdles we face in trying to fulfill their requests. For one, we need to be able to translate scientifically complex data into an accessible and digestible form, a skill that researchers are not always equipped with. Additionally, we must work within restrictions set by <a href="http://www.sun.ac.za/english/faculty/healthsciences/rdsd/Documents/Ethics/DoH%202015%20Ethics%20in%20Health%20Research%20-%20Principles,%20Processes%20and%20Structures%202nd%20Ed.pdf">the local government</a>, which is mediated by the Health Research Ethics Committee at our collaborators’ academic institution, as well as restrictions set by the <a href="http://trust-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/San-Code-of-RESEARCH-Ethics-Booklet-final.pdf">South African San Council</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Enrolled research participant holding the spitkit during saliva collection" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=612&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/449876/original/file-20220303-4451-15ykg4f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=770&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers extracted DNA from saliva samples.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dana Al-Hindi</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>There are also <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK525077/">potential risks</a> to the participant. Group-level results provide a protective blanket from potential legal or social issues that can arise from individual ancestry results. For example, a participant may learn that their biological father is not who they believed they were, which could sow conflict in the family and unease for the participant. More generally, the participant faces the social risk of being included or excluded from different communities depending on the outcome of the results.</p>
<p>We discussed these potential problems with past participants and found that most community members care little about the risks. Our participants have consistently viewed the option to receive their personal ancestry results as a benefit of taking part in research. They simply want to know who their forefathers were.</p>
<h2>Helicopter research and exploitation</h2>
<p>To fulfill these requests, we’ve partnered with <a href="https://www.23andme.com/">23andMe Inc.</a>, a U.S.-based company that provides at-home genetic testing. One of us previously worked for 23andMe on its ancestry team and continues to maintain a relationship with scientists at the company. When 23andMe launched a <a href="https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/23andmes-populations-collaborations/">program in 2018</a> to improve genetic data on underrepresented communities in biomedical and genetic research, we were excited to see an emphasis on local partnerships and community grants. We submitted a successful application, and 23andMe has provided us with funding to conduct this research.</p>
<p>As academic researchers, we don’t always have the right expertise on how to best communicate personal results. Nor do we often have the funds to successfully execute this task. Research grants do not typically provide support for community development, and graduate and postdoctoral researchers lack protected time to do this on top of their other responsibilities. 23andMe, on the other hand, already has the resources and the experience to accessibly communicate personal genomic results to lay people, because that’s its commercial product. Thus, collaborations with for-profit organizations is not uncommon. Along with <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.02.07.478793">23andMe</a>, academic researchers have also worked with genetic testing companies <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommywilliams1/2020/02/29/meet-54gene-changing-the-landscape-of-global-dna-by-including-africa/?sh=6a92cbc55abd">54gene</a> and <a href="https://medium.com/variantbio/variant-bio-launches-new-partnership-on-kidney-disease-in-south-africa-ef3657fb4f3d">Variant Bio</a>.</p>
<p>With approval from the research ethics committee of the local university we work with, 23andMe will fund the expenses of our fieldwork and a community grant, in addition to processing our DNA samples in exchange for data access. They plan to use the data to improve African ancestry results for their customers and for their own research projects. </p>
<p>The company made <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-11-04/23andme-to-use-dna-tests-to-make-cancer-drugs">over US$50 million</a> in 2021, and its plans to use the genetic data it has accumulated from its customers to develop pharmaceuticals has not been without <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/20/opinion/23andme-dna.html">controversy</a> in the U.S. The samples collected in our partnership with 23andMe, however, would not be used to develop new drugs. While our research focuses primarily on broadening scientific knowledge, and 23andMe does make an effort to follow an <a href="https://blog.23andme.com/23andme-research/an-ethical-framework-for-international-research/">ethical framework</a> for collaborations like these, our developing partnership has heightened our concerns about exploitation and what’s known as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-01795-1">helicopter research</a>.</p>
<p>Scientists conduct helicopter research when they collect data from developing countries and marginalized communities with little to no involvement from local researchers and community members. Helicopter research also occurs when researchers take data out of the country they collected it from without either providing benefit to or sharing the results with the community.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HOBlWaH-Owo?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Informed consent is not enough to prevent research from being exploitative.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>San communities are <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/san-people-south-africa-issue-code-ethics-researchers-180962615/">no strangers</a> to helicopter research. For example, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3123-5_6">hoodia</a> is a cactus San communities use to suppress appetite during long hunts or famine. Pharmaceutical companies researched and patented this cultural knowledge in 1995 to develop and sell an anti-obesity pill, initially all without San recognition or involvement. If the San were acknowledged at all, they were referred to as a <a href="https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295742175/reinventing-hoodia/">population that no longer existed</a>. After several legal disputes, the San were promised benefits from any production that came out of the project. Though they received <a href="https://www.unl.edu/rhames/courses/current/hoodia.htm">some compensation</a>, it was a fraction of the value they funneled toward the research and <a href="https://uwapress.uw.edu/book/9780295742175/reinventing-hoodia/">nowhere near what was promised</a>.</p>
<p>This has been a recurring issue for the Khoe and San communities, most recently involving the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03374-x">rooibos tea industry</a>. Companies conducted over a century of commercial rooibos farming benefiting from Khoe and San cultural knowledge before finally agreeing to pay 1.5% of what farmers make for unprocessed rooibos to the communities. Because of this, gaining approval from the local university’s ethics committee for our project has been difficult, and understandably so.</p>
<p>To build a more active and transparent relationship with the local community, we are working closely with 23andMe to develop an advisory board of members from local communities. We have held town halls and conducted interviews with locals to ask if they’d still be interested in being a part of this research project if a company became involved. The majority expressed little concern about 23andMe’s involvement and potentially profiting from their genetic information. But history has shown that for study participants around the globe, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0963180111000259">informed consent</a> has its limitations. It is still difficult to communicate and gauge whether participants, or the <a href="https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/12/13/20978024/genetic-testing-dna-consequences-23andme-ancestry">millions of Americans</a> who have paid 23andMe for genetic testing, fully understand the full extent of the risks involved with giving away their genetic data, both to 23andMe and to us academic researchers.</p>
<p>The company has offered to provide small community grants to help meet local needs, and has also expanded our ability to “<a href="https://www.un.org/en/academic-impact/capacity-building">capacity-build</a>” – that is, to make sure that the knowledge and skills we gain are shared with local institutions. But the question remains whether there is an equitable balance of benefits. Other companies have already promised <a href="https://54gene.com/we-have-launched-a-trust-to-reinvest-5-of-proceeds-from-commercial-drug-discovery-programs-on-african-scientists-and-communities/">long-term benefits</a> by <a href="https://www.variantbio.com/faq">sharing equity and profit</a> with participating communities. Are individual ancestry results and community grants a sufficient and fair exchange against the profits the company will gain from this collaboration?</p>
<h2>Where does this leave us?</h2>
<p>Academic researchers are faced with navigating the many trade-offs that come with industry collaborations. While 23andMe’s participation provides a means to return individual results to the community, it also raises questions about sufficiently equitable benefits. Our research team, local collaborators and 23andMe are all concerned about how to best address the risk of helicopter research, coercion and any unknown risks that may arise from disclosing personal ancestry results. </p>
<p>In an ideal world, researchers would be able to return benefits to the community without involving nonacademic external parties. Integrating practices like returning results to communities within <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009277">research grant requirements</a> is one way to ensure that participants are also benefiting from research. Nonprofit small grants dedicated to returning results and community benefit are another. Until then, researchers will continue to make do with the limited resources they have.</p>
<p><em>This article was updated to more accurately reflect how 23andMe will use the collected data.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/166940/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Dana Al-Hindi intends to use Dr. Henn's awarded funds from 23andMe Inc. to complete fieldwork and return of results to sampled communities. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Brenna Henn is a former employee of 23andMe, Inc. and retains shares in the organization. She has received funding from 23andMe to complete research described in this article. </span></em></p>The South African Khoe-San communities are no strangers to exploitative research. One research team is trying to provide genetic ancestry results to community members. But they still face many challenges.Dana Al-Hindi, PhD Candidate in Anthropology, University of California, DavisBrenna Henn, Associate Professor of Anthropology, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1095542019-01-13T14:13:44Z2019-01-13T14:13:44ZReflections from a Nobel winner: Scientists need time to make discoveries<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253104/original/file-20190109-32154-1q2pb8k.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Physics laureate Donna Strickland receives the prize from King Carl Gustaf of Sweden during the Nobel Prize award ceremony in Stockholm on Dec. 10, 2018.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Pontus Lundahl/Pool Photo via AP)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Since the announcement that I won the Nobel Prize in physics for <a href="https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6318/7a2d68b6d94887cec2ddcbe4fc0b88bda77b.pdf">chirped pulse amplification</a>, or CPA, there has been a lot of attention on its practical applications. </p>
<p>It is understandable that people want to know how it affects them. But as a scientist, I would hope society would be equally interested in fundamental science. After all, you can’t have the applications without the curiosity-driven research behind it. Learning more about science — science for science’s sake — is worth supporting. </p>
<p><a href="https://www.polytechnique.edu/en/content/gerard-mourou-2018-nobel-prize-winner-physics">Gérard Mourou,</a> my co-recipient of the Nobel Prize, and I developed CPA in the mid-1980s. It all started when he wondered if we could increase laser intensity by orders of magnitude — or by factors of a thousand. He was my doctoral supervisor at the University of Rochester back then. Mourou suggested stretching an ultrashort pulse of light of low energy, amplifying it and then compressing it. As the graduate student, I had to handle the details.</p>
<h2>A goal to revolutionize laser physics</h2>
<p>The goal was to revolutionize the field of high-intensity laser physics, a fundamental area of science. We wanted the laser to show us how high-intensity light changes matter, and how matter affects light in this interaction. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=430&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253107/original/file-20190109-32121-19syto8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=540&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Noble Prize winner Donna Strickland in her lab at the University of Waterloo. She was awarded the prize for her groundbreaking inventions in the field of laser physics which has a variety of applications, including corrective laser eye surgery.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It took me a year to build the laser. We proved that we could increase laser intensity by orders of magnitude. In fact, CPA led to the most intense laser pulses ever recorded. Our findings changed the world’s understanding of how atoms interact with high-intensity light. </p>
<p>It was about a decade before practical uses common today eventually came into view. </p>
<h2>Many practical applications</h2>
<p>Because the high-intensity pulses are short, the laser only damages the area where it’s applied. The result is precise, clean cuts that are ideal for transparent materials. A surgeon can use CPA to slice a patient’s cornea during laser eye surgery. It cleanly cuts the glass parts in our cell phones. </p>
<p>Scientists are taking what we know about high-intensity lasers and are working on a way to use the most intense CPA lasers to accelerate protons.</p>
<p>Hopefully, one day these accelerated particles will help surgeons remove brain tumors that they can’t today. In the future, CPA lasers might remove space junk by pushing it out of our orbit and to the Earth’s atmosphere, where it will burn up and not collide with active satellites. </p>
<p>In many cases, the practical applications lag several years or even decades behind the original findings.</p>
<p><a href="https://physicsworld.com/a/a-century-ago-einstein-sparked-the-notion-of-the-laser/">Albert Einstein</a> created the equations for the laser in 1917, but wasn’t until 1960 that <a href="https://www.aps.org/programs/outreach/history/historicsites/maiman.cfm">Theodore Maiman</a> first demonstrated the laser. <a href="https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1944/rabi/biographical/">Isidor Rabi</a> first measured nuclear magnetic resonance in 1938. He received the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1944 for his research, which led to the invention of magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI. The <a href="https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200607/history.cfm">first MRI exam on a human patient</a> took place in 1977. </p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sI_e7c085LM?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">Prof. Donna Strickland delivers the Nobel Lecture in Physics 2018.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Certainly, applications deserve a lot of attention. Before you can get to them though, researchers first have to understand the basic questions behind them.</p>
<p>The term fundamental science may give some the false impression that it doesn’t really affect their lives because it seems far removed from anything relatable to them. What’s more, the term <a href="https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/basic">basic</a> has the non-scientific definition of simple that undermines its importance in the context of basic science. </p>
<p>We must give scientists the opportunity through funding and time to pursue curiosity-based, long-term, basic-science research. Work that does not have direct ramifications for industry or our economy is also worthy. There’s no telling what can come from supporting a curious mind trying to discover something new.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/109554/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Donna Strickland does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The winner of the 2018 Nobel Prize in physics says scientists shouldn’t feel pressured to do research that has economic or commercial ramifications. Science for the sake of science is more important.Donna Strickland, Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of WaterlooLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1080092018-12-04T11:31:07Z2018-12-04T11:31:07ZCRISPR babies and other ethical missteps in science threaten China’s global standing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248584/original/file-20181203-194944-g5btiu.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=255%2C197%2C2443%2C1796&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">China's military may bear the brunt of hits to the country's scientific reputation.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/China-Ivory-Coast/aa6bba3d6a184e99baeb42dc39b9e162/4/0">Roman Pilipey/Pool Photo via AP</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“What happened this time was an ethics disaster for the world,” according to Wang Yuedan, a professor of immunology at Peking University, as <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/world/asia/gene-editing-babies-china.html">quoted in The New York Times</a>. He was talking about the recent claim by U.S.-trained Chinese scientist He Jiankui that he’d successfully altered the DNA in vitro of human embryos that were later born as twin girls in China. If true as claimed, the edits he made would be inherited by any of their future offspring.</p>
<p>As a longtime <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=OBu0OHEAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">scholar of international relations in science</a>, I contend the “disaster” has many more implications for China than the world at large.</p>
<p>No doubt, you’ve seen the news that a scientist at <a href="http://sustc.edu.cn/en/">Southern University of Science and Technology</a> in Shenzhen, China, created the <a href="https://theconversation.com/rogue-science-strikes-again-the-case-of-the-first-gene-edited-babies-107684">first human babies with changes to their genetic germline</a> — the genes the babies would pass on to their own children. The announcement was made <a href="https://theconversation.com/screening-the-human-future-youtube-persuasion-and-genetically-engineered-children-107938">in a most unorthodox way</a>: over social media rather than through accepted scientific channels of <a href="https://theconversation.com/peer-review-is-in-crisis-but-should-be-fixed-not-abolished-67972">peer review</a>, reproduction, validation and publication.</p>
<p>In turn, He has been hit by a furious backlash over perceived violations of <a href="https://theconversation.com/crispr-babies-raise-an-uncomfortable-reality-abiding-by-scientific-standards-doesnt-guarantee-ethical-research-108008">scientific and ethical norms</a>. But in this age of increasingly collaborative science, the furor could unleash repercussions throughout the Chinese research community – and perhaps even have an impact on China’s military strength.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248585/original/file-20181203-194925-1tmbf6g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The scientific enterprise is increasingly global and collaborative. Here He Jiankui elaborates on his announcement at the Second International Summit on Human Gene Editing in Hong Kong.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Hong-Kong-Gene-Edited-Babies/8143f99506f345d9a283afdb47db9de9/1/0">AP Photo/Kin Cheung</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Tarnished reputation and trustworthiness</h2>
<p>The disaster for China comes in several flavors.</p>
<p>One hit comes in the form of reputational damage in the international system of science and technology research. A researcher and their institution advance by gaining positive attention for their work. This social system operates globally and is driven by reputation. <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=YO5XSXwAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Jennifer Doudna</a>, the molecular biologist who first described CRISPR-Cas9, published with other top scientists in the journals Nature and Science, building a reputation that attracted elite collaborators. These collaborations, conducted across international lines, led to the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096">critical CRISPR breakthrough</a>.</p>
<p>In a perverse way, He Jiankui seems to have bet on this dynamic — that by being first, he would enhance his own and his nation’s scientific reputation. He bet wrong. He may now join the pantheon of notables making claims through media rather than through science journals, such as chemists <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann%E2%80%93Pons_experiment">Martin Fleischman and Stanley Pons</a>, who, in 1989, announced by <a href="http://newenergytimes.com/v2/reports/UniversityOfUtahPressRelease.shtml">press release</a> that they’d discovered fusion at room temperature. They had discovered something, but the work had not been validated by the community before they went public.</p>
<p>This rollout will not burnish China’s scientific reputation since the research community expects to be part of the conversation. Science requires openness and exchange; He Jiankui operated in secret.</p>
<p>He’s action introduced a second threat to China by further reducing international trust in scientific collaboration with his country. Even before He’s announcement, this trust has been challenged by a long string of missteps in science and technology that were easier to ignore when China was still a developing nation.</p>
<p>A group of American scholars recently issued <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/chinese-influence-american-interests-promoting-constructive-vigilance">a warning, through a report</a> by Stanford University’s public policy think tank the Hoover Institution, that Chinese actions <a href="http://www.ipcommission.org/report/index.html">violating intellectual property rights</a> and international norms warrant stepping up “constructive vigilance” and backing away from cooperation. “At the same time that China’s authoritarian system takes advantage of the openness of American society to seek influence,” the document continues, “it impedes legitimate efforts by American counterpart institutions to engage Chinese society on a reciprocal basis.” </p>
<p>China has had a spectacular rise as a global scientific producer and partner. The U.S. National Science Foundation reported that, in 2016, the number of <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=244271">Chinese scientific publications outnumbered those from the U.S.</a> for the first time. China has risen to become the number one partner of American scientists, supplanting the U.K. But its status as a scientific power and partner can only be damaged by He’s ethics violation. His research is another black mark against China, joining widespread <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/world/asia/china-science-fraud-scandals.html">scientific plagiarism and fraud</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/29/us/politics/china-trump-cyberespionage.html">industrial espionage</a>.</p>
<h2>The view from inside China’s military</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2166260/chinese-military-crackdown-forged-data-and-plagiarism-science">China’s own military has warned</a> about the damaging implications of China’s lack of integrity in science scholarship. </p>
<p>More is at stake than just reputation. Over the past three centuries, no country has been a global political leader without corresponding leadership in science and technology. These two systems – military advancement and science and technology discovery – are symbiotically linked. As historians J. Rogers Hollingsworth and David Gear have pointed out, <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2080318">advances in science and technology feed military strength</a>: military procurement, specification and demand vitalize scientific research and technological development. Science is most strenuously tested in frontier defense applications.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/248586/original/file-20181203-194935-1rsg6t1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A Chinese child’s shoes, embroidered with the slogan ‘Those who invade my territory will be punished no matter how far away.’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/China-Military/9b2a5566dbae4f7c98de49990fde2726/2/0">AP Photo/Ng Han Guan</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Leadership in military capabilities appears to be China’s goal. So says a <a href="https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2588.html">RAND Corporation report</a> just this past month, along with <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2018-06-10/china-s-master-plan-a-global-military-threat">others</a>. Although Premier Xi Jinping has written that China is committed to expanding involvement in the international system and the “<a href="http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201807/17/WS5b4cf446a310796df4df6c54.html">open world economy</a>,” national actions suggest otherwise. China is investing in technologies that will challenge U.S. technological supremacy in artificial intelligence, supercomputing and quantum information systems, all of which will contribute to <a href="https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-wants-the-most-powerful-military-the-planet-by-2050-24779">military strength</a>.</p>
<p>China will not attain its military goals without attendant leadership in science and technology. And in turn, leadership in science and technology today requires international collaboration, as I detail in my recent book, “<a href="https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9783319949857">The Collaborative Era in Science</a>.” <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-fair-is-it-for-just-three-people-to-receive-the-nobel-prize-in-physics-85161">International collaborations</a> – especially those projects that achieve truly novel breakthroughs – require open cooperation, intense communication and a level of trust (often attached to reputation) that cannot be requisitioned with funds or forced by increasing the numbers of people working on it.</p>
<p>The collaborative era in science is a change from the historical conditions that nurtured the leadership of Britain, Germany, France and eventually the United States. In these earlier cases, leadership in both science and defense could be built at the national level. This is not the case for China. The globalized system, the abundance of knowledge and the openness of research practices means that nations cannot operate alone, as they once might have done, or as China might wish it could do.</p>
<p>So China’s inability to adhere to international ethical norms in the knowledge system ends up harming itself. A continued lack of collaborative spirit and practice will eventually deprive China and the world of its potential peaceful contributions. </p>
<p>A global system that works by reputation will shun those who do not play by the rules. Imitation and secrecy appear as fools gold to those who think they can close off and operate beyond the norms of 21st-century science. He Jiankui’s actions call into question whether China can be a good partner. This case of human gene editing leaves China viewed with wary skepticism by the rest of the world. It will be China’s choice going forward whether it can build a strong research system under the new rules of scientific collaboration.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108009/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Caroline Wagner does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In an era of big scientific collaborations, China’s renegade actions have hurt its reputation. As international researchers back away, it may be the country’s military that ultimately suffers.Caroline Wagner, Milton & Roslyn Wolf Chair in International Affairs, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/933222018-06-05T10:46:58Z2018-06-05T10:46:58ZWith federal funding for science on the decline, what’s the role of a profit motive in research?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/221412/original/file-20180601-142069-1d17td4.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=318%2C661%2C4572%2C3163&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Money doesn't grow in flasks – scientists have to find funds outside the lab.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/UmncJq4KPcA">chuttersnap/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>What is the place of a profit motive in the production of knowledge at public universities?</p>
<p>The Trump administration’s initial budget request presented in 2017 offered one answer to that question. According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the budget proposal included a <a href="https://www.aaas.org/page/fy-2018-rd-appropriations-dashboard">17 percent reduction in funding for basic research</a>. Proposed cuts to particular agencies and programs within them, such as research on <a href="https://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/1.22036.1496251823!/menu/main/topColumns/topLeftColumn/pdf/nature.2017.22036.pdf?origin=ppub">basic energy sciences at the Department of Energy</a>, were particularly acute. And while <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/trump-science-budget/556229/">Congress intervened</a> to avoid these cuts, the current funding package is nevertheless part of a long-term trend of reduced federal commitment to science. </p>
<p><iframe id="Amo48" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/Amo48/3/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Proposed and actual funding conveys a recurring message to American academic scientists: do more to attract money from other sources. In most instances, this means industry funding.</p>
<p>On the face of it, partnerships between academia and industry in the production of knowledge are both sensible and critical. Given sluggish economic growth and the prevalence of societal problems that require technological solutions, one might argue that universities should be extensively engaged in contributing to innovation and less concerned with research lacking an apparent connection to real-world impact. Why spend time and money on studying the mating habits of Japanese quail when there are problems like Alzheimer’s disease and excessive reliance on non-renewable fossil fuels that urgently need solutions right now? </p>
<p>Yet many critics argue that a profit motive in science creates a scenario in which scientists place their values and potential personal gain ahead of the public good, resulting in <a href="https://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/06/us/food-industry-enlisted-academics-in-gmo-lobbying-war-emails-show.html">bias and conflicts of interest</a>. Whether you are concerned about the advancement of science, economic innovation, or both, it’s worth considering the value and appropriateness of partnerships between academic scientists and the corporate sector.</p>
<p>What do researchers themselves think? I’ve spent more than a decade sitting down with hundreds of scientists around the world for in-depth conversations about their work. In my recent book, “<a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/fractured-profession">A Fractured Profession: Commercialism and Conflict in Academic Science</a>,” I examine how scientists experience the rise of commercialism in academic science. These researchers shared views with me that don’t necessarily fall neatly in line with either those who celebrate a profit motive in science nor those who lament it.</p>
<h2>What actually motivates scientists?</h2>
<p>Even if university administrators and federal officials reward profitable science, the scientists I spoke with say that profits are rarely their motivation. Commercialist scientists in academia certainly do not dismiss the importance of revenues or resources for research, but societal impact and the pursuit of status in science were more highly prized by the scientists in my study. Being able to claim that you reduced the cost of making a vaccine to less than the cost of the bottle in which it is stored, for example, is a new way to stand out at a university where most scientists are publishing in the top journals in their field. In this respect, self-interest – generating money and prestige – can coincide with the public good.</p>
<p>Perhaps more importantly to those who think that universities should operate even more like businesses <a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/academic-capitalism-and-new-economy">than they already do</a>, scholars are finding that average rates of return from commercialization — even at universities with the highest licensing income — <a href="https://www.kauffman.org/what-we-do/research/2011/06/rules-for-growth-promoting-innovation-and-growth-through-legal-reform">are relatively low</a>. In the same way that relatively few universities benefit considerably from big-time college sports, relatively few universities — typically those that are rich already — actually produce blockbusters that lead to financial windfalls. </p>
<p>Unlike some commentators and <a href="https://theconversation.com/people-dont-trust-scientific-research-when-companies-are-involved-76848">members of the public</a>, most of the scientists I spoke with are relatively unconcerned with <a href="https://rowman.com/ISBN/9780742543713/Science-in-the-Private-Interest-Has-the-Lure-of-Profits-Corrupted-Biomedical-Research-">conflicts of interest and bias</a> in commercially oriented research. In their view, peer review mitigates such questions. Even if a scientist stands to gain financially from the outcomes of her research, if an invention is not scientifically sound, researchers contend it would have little chance of success in the market.</p>
<p>The traditional scientists in academia I spoke with reported <a href="https://theconversation.com/rather-than-being-free-of-values-good-science-is-transparent-about-them-84946">two chief values</a>: support for curiosity-driven research and a long-term vision of the technological fruits of scientific research. Traditionalists are still the majority, but they encounter scarce resources for basic research and increasing pressure to connect their work to concrete societal impacts. In the words of one scientist, much of what scientists understand about cancer stems from work based on Nobel Prize-winning biologist Lee Hartwell’s curiosity-driven research on how yeast cells divide. “If he had to apply his research, he probably would have had to work for Budweiser,” he said.</p>
<h2>Investing in a mix of sorts of science</h2>
<p>What should be the role of the state and the market in the production of knowledge in the American research university? Both are critical.</p>
<p>History shows there’s an intrinsic value to letting people explore, because such <a href="https://theconversation.com/tracing-the-links-between-basic-research-and-real-world-applications-82198">exploration is critical to later marketplace innovations</a> and economic prosperity. Today’s multi-billion-dollar global positioning system industries rely on Einstein’s general theory of relativity and ideas from 19th-century geometry, the latter of which were dismissed by contemporaries as useless. Other technologies, such as Teflon, saccharine and the pacemaker, were accidental creations. While corporations once valued having internal basic science laboratories where exploratory or “blue-sky” research took place, now the U.S government is the chief, and under-resourced, patron for this important work.</p>
<p>Few universities generate vast commercial returns from commercially oriented research. As a society, we must therefore be cautious in how eagerly we unleash the forces of the market in funding science in academia. Similar experiments in substituting the market for the state in <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/magazine/michigan-gambled-on-charter-schools-its-children-lost.html">primary schooling</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/10/us/private-prisons-escapes-riots.html">prisons</a> and <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/articles/outsourcing-war/">the military</a> have not clearly paid off. </p>
<p>Much as a diversified investment portfolio includes various assets that balance returns and risk, society would benefit most from a healthy mix of investment in curiosity-driven, use-inspired and highly market-oriented research in academia.</p>
<p>Until scientists can better articulate why science is as worthy of investment as any other form of infrastructure, they will likely continue to encounter the message delivered today: look to the market.</p>
<p>
<section class="inline-content">
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/248894/original/file-20181204-133095-1p2xxs2.png?w=128&h=128">
<div>
<header>David R. Johnson is the author of:</header>
<p><a href="https://jhupbooks.press.jhu.edu/content/fractured-profession">A Fractured Profession: Commercialism and Conflict in Academic Science</a></p>
<footer>Johns Hopkins University Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</footer>
</div>
</section>
</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/93322/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>This research was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant #0957033 “A New Reward System in Academic Science.”
Johns Hopkins University Press provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.</span></em></p>Money always seems tight for university scientists. A sociologist conducted hundreds of interviews to see how they think about funding sources and profit motives for basic and applied research.David R. Johnson, Assistant Professor of Higher Education, University of Nevada, RenoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/942192018-05-07T10:39:12Z2018-05-07T10:39:12ZRedefining ‘impact’ so research can help real people right away, even before becoming a journal article<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217524/original/file-20180503-182160-1osxwoj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=128%2C85%2C2394%2C1637&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Park guards view maps and photos of high-altitude glaciers -- information that can be shared with local communities dealing with changing water levels. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anne Toomey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists are increasingly expected to produce research with impact that goes beyond the confines of academia. When funding organizations such as the National Science Foundation consider grants to researchers, they ask about “broader impacts.” They want to support science that directly contributes to the “<a href="https://www.nsf.gov/od/oia/special/broaderimpacts/">achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes</a>.” It’s not enough for researchers to call it a day, after they publish their results in journal articles read by a handful of colleagues and few, if any, people outside the ivory tower.</p>
<p>Perhaps nowhere is impact of greater importance than in <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00434.x">my own fields of ecology and conservation science</a>. Researchers often conduct this work with the explicit goal of contributing to the restoration and long-term survival of the species or ecosystem in question. For instance, research on an endangered plant can help to address the threats facing it. </p>
<p>But scientific impact is a very tricky concept. Science is a process of inquiry; it’s often impossible to know what the outcomes will be at the start. Researchers are asked to imagine potential impacts of their work. And people who live and work in the places where the research is conducted may have different ideas about what impact means. </p>
<p>In collaboration with several Bolivian colleagues, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-018-1056-5">I studied perceptions of research and its impact</a> in a highly biodiverse area in the Bolivian Amazon. We found that researchers – both foreign-based and Bolivian – and people living and working in the area had different hopes and expectations about what ecological research could help them accomplish.</p>
<h2>Surveying the researchers</h2>
<p>My colleagues and I focused on research conducted in Bolivia’s Madidi National Park and Natural Area for Integrated Management.</p>
<p><iframe id="tc-infographic-261" class="tc-infographic" height="400px" src="https://cdn.theconversation.com/infographics/261/0788cc1758c2628bcc75755907ba82cbf7e1e414/site/index.html" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>Due to its impressive size (approximately 19,000 square kilometers) and <a href="https://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1112693995/wcs-biodiversity-madidi-national-park-091412/">diversity of species</a> – including endangered mammals such as the spectacled bear and the giant otter – Madidi attracts large numbers of ecologists and conservation scientists from around the world. The park is also notable for its cultural diversity. Four indigenous territories overlap Madidi, and there are 31 communities located within its boundaries. </p>
<p>Between 2012 and 2015, we carried out interviews and workshops with people living and working in the region, including park guards, indigenous community members and other researchers. We also surveyed scientists who had worked in the area during the previous 10 years. Our goal was to better understand whether they considered their research to have implications for conservation and ecological management, and how and with whom they shared the results of their work.</p>
<p>Eighty-three percent of researchers queried told us their work had implications for management at community, regional and national levels rather than at the international level. For example, knowing the approximate populations of local primate species can be important for communities who rely on the animals for food and ecotourism. </p>
<p><iframe id="VW2iO" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/VW2iO/4/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p>But the scale of relevance didn’t necessarily dictate how researchers actually disseminated the results of their work. Rather, we found that the strongest predictor of how and with whom a researcher shared their work was whether they were based at a foreign or national institution. Foreign-based researchers had extremely low levels of local, regional or even national dissemination. However, they were more likely than national researchers to publish their findings in the international literature.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=456&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217525/original/file-20180503-153881-f8tblv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=574&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Celín Quenevo and other leaders of the Takana indigenous nation raised money in the 1990s to translate a 1950s book written about the Takana people by a German anthropologist into Spanish.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anne Toomey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Ongoing scientific colonialism?</h2>
<p>This disparity raises concerns about whether foreign-led research in tropical nations such as Bolivia is perpetuating colonial-era legacies of <a href="https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/science-bears-fingerprints-colonialism-180968709/">scientific extractivism</a>. </p>
<p>Along with its South American neighbors, <a href="http://www.alternautas.net/blog/2017/4/1/part-2-histories-of-biological-science-in-bolivia">Bolivia was subject to centuries of European explorations</a>, during which collectors gathered interesting specimens of flora and fauna to ship back to the country financing the expedition. As late as the 1990s, <a href="http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0327-93832005000200001">more than 90 percent of 37,000 zoological specimens</a> from Bolivia were in collections beyond its borders. The expatriation of biological samples has become increasingly restricted under a <a href="https://libya360.wordpress.com/2015/03/16/bolivias-decolonization-mission/">national political climate of “decolonization.”</a></p>
<p>But many locals in the Madidi region still expressed to us perceptions that “research is only for the researcher” and “researchers leave nothing behind.” In interviews and workshops, they lamented opportunities missed because they didn’t know about the results of research conducted on their lands. For example, when the park staff learned about previous research done on mercury levels in the Tuichi river that runs through the park, they talked about the importance of sharing this information with local communities for whom fish is a main sources of protein. </p>
<p>Our results suggest that foreign researchers should be wary of a modern form of scientific colonialism – conducting fieldwork in a far-off land and then taking their data and knowledge home with them.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217529/original/file-20180503-153888-1f0zsrd.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">One solution: Colorful banners with information in the local language about past ecological research conducted in Madidi are displayed at the park offices.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anne Toomey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our study also revealed that in some cases, the question of whether or not research had been disseminated was a matter of perspective. Park offices, indigenous council headquarters and government institutions all held dusty libraries full of articles and books that were in many cases the final products of scientific studies. But very few people had actually read these reports, in part because many were written in English. Also, people in the Madidi region are more accustomed to obtaining knowledge orally rather than through written texts. So finding new ways to communicate across cultural and language barriers is key.</p>
<h2>Collaboration beyond publication</h2>
<p>Perhaps one way forward is to <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12315">think differently about what is meant by impact</a> and when it takes place. Although it’s typically understood to occur after the results have been written up, our research found that the most meaningful forms of impact often took place prior to that.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217538/original/file-20180503-153881-oiwcki.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Research often depends on collaboration across groups. Here, Madidi National Park guards and Bolivian scientists work together in the protected area.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Marcos Uzquiano</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In ecological and conservation science research, locals are hired as guides or porters, and researchers often stay for days or weeks in communities while they are collecting data. This fieldwork period is filled with potential for knowledge exchange, where both parties can learn from one another. Indigenous communities in the Madidi region are directly dependent on local biodiversity. Not only does it provide food and other resources, but it’s vital for the continuation of their cultures. They possess unique knowledge about the place, and they have a vested interest in ensuring that the local biodiversity will continue to exist for many generations to come. </p>
<p>Rather than impact being addressed at the end of research, societal impacts can be part of the first stages of a study. For example, people living in the region where data is to be collected might have insight into the research questions being investigated; scientists need to build in time and plan ways to ask them. Ecological fieldwork <a href="https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss2/art28/">presents many opportunities</a> for knowledge exchange, new ideas and even friendships between different groups. Researchers can take steps to engage more directly with community life, such as by taking a few hours to teach local school kids about their research. </p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=630&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/217539/original/file-20180503-182160-pw9ipm.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=792&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The author worked with two indigenous communities to develop ideas for how local leaders could negotiate future relationships with researchers.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Anne Toomey</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Of course, such activities do not make disseminating the results of research at multiple levels less important. But engaging additional stakeholders earlier in the process could make for a more interested audience when findings are available. </p>
<p>Whether studying hive decline with beekeepers in the United Kingdom or evaluating human-elephant conflicts in India, those affected have the right to know about the results of research. If “broader impacts” are to become more than an afterthought in the research process, non-academics need a bigger voice in the process of determining what those impacts may be.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/94219/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anne Toomey received partial funding for this research from Lancaster University and additional financial support from the Rufford Foundation and the Royal Geographical Society.</span></em></p>Science can’t just stay in the ivory tower. But what does impact really mean and how does it happen? A study of more than a decade of ecological fieldwork projects in Bolivia suggests a better way.Anne Toomey, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies and Science, Pace University Licensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/951392018-04-17T05:22:09Z2018-04-17T05:22:09ZScience isn’t broken, but we can do better: here’s how<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/215127/original/file-20180417-101509-12bcoay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The Golden Age of science is in the future.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Joker/Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Every time a scandal breaks in one of the thousands of places where research is conducted across the world, we see headlines to the effect that “<a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/05/science_is_broken_how_much_should_we_fix_it.html">science is broken</a>”.</p>
<p>But if it’s “broken” today, then when do we suggest it was better?</p>
<p>Point me to the period in human history where we had more brilliant people or better technologies for doing science than we do today. Explain to me how something “broken” so spectacularly delivers the goods. Convince me I ought to downplay the stunning achievement of – say – the detection of <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/gravitational-waves-9473">gravitational waves</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/no-science-minister-and-its-unclear-where-science-fits-in-australia-91739">No science minister, and it's unclear where science fits in Australia</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>I agree, practising science has its frustrations, like every other human endeavour; and scientists can and do go wrong.</p>
<p>But the only place to find the Golden Age of Science is in the future – by making it ourselves.</p>
<p>So let’s not tell ourselves that “science is broken”. Let’s agree that we all share in the responsibility to improve it, by keeping open the mental bandwidth to ask and explore hard questions.</p>
<p>Here, in no particular order, are some of the things that I’ve been thinking about.</p>
<h2>The future of the scientific paper</h2>
<p>Earlier this month The Atlantic magazine published a <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/the-scientific-paper-is-obsolete/556676/">provocative essay</a> headlined “The scientific paper is obsolete”.</p>
<p>The scientific paper has done great things since it was <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-mostly-true-origins-of-the-scientific-journal/">developed in the 1600s</a>. Today we could certainly say that production is booming.</p>
<p>But the peer-review system is critically overloaded. The irony is, we’re working so hard to generate papers, we don’t have time to read anybody else’s.</p>
<p>One has to ask, have we hit Peak Paper?</p>
<p>My tentative response is “no”. The scientific paper has endured for a reason, and it still holds. It’s an efficient way to structure and communicate information.</p>
<p>But what do you think? Will we still be publishing papers in 2050? And how else could we do it?</p>
<h2>The pressure to publish</h2>
<p>I was lucky to train under a great scientist, <a href="http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/2016/10/article-steve-redman-australian-neuroscience-society/">Steve Redman</a>. These days we would describe him as unproductive: he published, at most, two or three papers each year. But every one of those papers was deeply considered, meticulously crafted and, as a result, deeply influential.</p>
<p>I think we would all agree that commitment to quality over quantity is the ideal. Authors could invest more time in their papers, and peer reviewers could invest more time in their critique.</p>
<p>In the real world, we know that the incentives often skew the other way. But where do you intervene to break the cycle?</p>
<p>I recently <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/give-researchers-a-lifetime-word-limit-1.22835">came across a radical suggestion</a>: a lifetime word limit for researchers. I suspect it would be very difficult to enforce but what about a variation: change the focus from publications to CVs.</p>
<p>For starters, let’s contemplate a rule that you can only list a maximum of five papers for any given year when applying for grants or promotions. Your CV would have to list retractions, with an explanation. </p>
<p>On the <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/faculty-promotion-must-assess-reproducibility-1.22596">recommendation of Jeffrey Flier</a>, the former Dean of the Harvard Medical School, candidates for promotion would have to critically assess their own work, including unanswered questions, controversies and uncertainties.</p>
<h2>Predatory journals</h2>
<p>If journals are the gatekeepers, then <a href="https://theconversation.com/au/topics/predatory-journals-21960">predatory journals</a> are the termites that eat the gates and make the community question the integrity of the structure.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/who-will-keep-predatory-science-journals-at-bay-now-that-jeffrey-bealls-blog-is-gone-71613">Who will keep predatory science journals at bay now that Jeffrey Beall's blog is gone?</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>A predatory journal is one that typically charges high fees for publication with little or no credible peer-review process. As such they have no credibility.</p>
<p>How do we fight back?</p>
<p>How do we arm people in the community who aren’t scientists, and don’t know anything about impact factors and journal rankings and editorial standards, to recognise quality?</p>
<p>Is there an analogy to fair-trade coffee: a stamp that consumers can look for on the product that demonstrates it complies with a certain standard?</p>
<p>Could we have an “ethical journal” stamp, building on the excellent work of the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/">Committee On Publication Ethics</a>?</p>
<h2>Artificial intelligence</h2>
<p>Bloomberg <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/in-the-war-for-ai-talent-sky-high-salaries-are-the-weapons">reports</a> that there are now five ways to command a multi-year, seven-figure salary.</p>
<p>It used to be four: chief executive officer, banker, celebrity entertainer, professional athlete.</p>
<p>Now add on a person with a PhD in artificial intelligence (AI).</p>
<p>This is the AI century. Like all great waves in technology, it breaks on researchers first.</p>
<p>Time and time again, we get the future – we make the future – before it sweeps over everyone else. </p>
<p>But what does it mean for research training? What roles that scientists do today, will robots do tomorrow? What roles that no one can do today will become possible, with the power of humans and robots combined?</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/finkels-law-robots-wont-replace-us-because-we-still-need-that-human-touch-82814">Finkel's Law: robots won't replace us because we still need that human touch</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>A better future</h2>
<p>To these, I could add more questions.</p>
<p>Let me simply conclude with the two things I know for certain. One, that these questions are crucial, because the future of science is the fate of the world. And two, that as long as we are scientists, we will never cease to ask them.</p>
<p>We will know that science is truly “broken” if we ever give up the quest to make it better.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This article is based on a keynote speech Alan Finkel delivered at the 2018 <a href="http://www.qpr.edu.au/">Quality in Postgraduate Research Conference</a> in Adelaide, April 17.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/95139/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Alan Finkel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The only place to find the Golden Age of Science is in the future, but we need some help in getting there.Alan Finkel, Australia’s Chief Scientist, Office of the Chief ScientistLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/840322018-01-03T11:20:41Z2018-01-03T11:20:41ZNovelty in science – real necessity or distracting obsession?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199939/original/file-20171219-5004-1ecssnn.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=693%2C5%2C2809%2C1943&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It may take time for a tiny step forward to show its worth.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/man-grey-suit-hold-light-left-541269598">ellissharp/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>In a <a href="https://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970">survey of over 1,500 scientists</a>, more than 70 percent of them reported having been unable to reproduce other scientists’ findings at least once. Roughly half of the surveyed scientists ran into problems trying to reproduce their own results. No wonder people are talking about a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/reproducibility-5484">reproducibility crisis</a>” in scientific research – an epidemic of studies that <a href="https://thenextregeneration.wordpress.com/2013/07/23/replicability-of-high-impact-papers-in-stem-cell-research/">don’t hold up</a> when <a href="https://thenextregeneration.wordpress.com/2013/10/26/the-replicability-crisis-in-cancer-research/">run a second time</a>.</p>
<p>Reproducibility of findings is a core foundation of science. If scientific results only hold true in some labs but not in others, then how can researchers feel confident about their discoveries? How can society put evidence-based policies into place if the evidence is unreliable?</p>
<p>Recognition of this “crisis” has prompted calls for reform. Researchers are feeling their way, experimenting with different practices meant to help distinguish solid science from irreproducible results. Some people are even starting to reevaluate how choices are made about what research actually gets tackled. Breaking innovative new ground is flashier than revisiting already published research. Does prioritizing novelty naturally lead to this point?</p>
<h2>Incentivizing the wrong thing?</h2>
<p>One solution to the reproducibility crisis could be simply to conduct lots of replication studies. For instance, the <a href="https://elifesciences.org/collections/9b1e83d1/reproducibility-project-cancer-biology">scientific journal eLife</a> is participating in an initiative to validate and reproduce important recent findings in the field of cancer research. The first set of these “rerun” studies was recently released and <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/cancer-reproducibility-project-releases-first-results-1.21304">yielded mixed results</a>. The results of 2 out of 5 research studies were reproducible, one was not and two additional studies did not provide definitive answers.</p>
<p>There’s no need to restrict these sort of rerun studies to cancer research – reproducibility issues can be spotted across <a href="https://theconversation.com/we-found-only-one-third-of-published-psychology-research-is-reliable-now-what-46596">various fields</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/half-of-biomedical-research-studies-dont-stand-up-to-scrutiny-and-what-we-need-to-do-about-that-45149">of scientific research</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199940/original/file-20171219-4995-ddcteg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers should be rewarded for carefully shoring up the foundations of the field.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/scientist-working-laboratory-38872966">Alexander Raths/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But there’s at least one major obstacle to investing time and effort in this endeavor: the quest for novelty. The <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291">prestige of an academic journal</a> depends at least partly on how often the research articles it publishes are cited. Thus, research journals often want to publish novel scientific findings which are more likely to be cited, not necessarily the results of newly rerun older research.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.009">study of clinical trials published in medical journals</a> found the most prestigious journals prefer publishing studies considered highly novel and not necessarily those that have the most solid numbers backing up the claims. Funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health ask scientists who review research grant applications to provide an “innovation” score in order to <a href="https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer/critiques/rpg_D.htm">prioritize funding for the most innovative work</a>. And scientists of course notice these tendencies – one study found the use of positive words like “novel,” “amazing,” “innovative” and “unprecedented” in paper abstracts and titles <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2015.19024">increased almost ninefold between 1974 and 2014</a>.</p>
<p>Genetics researcher <a href="http://dbbs.wustl.edu/faculty/Pages/faculty_bio.aspx?SID=5137">Barak Cohen</a> at Washington University in St. Louis <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28699">recently published a commentary</a> analyzing this growing push for novelty. He suggests that progress in science depends on a delicate balance between novelty and checking the work of other scientists. When rewards such as funding of grants or publication in prestigious journals emphasize novelty at the expense of testing previously published results, science risks developing cracks in its foundation.</p>
<h2>Houses of brick, mansions of straw</h2>
<p>Cancer researcher William Kaelin Jr., a recipient of the <a href="http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/show/oxygen-sensing-essential-process-survival/">2016 Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research</a>, <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/publish-houses-of-brick-not-mansions-of-straw-1.22029">recently argued</a> for fewer “mansions of straw” and more “houses of brick” in scientific publications.</p>
<p>One of his main concerns is that scientific papers now inflate their claims in order to emphasize their novelty and the relevance of biomedical research for clinical applications. By exchanging depth of research for breadth of claims, researchers may be at risk of compromising the robustness of the work. By claiming excessive novelty and impact, researchers may undermine its actual significance because they may fail to provide solid evidence for each claim. </p>
<p>Kaelin even suggests that some of his <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/93/20/10595">own work from the 1990s, which transformed cell biology research</a> by discovering how cells can sense oxygen, may have struggled to get published today.</p>
<p>Prestigious journals often now demand complete scientific stories, from basic molecular mechanisms to proving their relevance in various animal models. Unexplained results or unanswered questions are seen as weaknesses. Instead of publishing one exciting novel finding that is robust, and which could spawn a new direction of research conducted by other groups, researchers now spend years gathering a whole string of findings with broad claims about novelty and impact.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=397&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199942/original/file-20171219-4980-14si8bk.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=499&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There should be more than one path to a valuable journal publication.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/divergence-paths-forest-crossroads-among-many-681313621">Mehaniq/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Balancing fresh findings and robustness</h2>
<p>A challenge for editors and reviewers of scientific manuscripts is assessing the novelty and likely long-term impact of the work they’re assessing. The eventual importance of a new, unique scientific idea is sometimes difficult to recognize even by peers who are grounded in existing knowledge. Many basic research studies form the basis of future practical applications. One recent study found that of basic research articles that received at least one citation, <a href="https://theconversation.com/tracing-the-links-between-basic-research-and-real-world-applications-82198">80 percent were eventually cited by a patent application</a>. But it takes time for practical significance to come to light.</p>
<p>A collaborative team of economics researchers <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.006">recently developed an unusual measure of scientific novelty</a> by carefully studying the references of a paper. They ranked a scientific paper as more novel if it cited a diverse combination of journals. For example, a scientific article citing a botany journal, an economics journal and a physics journal would be considered very novel if no other article had cited this combination of varied references before.</p>
<p>This measure of novelty allowed them to identify papers which were more likely to be cited in the long run. But it took roughly four years for these novel papers to start showing their greater impact. One may disagree with this particular indicator of novelty, but the study makes an important point: It takes time to recognize the full impact of novel findings. </p>
<p>Realizing how difficult it is to assess novelty should give funding agencies, journal editors and scientists pause. Progress in science depends on new discoveries and following unexplored paths – but solid, reproducible research requires an equal emphasis on the robustness of the work. By restoring the balance between demands and rewards for novelty and robustness, science will achieve even greater progress.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84032/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jalees Rehman receives funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). </span></em></p>Scientists are rewarded with funding and publications when they come up with innovative findings. But in the midst of a ‘reproducibility crisis,’ being new isn’t the only thing to value about research.Jalees Rehman, Professor of Medicine, Pharmacology and Bioengineering, University of Illinois ChicagoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/892612017-12-21T14:20:47Z2017-12-21T14:20:47ZWith science under siege in 2017, scientists regrouped and fought back: 5 essential reads<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199506/original/file-20171215-17878-iqytoq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=242%2C23%2C4789%2C3002&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You can't keep a good scientist down.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/nKNrOZ5MXZY">Vlad Tchompalov on Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>2017 may well be remembered as the year of alternative facts and fake news. Truth took a hit, and experts seemed to lose the public’s trust. Scientists felt under siege as the Trump administration <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-the-guerrilla-archivists-saved-history-and-are-doing-it-again-under-trump-72346">purged information from government websites</a>, appointed <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-politicians-think-they-know-better-than-scientists-and-why-thats-so-dangerous-72548">inexperienced or adversarial individuals</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/trump-administrations-zeal-to-peel-back-regulations-is-leading-us-to-another-era-of-robber-barons-84961">to science-related posts</a> and left <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-does-a-us-president-settle-on-his-science-policy-69953">important advisory positions</a> empty. Researchers braced for cuts to federally funded science.</p>
<p>So where did that leave science and its supporters? Here we spotlight five stories from our archive that show how scholars took stock of where scientists stand in this new climate and various ways to consider the value their research holds for society.</p>
<h2>1. A risk to standing up for science</h2>
<p>In April, the March for Science mobilized more than a million protesters worldwide to push back against what they saw as attacks on science and evidence-based policy. But some people in the research community <a href="https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-if-scientists-dont-think-strategically-before-talking-politics-63797">worried about a downside</a> to <a href="https://theconversation.com/should-scientists-engage-in-activism-72234">scientists being perceived as advocates</a>.</p>
<p>Emily Vraga, assistant professor in political communication at George Mason University, <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-march-for-science-participants-advocate-without-losing-the-publics-trust-76205">put the conundrum this way</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“On one hand, scientists have relevant expertise to contribute to conversations about public policy…. On the other hand, scientists who advocate may risk losing the trust of the public.” </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Maintaining that trust is imperative for scientists, both to be able to communicate public risks appropriately and to preserve public funding for research, she wrote.</p>
<p>Vraga and her colleagues’ research suggests that scientists don’t lose credibility when they advocate for policies based on their expertise. But there’s a distinction to be made between advocacy and mere partisanship – statements motivated by the science are received differently than if they’re perceived as driven by political beliefs.</p>
<h2>2. Rhetorical tools at the ready</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=497&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/199722/original/file-20171218-27591-17bzy4t.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=624&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Protesting is one thing, communicating a message is another.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Peter Cedric Rock Smith</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>With the feeling that there’s a “war on science” afoot, savvy scientists are thinking about how to defend their work. University of Washington professor of communication Leah Ceccarelli says they can <a href="https://theconversation.com/defending-science-how-the-art-of-rhetoric-can-help-68210">look toward the field of rhetoric</a> for help in how to get their messages across. She writes:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Before dismissing this recommendation as a perverse appeal to slink into the mud or take up the corrupted weapons of the enemy, keep in mind that in academia, ‘rhetoric’ does not mean rank falsehoods, or mere words over substance.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s about building persuasive arguments, built on solid foundations, she says. Rhetoricians study effective communication – and they’re happy to open their toolbox to scientists.</p>
<p>Indeed, the <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-a-scientific-message-across-means-taking-human-nature-into-account-70634">science of science communication</a> is becoming a hot area of inquiry, as practitioners <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-do-gorilla-suits-and-blowfish-fallacies-have-to-do-with-climate-change-72560">investigate and disseminate</a> <a href="https://theconversation.com/communicating-climate-change-focus-on-the-framing-not-just-the-facts-73028">various techniques</a> for effectively <a href="https://theconversation.com/inoculation-theory-using-misinformation-to-fight-misinformation-77545">spreading accurate scientific information</a>.</p>
<h2>3. What you miss out on when science gets cut</h2>
<p>Scientists are always scrambling to secure funding for their research, and during the first year of the Trump administration, it seemed science projects were consistently on the budget chopping block. </p>
<p>Christopher Keane, the vice president for research at Washington State University, made the case that federal funding for science ultimately <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-the-federal-budget-funds-scientific-research-its-the-economy-that-benefits-80651">revs up regional economies</a>, particularly when scholars within academia join forces with entrepreneurs in the private sector:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“<a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/downloads/AMI_v3_4-17-17.pdf">Thousands of companies</a> can trace their roots to federally funded university research. And since the majority of federally funded research takes place <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-research.pdf">at America’s research universities</a> – often in concert with federal labs and private research partners – these spinoff companies are often located in their local communities all across the country.”</p>
</blockquote>
<h2>4. Slashing science projects hurts workers</h2>
<p>Ohio State University economist Bruce Weinberg described how <a href="http://iris.isr.umich.edu">a unique data set</a> allowed him and his colleagues to <a href="https://theconversation.com/who-feels-the-pain-of-science-research-budget-cuts-75119">actually follow the money</a> on federally funded scientific research. Using administrative data, they were able to identify everyone paid to work on a research project, not just the few who appear as authors on any culminating journal articles.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“This is valuable because we’re able to identify students and staff, who may be less likely to author papers than faculty and postdocs but who turn out to be an important part of the workforce on funded research projects. It’s like taking into account everyone who works in a particular store, not just the manager and owner.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The majority of people employed on research projects turn out to be somewhere in the training pipeline, whether undergraduates, graduate students or postdocs.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZtuQS/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="640"></iframe>
<p>And to do all that work, Weinberg points out, labs need to purchase everything from “computers and software, to reagents, medical imaging equipment or telescopes, even to lab mice and rats.” Cut the federal funding for science and the economic effects will ripple out far beyond just university science buildings.</p>
<h2>5. Basic research powers later patents</h2>
<p>Skeptics may wonder: What’s the big deal? So we take a few years off from funding some basic research. Does basic research really matter? <a href="https://theconversation.com/tracing-the-links-between-basic-research-and-real-world-applications-82198">As Northwestern University’s Benjamin F. Jones and Mohammad Ahmadpoor put it</a>, the:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“‘ivory tower’ view of academic endeavors suggests that science is an isolated activity that rarely pays off in practical application. Related is the idea that marketplace innovation rarely relies on the work of universities or government labs.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But is that right? To find out if basic research actually does lead to usable practical advances, they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aam9527">designed a study to investigate</a> the links between patentable inventions and scientific research. Jones and Ahmadpoor created a “social network” style map, which connects patents and science papers using the reference citations in each. They found that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Among research articles that receive at least one citation, a full 80 percent could be linked forward to a future patent. Meanwhile, 61 percent of patents linked backward to at least one research article.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It’s impossible to predict which basic research projects will be important in the marketplace, but they wrote that a very high share of scientific research does link “forward to usable practical advances. Most of the linkages are indirect, showing the manifold and unexpected ways” in which basic research can ultimately pay off.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/89261/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
President Trump’s first year was a rough one for scientists and others who value truth and expertise. Many rallied to the cause, while others used research to make the case for the value of science.Maggie Villiger, Senior Science + Technology EditorLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/849462017-11-07T03:26:21Z2017-11-07T03:26:21ZRather than being free of values, good science is transparent about them<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193459/original/file-20171106-1055-1tmbboh.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's good for scientists to work in glass laboratories.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.broadinstitute.org/photos-broad-institute/photos-broad-institute">Len Rubenstein</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Scientists these days face a conundrum. As Americans are buffeted by accounts of <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-media/trump-suggests-challenging-tv-network-licenses-over-fake-news-idUSKBN1CG1WB">fake news</a>, <a href="https://www.seeker.com/alternative-facts-have-plagued-science-for-decades-2272707511.html">alternative facts</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/14/russia-us-politics-social-media-facebook">deceptive social media campaigns</a>, how can researchers and their scientific expertise contribute meaningfully to the conversation?</p>
<p>There is a common perception that science is a matter of hard facts and that it <a href="https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69">can and should remain insulated</a> from the social and political interests that permeate the rest of society. Nevertheless, many historians, philosophers and sociologists who study the practice of science have come to the conclusion that trying to kick values out of science risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. </p>
<p>Ethical and social values – like the desire to promote economic development, public health or environmental protection – often play integral roles in scientific research. By acknowledging this, scientists might seem to give away their authority as a defense against the flood of misleading, inaccurate information that surrounds us. But I argue in my book “<a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-tapestry-of-values-9780190260811?lang=en&cc=us">A Tapestry of Values: An Introduction to Values in Science</a>” that if scientists take appropriate steps to manage and communicate about their values, they can promote a more realistic view of science as both value-laden and reliable.</p>
<h2>Values can be good or bad</h2>
<p>There is no question, of course, that values can cause problems in science. Powerful organizations like the <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/ebook.php?isbn=9780520950436">tobacco</a> and <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520275829">lead</a> industries have manipulated science to boost their profit margins and prevent regulation of their products. The fossil fuel industry has engaged in similar tactics to <a href="http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/">spread misinformation about climate change</a>.</p>
<p>And it’s not just big business that spreads misleading science – <a href="https://www.healthline.com/health-news/fake-news-plaguing-world-of-science#1">many different groups</a> peddle questionable claims about everything from vaccines and alternative medicines to genetically modified foods and diet strategies. In these cases, economic values or ideological commitments have inclined people to ignore or suppress evidence that runs counter to their preferences.</p>
<p>But I’d argue that it would be a grave mistake to try to eliminate all value considerations from scientific research. At the very least, most people want scientists to respect human rights and animal welfare when they design potentially harmful experiments.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=601&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193462/original/file-20171106-1027-1qxpql5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=755&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What research gets funded, from a limited pool of money, is a value-laden decision.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/ha96QM1eH74">Andrew Robles on Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We as citizens also want scientists to keep social priorities in mind when deciding what research projects to undertake. In part, this involves choosing among an array of possible topics – for example, deciding how to divide up medical research investments among cancer, AIDS, diabetes and mental health.</p>
<p>It also involves deciding how scientists study these topics. Should they focus more attention on <a href="https://www.cancer.org/research/we-conduct-cancer-research/epidemiology/cancer-prevention-studies-save-lives.html">preventing environmentally induced cancers</a>? Or treating cancers that are already present? How much money should go toward developing new drugs for treating depression as opposed to studying how to <a href="https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/depression-and-exercise/art-20046495">mitigate some cases</a> by modifying diet, exercise or the social environment? Social values are obviously relevant to making these judgments.</p>
<h2>Between hard facts and unfounded advocacy</h2>
<p>A great deal of science is now performed in an effort to inform policymakers who need to make practical decisions about real-world problems such as regulating industrial chemicals or managing wildlife populations or preventing disease outbreaks. This sort of research can be plagued by uncertainties; there’s almost never one clear-cut “right” answer. </p>
<p>In these research contexts, scientists must decide how to extrapolate beyond the available data and weigh complex bodies of evidence in order to <a href="https://www.upress.pitt.edu/BookDetails.aspx?bookId=35967">help policymakers draw conclusions</a>. <a href="https://global.oup.com/academic/product/exploring-inductive-risk-9780190467722?lang=en&cc=us">Values have a role to play</a> in making these decisions. If one errs in one direction, one often risks overregulation and economic losses. Err the other way, and public health and environmental resources are often at stake. It makes sense to think about these consequences when deciding which way to lean.</p>
<p>Even the language employed by scientists is often laden with values. For example, environmental scientists have <a href="https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300205817/metaphors-environmental-sustainability">debated the merits</a> of talking about “invasive,” “nonnative,” “exotic” or “alien” species, given that these are metaphorical terms that have great significance in contemporary social and political debates. In biomedical research, scientists have <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6273/564">struggled to decide</a> whether the benefits of employing racial categories outweigh the dangers of promoting misleading notions about race as a biological phenomenon. And the World Health Organization suggested in 2015 that scientists should <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/05/discovered-disease-who-has-new-rules-avoiding-offensive-names">stop using disease names</a> like swine flu, athlete’s foot or Marburg disease, because they could stigmatize animals, people or places. In cases like these, there may be no strictly value-neutral ways of categorizing and describing phenomena.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/193481/original/file-20171106-1011-1lnb5nq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=446&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Broadening the researcher pool beyond just the types who attended an international scientific meeting in 1879 means people are bringing different sets of values to the lab bench.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:II_International_Meteorological_congress_Rome_1879.jpg">Музей-архив Д. И. Менделеева</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Recognizing values helps science’s integrity</h2>
<p>Even if we cannot turn science into a value-free endeavor, researchers can still take important steps to preserve its legitimacy. One way to do that is for the scientific community to <a href="https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1408107/">promote as much transparency in science as possible</a> so that the influences of values can be recognized. Depending on the context, this can involve many different activities: consistently publishing results, using open-access journals, making data publicly available, providing data analysis plans before studies begin, making materials and methods available to other researchers and disclosing conflicts of interest.</p>
<p>Both citizens and scientists also need to scrutinize and discuss the influences of values as effectively as possible, using many different venues: Journals can promote <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/256?ijkey=aoQ8T2TirYWfM&keytype=ref&siteid=sci">thoughtful peer-review processes</a>, government agencies can maintain effective science advisory boards, scientific societies can create reports on debated topics, <a href="https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/translational/community/index.cfm">citizens can get involved in research projects</a> and the scientific community can encourage new perspectives by <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2015/12/moving-toward-inclusion">promoting greater diversity</a> in its membership. By taking these steps, scientists and stakeholders can decide how best to handle important judgments, and they can distinguish scientific conclusions that are well supported from those that are more tenuous.</p>
<p>By virtue of the fact that science is done by and for human beings, values are entangled in the enterprise whether we acknowledge it or not. Rather than <a href="http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0186049">dismissing scientists who discuss their values</a>, we ought to encourage scientists and other stakeholders to engage in open, thoughtful reflection about how values influence research. Far from threatening the integrity of science, this is the path to promoting science that is trustworthy and socially responsible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/84946/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kevin Elliott does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Science isn’t cold, hard facts uncovered by emotionless robots. Acknowledging how and where values play a role promotes a more realistic view and can advance science’s reputation for reliability.Kevin Elliott, Associate Professor in Lyman Briggs College, Fisheries & Wildlife, and Philosophy, Michigan State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/806512017-07-27T02:01:11Z2017-07-27T02:01:11ZWhen the federal budget funds scientific research, it’s the economy that benefits<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179810/original/file-20170726-27705-12b4ng0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=298%2C502%2C2708%2C1823&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Impacts of federal research funding can be felt region-wide.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/view-downtown-seattle-skyline-washington-usa-510934489">f11photo/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Emergency: You need more <a href="https://www.washington.edu/alumni/columns/june97/mills.html">disposable diapers</a>, right away. You hop into your car and trust your ride will be a safe one. Thanks to your phone’s GPS and the <a href="http://www.longviewinstitute.org/projects/marketfundamentalism/microchip/">microchips that run it</a>, you map out how to get to the store fast. Once there, the <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/sensational60.pdf">barcode on the package</a> lets you accurately check out your purchase and run. Each step in this process owes a debt to the universities, researchers, students and the federal funding support that got these products and technologies rolling in the first place.</p>
<p>By some tallies, almost two-thirds of the technologies with the most far-reaching impact over the last 50 years <a href="http://www.bu.edu/research/articles/funding-for-scientific-research/">stemmed from federally funded R&D</a> at national laboratories and research universities.</p>
<p>The benefits from this investment have trickled down into countless <a href="http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2011/technology/1110/gallery.government_inventions/index.html">aspects of our everyday lives</a>. Even the internet that allows you to read this article online has its roots in federal dollars: The U.S. Department of Defense supported installation of the first node of a <a href="https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/timeline/arpanet">communications network called ARPANET</a> at UCLA back in 1969.</p>
<p>As Congress debates the upcoming budget, its members might remember the economic impacts and improved quality of life that past <a href="https://nsf.gov/about/history/nifty50/index.jsp">congressional support of basic and applied research</a> has created.</p>
<h2>Federal dollars do more than fund labs</h2>
<p>Here in the state of Washington, federally funded research at both my employer, Washington State University, and the University of Washington has led to transformational innovations. It’s helped spawn not only new products that save and improve lives, but productivity growth through new businesses and services.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=382&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179521/original/file-20170724-11166-1s8eb5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=480&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The Zhang lab at WSU works on recycling carbon composite fiber materials.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Hubner, WSU</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Just a few examples include new kinds of <a href="https://cmec.wsu.edu/documents/2015/04/wmel-history.pdf">composite-based lumber</a>, <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2015/these-researchers-are-building-extra-brainy-smart-homes-to-monitor-aging-adults/">smart home technology for the aged</a>, <a href="https://nephrology.uw.edu/about/history-innovation">kidney dialysis machines</a>, <a href="https://magazine.wsu.edu/2015/08/16/the-ion-investigators/">airport explosive detectors</a> and new varieties of wheat, <a href="https://news.wsu.edu/2016/11/21/mcdonalds-chooses-wsu-potatoes/">potatoes</a> and other <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/pacific-nw-magazine/quinoa-comes-to-the-northwest/">agricultural crops</a> that we enjoy at our tables and in numerous products.</p>
<p>All these inventions relied on federal investment combined with university research lab expertise. The important final step was commercialization. Together it all led to positive economic impacts.</p>
<p>We see this pattern again and again.</p>
<p>For instance, next time you’re on Google, remember it was founded by two Stanford University doctoral students who were funded in part by <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/disc_summ.jsp?cntn_id=100660">National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowships</a>. Fast forward 20 years and here in my backyard, the company is busy building a new campus in downtown Seattle that may house <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2016/paul-allens-vulcan-develop-huge-complex-google-amazons-backyard/">3,000-4,000 workers</a> by 2019. Many of those hired will likely be <a href="http://www.seattletimes.com/business/technology/google-plans-big-expansion-to-south-lake-union/">graduates from both WSU and UW</a>.</p>
<p>The fact is that <a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/downloads/AMI_v3_4-17-17.pdf">thousands of companies</a> can trace their roots to federally funded university research. And since the majority of federally funded research takes place <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/82xx/doc8221/06-18-research.pdf">at America’s research universities</a> – often in concert with federal labs and private research partners – these spinoff companies are often located in their local communities all across the country.</p>
<p>Just one of these firms, headquartered in Broomfield, Colorado, employs over 2,800 workers and started with researchers at the University of Colorado who create instruments, data exploitation solutions and technologies for civil, commercial, <a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/company/ball-aerospace-technologies-corp">aerospace and defense applications</a>. Another in Audubon, Pennsylvania develops rapid, noninvasive <a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/company/liquid-biotech-usa-inc">“liquid biopsy” tests</a> for cancer screening and early detection based on research from the University of Pennsylvania. And another company with 85 employees in Madison develops high-density <a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/successstories/company/nimblegen-systems-inc">DNA microarrays</a> for pharmaceutical research based on research from the University of Wisconsin.</p>
<p>The list goes on and on.</p>
<h2>A Washington state case study</h2>
<p>Focusing federal research funding on research universities who enjoy strong corporate and business partners has <a href="https://www.rdmag.com/article/2015/04/how-academic-institutions-partner-private-industry">strategic value</a>. There is little doubt that the state of <a href="http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/06/16/states-with-the-fastest-and-slowest-growing-economies-2/2/">Washington’s recent economic successes</a>, for example, comes down to a cycle of innovation and discovery that feeds additional economic growth and private-public-university relationships. Federal R&D funding is a key ingredient.</p>
<p>Our two public research universities have strong relationships with federal funding agencies. Together Washington State University and the University of Washington – the largest recipient of federal research funding in the nation among public universities – form the technological and intellectual pillar around which many of our state’s successful businesses are built and sustained. Both universities graduate thousands of undergraduate and graduate students who provide a constant supply of educated, trained workers. In turn, the universities and federal R&D investment benefit from the active engagement and monetary support of business leaders and professionals. Innovative ideas and knowledge percolate back and forth between federally funded research and the private sector.</p>
<p>A recent milestone provides an example.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/179516/original/file-20170724-11666-199zx5g.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=502&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Gassing up with renewable, affordable jet fuel – thanks to a public/private research collaboration.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Robert Hubner, WSU</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Federal research dollars helped solidify a collaboration aimed at solving a big problem: the high carbon emissions from air travel, a contributor to climate change. WSU worked together with the UW and a host of other regional public research institutions, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Alaska Airlines, Weyerhaeuser Corp., Gevo, Inc. and a large alliance of private industry to develop a <a href="https://nararenewables.org/">renewable, affordable source of jet fuel</a>.</p>
<p>Each collaborator brought unique expertise to the innovation table. USDA provided the funding and the policy commitment to the development of biofuels that spurred matching investment from private partners. Alaska Airlines brought the need to reduce its carbon emissions and its leadership in applying clean technologies to improve its environmental performance. WSU contributed decades of pertinent experience in both basic science and applied research. UW researchers demonstrated the fuel’s potential reduction in life cycle greenhouse gas emissions. And, Gevo, Inc. brought its private-sector skills and patented technology in developing bio-based alternatives to petroleum-based products. The sum of these parts created a strong, successful partnership that took a big step toward sustainable aviation.</p>
<p>Individual researchers with their deep expertise remain the bedrock of the research enterprise. But teams of scientists – drawn from research universities, government and the private sector – all <a href="http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1116&context=publication">working on multidisciplinary problems</a> are having an increasing impact.</p>
<h2>Recipe for amplifying R&D investment</h2>
<p>Importantly, this phenomenon is not unique to the state of Washington. The <a href="https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/studies/americas-most-innovative-tech-hubs/">nation’s most active innovation hubs</a> and successful regional economies have similar factors that drive economic growth and resiliency, including:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>Top-tier research institutions supported by federal, state and private funding;</p></li>
<li><p>A concentration of talented and diverse workers;</p></li>
<li><p>An ecosystem of firms, entrepreneurs and intermediaries;</p></li>
<li><p>Accessible pools of risk capital;</p></li>
<li><p>A global orientation; and</p></li>
<li><p>Communities that take advantage of the area’s unique assets and advantages in creating a desirable quality of life.</p></li>
</ul>
<p>We see these conditions <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/the-20-most-innovative-cities-in-the-us-2013-2#4-corvallis-oregon-17">coming together around the country</a>: in Silicon Valley, the Raleigh-Durham Research Triangle Park, Boston’s metro area and other innovation hubs in cities like Boulder, Colorado; Madison, Wisconsin; Austin, Texas; and Gainesville, Florida.</p>
<p>It’s this <a href="https://itif.org/publications/2008/07/09/where-do-innovations-come-transformations-us-national-innovation-system-1970">cooperative model</a> and leveraging of federal R&D dollars that have long been this <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/research/localizing-the-economic-impact-of-research-and-development/">nation’s competitive advantage</a>. With fewer federal dollars allocated to scientific R&D, the next Silicon Valley – with its potential for an economic renaissance for a new area not even on our innovation map yet – may not emerge as quickly.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80651/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>In his position as VP of Research for WSU, Christopher Keane oversees projects that receive grants from DOE, USDA, NIH, NSF and DOD.</span></em></p>Research dollars don’t stay locked up in academia and government labs. R&D collaborations with the private sector are common – and grow the innovation economy.Christopher Keane, Vice President for Research and Professor of Physics, Washington State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/809972017-07-19T17:01:16Z2017-07-19T17:01:16ZHere’s the three-pronged approach we’re using in our own research to tackle the reproducibility issue<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178674/original/file-20170718-31872-1uv1xdv.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Step one is not being afraid to reexamine a site that's been previously excavated.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dominic O'Brien. Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>If you keep up with health or science news, you’ve probably been whipsawed between conflicting reports. Just days apart you may hear that “science says” coffee’s good for you, no actually it’s bad for you, actually red wine holds the secret to long life. As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw">comedian John Oliver put it</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“After a certain point, all that ridiculous information can make you wonder: is science bullshit? To which the answer is clearly no. But there is a lot of bullshit currently masquerading as science.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>A big part of this problem has to do with what’s been called a “<a href="https://theconversation.com/us/topics/reproducibility-5484">reproducibility crisis</a>” in science – many studies if run a second time don’t come up with the same results. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/533452a">Scientists are worried</a> about this situation, and <a href="https://www.nature.com/collections/byblhcfwhw">high-profile</a> international <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab2374">research journals</a> have raised the alarm, too, calling on researchers to put more effort into ensuring their results can be reproduced, rather than only striving for splashy, one-off outcomes.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/29/opinion/sunday/why-do-so-many-studies-fail-to-replicate.html">Concerns about</a> <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/03/psychologys-replication-crisis-cant-be-wished-away/472272/">irreproducible results</a> <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2016/04/biomedicine_facing_a_worse_replication_crisis_than_the_one_plaguing_psychology.html">in science resonate</a> <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/">outside the ivory tower</a>, as well, because a lot of this research translates into information that affects our everyday lives. </p>
<p>For example, it informs what we know about how to stay healthy, how doctors should look after us when we’re sick, how best to educate our children and how to organize our communities. If study results are not reproducible, then we can’t trust them to give good advice on solving our everyday problems – and society-wide challenges. Reproducibility is not just a minor technicality for specialists; it’s a pressing issue that affects the role of modern science in society.</p>
<p>Once we’ve identified that reproducibility is a big problem, the question becomes: How do we tackle it? Part of the answer has to do with changing incentives for researchers. But there are plenty of things we in the research community can do right now in the course of our scientific work.</p>
<p>It might come as a surprise that <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10816-015-9272-9">archaeologists are at the forefront</a> of finding ways to improve the situation. Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22968">recent paper in Nature</a> demonstrates a concrete three-pronged approach to improving the reproducibility of scientific findings.</p>
<h2>Going back to where it all started</h2>
<p>In our new publication we describe recent work at an archaeological site in northern Australia. The results of our excavations and laboratory analyses show that <a href="http://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-tell-a-new-history-of-humans-in-australia-for-65-000-years-81021">people arrived in Australia 65,000 years ago</a>, substantially earlier than the previous consensus estimate of 47,000 years ago. <a href="http://theconversation.com/buried-tools-and-pigments-tell-a-new-history-of-humans-in-australia-for-65-000-years-81021">This date has exciting implications</a> for our understandings of human evolution.</p>
<p>A less obvious detail about this study is the care we’ve taken to make our results reproducible. Our reproducibility strategy had three parts: fieldwork, labwork and data analyses.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=906&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1138&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1138&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178680/original/file-20170718-10320-1sapmfd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1138&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ben Marwick and colleagues excavating at Madjedbebe.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dominic O'Brien. Gundjeihmi Aboriginal Corporation</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our first step toward reproducibility was our choice of what to investigate. Rather than striking out to someplace new, we reexcavated an archaeological site <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhevol.2015.03.014">previously known to have very old artifacts</a>.</p>
<p>The rockshelter site Madjedbebe in Australia’s Northern Territory had been excavated twice before. Famously, excavations there in 1989 indicated that people had <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/345153a0">arrived in Australia by about 50,000 years ago</a>. But this age was not accepted by many archaeologists, who refused to accept anything older than 47,000 years ago.</p>
<p>This age was controversial from its first publication, and our goal in revisiting the site was to check if it was reliable or not. Could that controversial 50,000-years age be reproduced, or was it just a chance result that didn’t indicate the true time period for human habitation in Australia?</p>
<p>Like many scientists, archaeologists are generally less interested in returning to old discoveries, instead preferring to forge new paths in search of novel results. The problem with this is that it can lead to many unresolved questions, making it difficult to build a solid foundation of knowledge. </p>
<h2>Double-check the lab tests</h2>
<p>The second part of our reproducibility strategy was to verify that our laboratory analyses were reliable.</p>
<p>Our team used <a href="https://www.thoughtco.com/luminescence-dating-cosmic-method-171538">optically stimulated luminescence</a> methods to date the sand grains near the ancient artifacts. This method is complex, and there are only a few places in the world that have the instruments and skills to date these kinds of samples.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=766&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178820/original/file-20170719-27696-r2h9i8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=963&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Zenobia Jacobs produced the new ages for the Madjebdebe site based on her work in the Luminescence Dating Laboratory at the University of Wollongong, Australia.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">University of Wollongong</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We first analyzed our samples in our laboratory at the <a href="http://smah.uow.edu.au/sees/facilities/UOW002889.html">University of Wollongong</a> to find their ages. Then we sent blind duplicate samples to another laboratory at the <a href="https://www.adelaide.edu.au/ipas/facilities/luminescence/">University of Adelaide</a> to analyze, without telling that lab our results. With both sets of analyses in hand, we compared them; it turned out in this case that they got the same ages as we did for the same samples.</p>
<p>This kind of verification is not a common practice in archaeology, but because this site was already controversial, we wanted to make sure the ages we obtained were reproducible.</p>
<p>While this extra work involved some additional cost and time, it’s vital to proving that our dates give the true ages of the sediments surrounding the artifacts. This verification shows that our lab results are not due to chance, or the unique conditions of our laboratory. Other archaeologists, and the public, can be more confident in our findings because we’ve taken these extra steps. This external checking should be standard practice in any science where controversial findings are at stake. </p>
<h2>Don’t let the computer be a black box</h2>
<p>After we completed the excavation and lab analyses, we analyzed the data on our computers. This stage of our research was very similar to what scientists in many other fields do. We loaded the raw data into our computers to visualize it with plots and test hypotheses with statistical methods.</p>
<p>However, while many researchers do this work by pointing and clicking using off-the-shelf software, we tried as much as possible to write scripts in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/517109a">R programming language</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=402&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/178686/original/file-20170718-10283-q6g5bg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=505&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Could be the enemy of reproducibility if it helps obscure the steps in data analysis.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/erinkohlenbergphoto/5353222369">Erin Kohlenberg</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Pointing and clicking generally leaves no traces of important decisions made during data analysis. Mouse-driven analyses leave the researcher with a final result, but none of the steps to get that result is saved. This makes it <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-computers-broke-science-and-what-we-can-do-to-fix-it-49938">difficult to retrace the steps</a> of an analysis, and check the assumptions made by the researcher.</p>
<p>On the other hand, our scripts contain a record of all our data analysis steps and decisions. They’re like an exact recipe to generate our results. Other researchers not using scripts for their data analysis don’t have these recipes, so their results are much harder to reproduce. </p>
<p>Another advantage of our choice to use scripts is that we can share them with the scientific community and the public. We follow <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4550">standard practices</a> by making our script files and main data files <a href="https://osf.io/qwfcz/">freely available online</a> so anyone can inspect the details of our analysis, or explore new ideas using our data.</p>
<p>It’s easy to understand why many researchers prefer point-and-click over writing scripts for their data analysis. Often that’s what they were taught as students. It’s hard work and time-consuming to learn new analysis tools among the pressures of teaching, applying for grants, doing fieldwork and writing publications. Despite these challenges, there is an accelerating shift away from point-and-click toward scripted analyses in many areas of science.</p>
<h2>Combating irreproducibility one step at a time</h2>
<p>Our recent paper is part of a new movement emerging in many disciplines to improve the reproducibility of science. Examples of recent papers that have made a commitment to reproducibility similar to ours have come from <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22975">epidemiology</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0160">oceanography</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.20470">neuroscience</a>.</p>
<p>We hope our example will inspire other scientists to be strategic about improving the reproducibility of their research. Some of these steps can be difficult for researchers: It means learning how to use unfamiliar software, and publicly sharing more of their data and methods than they’re accustomed to. But they’re important for generating reliable results – and for maintaining public confidence in scientific knowledge.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/80997/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ben Marwick receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the University of Wollongong, and the University of Washington. This work was supported in part by the University of Washington eScience Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Zenobia Jacobs receives funding from the Australian Research Council. </span></em></p>A team of archaeologists strived to improve the reproducibility of their results, influencing their choices in the field, in the lab and during data analysis.Ben Marwick, Associate Professor of Archaeology, University of WashingtonZenobia Jacobs, Professor, University of WollongongLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/679812017-04-28T01:50:54Z2017-04-28T01:50:54ZNew statistical methods would let researchers deal with data in better, more robust ways<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167080/original/file-20170427-15091-ro2zvj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=267%2C162%2C2172%2C1777&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Collecting the data comes first, but then you have to analyze the data.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/24801682@N08/2978799610">Cameron Neylon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>No matter the field, if a researcher is collecting data of any kind, at some point he is going to have to analyze it. And odds are he’ll turn to statistics to figure out what the data can tell him.</p>
<p>A wide range of disciplines – such as the <a href="https://www.crcpress.com/Modern-Statistics-for-the-Social-and-Behavioral-Sciences-A-Practical-Introduction/Wilcox/p/book/9781439834565">social sciences</a>, <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/statistics-for-marketing-and-consumer-research/book228010">marketing</a>, <a href="https://www.spcpress.com/book_understanding_statistical_process_control.php">manufacturing</a>, the <a href="https://www.mhprofessional.com/9780071781503-usa-primer-of-biostatistics-seventh-edition-group">pharmaceutical industry</a> and <a href="http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/8709">physics</a> – try to make inferences about a large population of individuals or things based on a relatively small sample. But many researchers are using antiquated statistical techniques that have a relatively high probability of steering them wrong. And that’s a problem if it means we’re misunderstanding how well a potential new drug works, or the effects of some treatment on a city’s water supply, for instance.</p>
<p>As a statistician who’s been following advances in the field, I know there are vastly improved methods for comparing groups of individuals or things, as well as understanding the association between two or more variables. These modern robust methods offer the opportunity to achieve a more accurate and more nuanced understanding of data. The trouble is that these better techniques have been slow to make inroads within the larger scientific community.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167083/original/file-20170427-15091-1wdib0n.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What if these mice aren’t actually representative of all the other mice out there?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Guinea_mice.jpg">Cmdragon</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>When classic methods don’t cut it</h2>
<p>Imagine, for instance, that researchers gather a group of 40 individuals with high cholesterol. Half take drug A, while the other half take a placebo. The researchers discover that those in the first group have a larger average decrease in their cholesterol levels. But how well do the outcomes from just 20 people reflect what would happen if thousands of adults took drug A?</p>
<p>Or on a more cosmic scale, consider astronomer <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Hubble">Edwin Hubble</a>, who measured how far 24 galaxies are from Earth and how quickly they’re moving away from us. Data from that small group let him draw up an equation that predicts a galaxy’s so-called recession velocity given its distance. But how well do Hubble’s results reflect the association among all of the millions of galaxies in the universe if they were measured? </p>
<p>In these and many other situations, researchers use small sample sizes simply because of the cost and general difficulty of obtaining data. Classic methods, routinely taught and used, attempt to address these issues by making two key assumptions. </p>
<p>First, scientists assume there’s a particular equation for each individual situation that will accurately model the probabilities associated with possible outcomes. The most commonly used equation corresponds to what’s called a normal distribution. The resulting plot of the data is bell-shaped and symmetric around some central value.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167085/original/file-20170427-15097-1s95kzi.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=482&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Curves based on equations that describe different symmetric data sets.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Normal_Distribution_PDF.svg">Inductiveload</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Second, researchers assume the amount of variation is the same for both groups they’re comparing. For example, in the drug study, cholesterol levels will vary among the millions of individuals who might take the medication. Classic techniques assume that the amount of variation among the potential drug recipients is exactly the same as the amount of variation in the placebo group.</p>
<p>A similar assumption is made when studying associations. Consider, for example, a study examining the relationship between age and some measure of depression. Among the millions of individuals aged 20, there will be variation among their depression scores. The same is true at age 30, 80 or any age in between. Classic methods assume that the amount of variation is the same for any two ages we might pick. </p>
<p>All these assumptions allow researchers to use methods that are theoretically and computationally convenient. Unfortunately, they might not yield reasonably accurate results. </p>
<p>While writing my book “<a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books/introduction-to-robust-estimation-and-hypothesis-testing/wilcox/978-0-12-804733-0">Introduction to Robust Estimation and Hypothesis Testing</a>,” I analyzed hundreds of journal articles and found that these methods can be unreliable. Indeed, concerns about theoretical and empirical results <a href="https://www.amazon.com/History-Mathematical-Statistics-Wiley-Probability/dp/0471179124">date back two centuries</a>.</p>
<p>When the groups that researchers are comparing do not differ in any way, or there is no association, classic methods perform well. But if groups differ or there is an association – which is certainly not uncommon – classic methods may falter. Important differences and associations can be missed, and highly misleading inferences can result.</p>
<p>Even recognizing these problems can make things worse, if researchers try to work around the limitations of classic statistical methods using ineffective or technically invalid methods. Transforming the data, or tossing out outliers – any extreme data points that are far out from the other data values – these strategies don’t necessarily fix the underlying issues.</p>
<h2>A new way</h2>
<p>Recent major advances in statistics provide substantially better methods for dealing with these shortcomings. Over the past 30 years, <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471735779.html">statisticians have</a> <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0470129905.html">solidified the mathematical foundation</a> of <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-0471855472.html">these new methods</a>. We call the resulting techniques robust, because they continue to perform well in situations where conventional methods fall down. </p>
<p>Conventional methods provide exact solutions when all those previously mentioned assumptions are met. But even slight violations of these assumptions can be devastating.</p>
<p>The new robust methods, on the other hand, provide approximate solutions when these assumptions are true, making them nearly as accurate as conventional methods. But it’s when the situation changes and the assumptions aren’t true that the new robust methods shine: They continue to give reasonably accurate solutions for a broad range of situations that cause trouble for the traditional ways.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=390&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/167092/original/file-20170427-15117-yurol7.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=490&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Depression scores among older adults. The data are not symmetric, like you’d see in a normal curve.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Rand Wilcox</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One specific concern is the commonly occurring situation where plots of the data are not symmetric. In a study dealing with depression among older adults, for example, a plot of the data is highly asymmetric – roughly because most adults are not overly depressed.</p>
<p>Outliers are another common challenge. Conventional methods assume that outliers are of no practical importance. But of course that’s not always true, so outliers can be disastrous when using conventional methods. Robust methods offer a technically sound – though not obvious, based on standard training – way to deal with this issue that provides a much more accurate interpretation of the data. </p>
<p>Another major advance has been the creation of bootstrap methods, which are more flexible inferential techniques. Combining bootstrap and robust methods has led to a vast array of <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books/introduction-to-robust-estimation-and-hypothesis-testing/wilcox/978-0-12-804733-0">new and improved techniques</a> for understanding data.</p>
<p>These modern techniques not only increase the likelihood of detecting important differences and associations, but also provide new perspectives that can deepen our understanding of what data are trying to tell us. There is no single perspective that always provides an accurate summary of data. Multiple perspectives can be crucial. </p>
<p>In some situations, modern methods offer little or no improvement over classic techniques. But there is vast evidence illustrating that they can substantially alter our understanding of data.</p>
<h2>Education is the missing piece</h2>
<p>So why haven’t these modern approaches supplanted the classic methods? Conventional wisdom holds that the old ways perform well even when underlying assumptions are false – even though that’s not so. And most researchers outside the field don’t follow the latest statistics literature that would set them straight.</p>
<p>There is one final hurdle that must be addressed if modern technology is to have a broad impact on our understanding data: basic training. </p>
<p>Most intro stats textbooks don’t discuss the many advances and insights that have occurred over the last several decades. This perpetuates the erroneous view that, in terms of basic principles, there have been no important advances since the year 1955. <a href="https://dornsife.usc.edu/cf/labs/wilcox/wilcox-faculty-display.cfm">Introductory books</a> aimed at correcting this problem <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119061393.html">are available</a> and include illustrations on how to apply modern methods with existing software.</p>
<p>Given the millions of dollars and the vast amount of time spent on collecting data, modernizing basic training is absolutely essential – particularly for scientists who don’t specialize in statistics. Otherwise, important discoveries will be lost and, in many instances, a deep understanding of the data will be impossible.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/67981/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rand Wilcox does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Any field that collects and analyzes data relies on statistical techniques to make sense of it all. Modern, more accurate methods should supplant the old ways… but in many cases, they haven’t yet.Rand Wilcox, Professor of Statistics, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and SciencesLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/762052017-04-19T14:17:17Z2017-04-19T14:17:17ZCan March for Science participants advocate without losing the public’s trust?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165718/original/image-20170418-32720-1nzqpxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=655%2C483%2C3997%2C3161&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What happens to their credibility when scientists take to the streets? February 2017 Stand Up for Science rally in Boston.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/askani97/32208983914">Adam Salsman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As <a href="https://www.marchforscience.com/">the March for Science</a> nears, questions about whether scientists can and should advocate for public policy become more important. On one hand, scientists have <a href="http://evidencesquared.com/ep7/">relevant expertise to contribute</a> to conversations about public policy. And in the abstract, the American public <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/">supports the idea that scientists should be involved in political debate</a>. On the other hand, scientists who advocate <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es0726411">may risk losing the trust of the public</a>. Maintaining that trust is imperative for scientists, both to be able to communicate public risks appropriately and to preserve <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">public funding for research</a>.</p>
<p>Little existing research had tested how audiences react when confronted with concrete examples of scientific advocacy. Led by my colleague John Kotcher, my colleagues and I at the <a href="http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/">George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication</a> devised an <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736">experiment to test these questions</a> in the summer of 2014. Our results suggest there is at least some tolerance for advocacy by scientists among the American public. </p>
<h2>Testing a scientist’s perceived credibility</h2>
<p>We asked over 1,200 American adults to read the biography and a single Facebook post of a (fictional) climate scientist named Dr. Dave Wilson. In this post, Dr. Wilson promotes his recent interview regarding his work on climate change. We varied the message of this statement to include a range of advocacy messages – from no advocacy (discussing recent evidence about climate change) to clear advocacy for specific policies to address climate change. </p>
<p><iframe id="8c24n" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8c24n/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736">We found that perceptions of Dr. Wilson’s credibility</a> – and of the scientific community more broadly – did not noticeably decline when he engaged in most types of advocacy. </p>
<p>When Dr. Wilson championed taking action on climate change, without specifying what action, he was considered equally credible as when he described new evidence on climate change or discussed the risks and benefits of a range of policies. In fact, perceptions of Dr. Wilson’s credibility were maintained even when he argued in favor of reducing carbon emissions at coal-fired power plants. </p>
<p>Only when Dr. Wilson advocated for building more nuclear power plants did his credibility suffer.</p>
<h2>Advocacy received differently than partisanship</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A nonpartisan message may be well-received.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/anubisabyss/32859743202">AnubisAbyss</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our study suggests that the American public may not see scientists who advocate for general action on scientific issues as lacking in credibility, nor will they punish the scientific community for one scientist’s advocacy. Yet this study represented only one case of scientific advocacy; other forms of advocacy may not be as accepted by the public. For example, more caution is required when scientists promote specific (unpopular) policies.</p>
<p>Most notably, our study did not test overtly partisan statements from Dr. Wilson. Our research participants saw it that way too; they rated all of Dr. Wilson’s statements as more scientific than political.</p>
<p>The March for Science, however, does risk being seen as motivated by partisan beliefs. In that case, scientists may not escape being criticized for their actions. This is especially true if the march is seen as a protest against President Trump or Republicans in general. In our study, conservatives saw Dr. Wilson as less credible whether he engaged in advocacy or not. If conservatives see the march as a protest against their values, <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-a-scientific-message-across-means-taking-human-nature-into-account-70634">they may dismiss the message</a> of the march – and the messengers – without considering its merits. </p>
<p>This risk is exacerbated when media coverage of the March for Science is considered. In our study, people saw Dr. Wilson promoting his interview in his Facebook post, but were not exposed to the actual interview in which Dr. Wilson made his case for a given policy. Nor were his actions disruptive; a single post on social media is <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150443">relatively easy to skip or ignore</a>, and Dr. Wilson could frame his interview in the way he liked.</p>
<p>The March for Science will be the opposite. If successful, the march will garner attention from news outlets, who may reframe the purpose of the march. </p>
<h2>Balancing the advocacy message</h2>
<p>So what can be done to limit accusations of partisan bias surrounding the march?</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers can aim for an inclusive message, avoiding the appearance of being just another interest group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/askani97/32238804743">Adam Salsman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One way marchers can minimize this possibility is by crafting an inclusive message that resonates with many people, stressing the ways <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">science improves our society</a> and <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/faith-morality-environment/">protects future generations</a>. However, the march’s similarity to other explicitly anti-Trump marches may make it hard to avoid a partisan connotation. </p>
<p>Moreover, in our research Dr. Wilson was portrayed as an older white male, <a href="https://doi.org//10.3102/00028312033002261">matching cultural stereotypes about scientists</a>; he may have had more freedom to engage in advocacy than would female or nonwhite scientists. An inclusive and diverse March for Science may challenge these traditional portrayals of scientists. While many (the authors included) would see that as a desirable objective in itself, it may complicate successful advocacy.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.marchforscience.com/mission/">A goal of the March for Science</a> is to demonstrate that science is a nonpartisan issue. It represents a unique opportunity for scientists to highlight the ways in which science improves our society. Scientists participating in the march should emphasize shared values with those who might otherwise disagree – such as the desire to create a better world for our children and grandchildren. </p>
<p>If the event remains a March for Science, rather than a march against a party or group, the chances increase that it will effectively focus attention on the importance of scientific research.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76205/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The original research reported in this post was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Energy Foundation, and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, none of which bear any responsibility for the findings and interpretations reported here.</span></em></p>The research community tends to assume advocacy doesn’t mix with objectivity. One study suggests there’s room for scientists to make real-world recommendations without compromising their trusted status.Emily Vraga, Assistant Professor in Political Communication, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/751192017-03-30T02:19:52Z2017-03-30T02:19:52ZWho feels the pain of science research budget cuts?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162959/original/image-20170328-3788-186tgbd.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=532%2C491%2C2625%2C2110&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Not much science will get done without the money to fund people and equipment.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/beigephotos/2282318205">Michael Pereckas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Science funding is intended to support the production of <a href="http://faculty.ucmerced.edu/awhalley/web/Kantor_Whalley_Proximity.pdf">new knowledge</a> and ideas that <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w20889">develop new technologies</a>, improve medical treatments and strengthen <a href="http://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00357">the economy</a>. The idea <a href="https://nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm">goes back to influential engineer Vannevar Bush</a>, who headed the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development during World War II. And the evidence is that science funding does <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2097842">have these effects</a>.</p>
<p>But, at a practical level, science funding from all sources supports research projects, the people who work on them and the businesses that provide the equipment, materials and services used to carry them out. Given current <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0921">proposed cuts to federal science funding</a> – the Trump administration has, for instance, proposed a <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/2018_blueprint.pdf">20 percent reduction for the National Institutes of Health</a> – it’s important to know what types of people and businesses are touched by sponsored research projects. This information provides a window into the likely effects of funding cuts.</p>
<p>Most existing research into the effects of science funding tries to quantify research artifacts, such as publications and patents, rather than tracking people. I’ve helped to start an emerging project called the <a href="http://iris.isr.umich.edu">UMETRICS initiative</a> which takes a novel approach to thinking about innovation and science. At its core, UMETRICS views people as key to understanding science and innovation – people conduct research, people are the vectors by which ideas move around and, ultimately, people are one of the primary “products” of the research enterprise.</p>
<p>UMETRICS identifies people employed on scientific projects at universities and the purchases made to carry out those projects. It then tracks people to the businesses and universities that hire them, and purchases to the vendors from which they come. Since UMETRICS relies entirely on administrative data provided by <a href="http://iris.isr.umich.edu/membership/contactus/">member universities</a> (now around 50), the U.S. Census Bureau and other naturally occurring data, there are no reporting errors, sample coverage concerns or burden for people. It covers essentially all federal research funding as well as some funding from private foundations.</p>
<h2>Who does research funding support?</h2>
<p>Our administrative data allow us to identify everyone employed on research projects, not just those who appear as authors on research articles. This is valuable because we’re able to identify students and staff, who may be less likely to author papers than faculty and postdocs but who turn out to be an important part of the workforce on funded research projects. It’s like taking into account everyone who works in a particular store, not just the manager and owner.</p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/ZtuQS/2/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="640"></iframe>
<p>We <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1250055">compared the distribution of people</a> supported on research projects at some of the largest National Science Foundation (NSF) Divisions and National Institutes of Health (NIH) Institutes and Centers. Together, the NSF and NIH support <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report/chapter-5/expenditures-and-funding-for-academic-r-d">close to 70 percent of federally funded academic R&D</a>.</p>
<p>The striking thing is that the majority of people employed on research projects are somewhere in the training pipeline, whether undergraduates; graduate students, who are particularly prevalent at NSF; or postdocs, who are more prevalent at NIH. Staff frequently constitute 40 percent of the NIH-supported workforce, but faculty are a relatively small portion of the workforce at all NIH Institutes and NSF Divisions.</p>
<p>Based on these results, it seems likely that changes in federal research funding will have substantial effects on trainees, which would naturally have implications for the future STEM workforce.</p>
<h2>What happens to STEM doctoral recipients?</h2>
<p>Given the importance of trainees in the research workforce, we have <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac5949">focused much of our research on graduate students</a>. </p>
<iframe src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gTQOR/5/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="600"></iframe>
<p>We mapped the universities in our sample and the share of the graduate students in each state one year after graduation. Our data show that many grad students contribute to local economies – 12.7 percent are within 50 miles of the universities where they trained. For six of our eight universities, more people stayed in state than went to any other single state. At the same time, graduate students fan out nationally, with both coasts, Illinois and Texas all being common destinations.</p>
<p>The doctoral recipients in our sample are also more likely to take jobs at establishments that are engines of the <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books/the-age-of-discontinuity/drucker/978-0-434-90395-5?start_rank=1&sortby=sortByRelevance&imprintname=Butterworth-Heinemann&q=the%20age%20of%20discontinuity">knowledge economy</a>. They are heavily overrepresented in industries such as electronics, semiconductors, computers and pharmaceuticals, and underrepresented in industries such as restaurants, grocery stores and hotels. Doctoral degree recipients are almost four times as likely as the average U.S. worker to be employed by an R&D-performing firm (44 percent versus 12.6 percent). And, the establishments where the doctoral degree recipients work have a median payroll of over US$90,000 per worker compared to $33,000 for all U.S. establishments and $61,000 for establishments owned by R&D performing firms. </p>
<p>We also studied initial earnings by field and find that earnings of doctoral degree recipients are highest in engineering; math and computer science; and physics. Among the STEM fields, the lowest earnings are in biology and health, but our data also suggest that many of the people in these fields take postdoc positions that have low earnings, which may improve long-run earnings prospects. Interestingly, we find that women have substantially lower earnings than men, but these differences are entirely accounted for by <a href="http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161124">field of study, marital status and presence of children</a>.</p>
<p>Taken as a whole, our research indicates that the workers trained on research projects play a critical role in the industries and at companies critical for our new, knowledge economy. </p>
<h2>What purchases do research projects drive?</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=763&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=959&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=959&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/162759/original/image-20170327-3283-1yekf1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=959&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers need to buy the equipment they use to do their science.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/beigephotos/6561743">Michael Pereckas</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Another way in which sponsored research projects affect the economy in the short run is through purchases of equipment, supplies and services. Economist Paula Stephan writes eloquently of <a href="http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674088160">these transactions</a>, which range from purchasing computers and software, to reagents, medical imaging equipment or telescopes, even to lab mice and rats.</p>
<p>Still unpublished work studying the <a href="http://doi.org/10.3386/w23018">vendors who sell to sponsored research projects at universities</a> shows that many of the firms selling to sponsored research projects are frequently high-tech and often local. Moreover, firms that are vendors to university research projects are more likely to open new establishments near their campus customers. Thus, there is some evidence that research projects directly stimulate local economies.</p>
<p>So while the goal of sponsored research projects is to develop new knowledge, they also support the training of highly skilled STEM workers and support activity at businesses. The UMETRICS initiative allows us to see just which people and businesses are touched by sponsored research projects, providing a window into the short-run effects of research funding as well as hinting at its long-run value.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/75119/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce Weinberg's work has been supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIA and OBSSR), National Science Foundation (EHR/DGE and SciSIP) and the Kauffman and Sloan Foundations. He also receives funding from the Institute for Research on Innovation and Science which is home to the UMETRICS initiative. He is affiliated with the IZA Institute for Labor Economics and the National Bureau of Economic Research, which supported this work directly and through a subcontract to Ohio State University. </span></em></p>What are research dollars actually spent on? Rather than looking at artifacts like publications and patents, a new initiative directly tracks the people and businesses that receive research funding.Bruce Weinberg, Professor of Economics, The Ohio State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730402017-03-08T03:08:21Z2017-03-08T03:08:21ZScientific theories aren’t mere conjecture – to survive they must work<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159794/original/image-20170307-14951-ks286.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There wouldn't be statues acclaiming Darwin and his theory if it couldn't stand up to decades of testing.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/cgpgrey/4896956109">CGP Grey</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>“The <a href="https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm">evidence is incontrovertible</a>. Global warming is occurring.” “<a href="https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html">Climate change is real</a>, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.” “The <a href="https://www.aaas.org/news/aaas-reaffirms-statements-climate-change-and-integrity">scientific evidence is clear</a>: Global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and is a growing threat to society.” </p>
<p>As these scientific societies’ position statements reflect, there is a <a href="http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/">clear scientific consensus</a> on the reality of climate change. But although <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eight-year-high.aspx?g_source=CATEGORY_CLIMATE_CHANGE&g_medium=topic&g_campaign=tiles">public acceptance of climate theory is improving</a>, many of our elected leaders <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/most-americans-disagree-with-their-congressional-representative-on-climate-change-95dc0eee7b8f#.c83f2lvw6">still express skepticism</a> about the science. The theory of evolution also shows a mismatch: Whereas there is virtually <a href="https://nihrecord.nih.gov/newsletters/2006/07_28_2006/story03.htm">universal agreement among scientists</a> about the validity of the theory, <a href="http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/views-about-human-evolution/">only 33 percent of the public</a> accepts it in full. For both climate change and evolution, skeptics sometimes sow doubt by saying that it is just a “theory.”</p>
<p>How does a scientific theory gain widespread acceptance in the scientific community? Why should the public and elected officials be expected to accept something that is “<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/science/in-science-its-never-just-a-theory.html">only a theory</a>”? And how can we know if the science behind a particular theory is “<a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/full-text-of-obamas-2014-state-of-the-union-address/2014/01/28/e0c93358-887f-11e3-a5bd-844629433ba3_story.html">settled</a>,” anyway? </p>
<h2>Does the theory deliver?</h2>
<p>In science, there are successful theories and unsuccessful theories. The word “theory” has nothing to do with the validity of a scientific principle or lack thereof. In contrast to general parlance where a theory “<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/browse/theory?r=75&src=ref&ch=dic">is a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural</a>,” a scientific theory is only conjectural until it is tested experimentally. </p>
<p>The issue is not whether a scientific theory is settled, but rather whether it works. Any successful scientific theory must be predictive and falsifiable; that is, it must successfully predict outcomes of controlled experiments or observations, and it must survive tests that could disprove the theory.</p>
<p>A scientist advocating a particular theory must propose an experiment and use her theory to predict the results of that experiment. If the experimental results are inconsistent with her predictions, then she must admit that her theory is wrong. To gain acceptance for a theory, a scientist must be willing to subject it to a falsifiable test.</p>
<p>If an experiment produces results that are consistent with a scientist’s predictions, then that’s good news for her theory. Just one successful test, though, is not usually enough. And the more controversial a theory is, the more experimental verification is required. As Carl Sagan said, “<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPjA_9htc-8">Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence</a>.”</p>
<p>Wide acceptance comes from repeated, different experiments by different research groups. There is no threshold or tipping point at which a theory becomes “settled.” And there is never 100 percent certainty. However, near-unanimous acceptance by the scientific community simply doesn’t occur unless the evidence is overwhelming.</p>
<h2>Scientific theories are repeatedly put to the test</h2>
<p>As an example, in 1905, Albert Einstein published <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/154">two</a> <a href="http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol2-trans/186">papers</a> on what we now call the Special Theory of Relativity. In these papers, he made a series of arguments that dramatically altered our notions of how the universe works. He argued that different observers measure the passage of time differently; they also measure different lengths for moving objects. He also showed that matter and energy are different forms of the same thing and theoretically can be converted into each other.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HOeGVrm8ZFE?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">A computer simulation shows the collision of two black holes. It was created by solving equations from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity using data collected more than 100 years later.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Einstein didn’t just make these statements. His theory made detailed, quantitative and falsifiable predictions that could be tested experimentally. Einstein was prepared to drop the entire theory if even one experiment convincingly contradicted his predictions. It took a long time for many of these predictions to be tested. In fact, the <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/the-black-hole-collision-that-reshaped-physics-1.19612">first direct measurements of gravity waves</a> – <a href="https://theconversation.com/what-happens-when-ligo-texts-you-to-say-its-detected-one-of-einsteins-predicted-gravitational-waves-53259">one of Einstein’s predictions</a> – came just last year. </p>
<p>Every single confirmed experimental test of relativity has agreed (<a href="http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/02/faster-than-light-neutrino-measurement-has-two-possible-errors.html">eventually</a>) with Einstein’s predictions. And relativistic theory has also been used as the basis for several technological advances, including <a href="http://physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm">GPS satellites</a>, <a href="https://nuclear-energy.net/what-is-nuclear-energy/history">nuclear power</a> and (unfortunately) <a href="http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/atombombe">nuclear bombs</a>. There is absolutely no doubt among anyone in the physics community about the validity of the Theory of Relativity. </p>
<p>For an example of an unsuccessful theory, consider the announcement in March 1989 of a <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0728(89)80006-3">mechanism for nuclear fusion in a table-top configuration</a>. This discovery of “cold fusion” was met with tremendous excitement since cost-effective nuclear fusion could hold the key to society’s future power needs. But <a href="http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/cold_fusion.pdf">follow-up experiments</a> by other scientific groups had results that disagreed with the cold fusion theory. Despite the initial excitement, there was near-unanimous consensus in the scientific community by the end of 1989 that the <a href="http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html">cold fusion theory was incorrect</a>. When the evidence isn’t there, the theory won’t hold up.</p>
<p>Like relativity, the <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/">Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection</a> has been tested extensively. The <a href="http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence">body of experimental data</a> that supports evolution is overwhelming. Of course, the fossil record supporting evolution is impressive and complete. But evolution has also been <a href="http://www.nature.com/subjects/bacterial-evolution">tested in real time with populations of organisms</a> that can mutate and <a href="http://www.mothscount.org/text/63/peppered_moth_and_natural_selection.html">evolve over measurable time scales</a>.</p>
<p>Evolution has been subjected to many falsifiable tests and has emerged unscathed in every one. Yes, evolution is a “theory” – it is a theory that works and works very well, an overwhelmingly successful and correct theory.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=305&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/158183/original/image-20170223-32726-1plrc0r.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=383&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. Although they fluctuate from year to year, average global temperatures have been rising for decades.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/">NASA/GISS</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Scientific agreement, political controversy</h2>
<p>Theories of climate change are also supported by an extensive body of evidence. Of course there’s the <a href="https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/">continuing upward drift of global average temperatures</a> over the past few decades. But climate change models are also supported by numerous laboratory experiments that have provided compelling verification of the <a href="http://history.aip.org/climate/co2.htm">mechanisms</a> by which <a href="http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/grnhse.html">carbon dioxide gas traps heat</a> in our planet’s atmosphere.</p>
<p>And, crucially, theories of global warming have passed falsifiability tests. Quantitative <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/239023a0">predictions of global warming</a> were <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032%3C0003:TEODTC%3E2.0.CO;2">first made</a> in the 1970s. Had there not been a clear increase in average global temperatures since then, climate scientists would have been forced to admit that climate change theory was wrong. In fact, several scientists in the 1960s who had predicted global cooling later had to admit that <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.190.4216.741">their theory was incorrect</a>. Even a <a href="https://theconversation.com/improved-data-set-shows-no-global-warming-hiatus-42807">supposed pause in the increases</a> in the 2000s (which were exaggerated by a spike in the average global temperature in 1998) has been followed by a strong upward trend during the past three years. </p>
<p>Tellingly, skeptics of both evolution and climate change theory have been unwilling or unable to subject their arguments to the same rigorous testing undergone by the very theories they’re criticizing. To make a scientific argument, critics must propose an experiment or measurement that can distinguish their alternative theory from evolutionary and climate change theories, and they must make a specific prediction for its outcome. And, like the scientists they’re criticizing, they must be willing to admit they are wrong if the results disagree with their prediction. Absent any falsifiable tests, why should the public or our elected officials believe their counterarguments?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159799/original/image-20170307-14973-tnqs5e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists continue to test hypotheses to see if a theory can withstand anything they throw at it.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://mediaassets.caltech.edu/gwave">Matt Heintze/Caltech/MIT/LIGO Lab</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>These issues are important from more than just a purely scientific perspective. An understanding of evolution is critical for developing any valid strategy for combating the spread of diseases, especially since microbes responsible for diseases can mutate so rapidly. And an understanding and acceptance of climate change theory is critical if we are to take the necessary steps to avoid potential catastrophe from a continuation of the global warming trend. </p>
<p>Scientific theories aren’t mere conjecture. They are subject to exhaustive, falsifiable tests. Some theories fail these tests and are jettisoned. But many theories are successful in the face of these tests. It is these theories – the ones that work – that achieve consensus in the scientific community.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73040/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Tom Solomon receives funding from the National Science Foundation.. </span></em></p>In science, the word ‘theory’ has a very specific meaning that’s easy for nonscientists to misunderstand or misconstrue. Here’s what a theory must withstand to be accepted by the scientific community.Tom Solomon, Professor of Physics and Astronomy, Bucknell UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/687412016-12-29T20:58:42Z2016-12-29T20:58:42ZPhilanthropy’s tech billionaire reboot could be good for policymaking<p>A new kind of philanthropist is emerging in the 21st century. They show little interest in the old philanthropic model - attending galas and endowing their <em>alma mater</em>. </p>
<p>Today, relatively young technology billionaires are creating a <a href="https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/articles/innovation-strategy-how-tech-entrepreneurs-are-disrupting-philanthropy/">new paradigm</a> of philanthropy, one that arguably sets a new standard of ethical practice in the non-profit sector. </p>
<p>Their purpose is to use their influence to push the boundaries of science and technology for the creation of social benefit. In a growing trend, in 2014, more than <a href="https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Young-Tech-Donors-Take-Leading/151779">US$5 billion</a> was donated by wealthy technologists for this purpose. </p>
<p>A cynic might say it is about lining their own pockets, yet there is ample evidence to suggest they are motivated by a kind of win-win altruism. These are men and women who think global and want to leave a legacy. </p>
<p>Who are we talking about? It is a <a href="http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/tech-philanthropy-guide/">long list</a> indeed, with names like Gordon Moore (Intel), Bill Gates (Microsoft), Mark Zuckerberg & Priscilla Chan, Sean Parker (Facebook), Paul Allen (Microsoft) and Michael Dell, to mention a few.</p>
<h2>Shortfalls in government funding</h2>
<p>One factor in the rise of the new philanthropy is that government spending on science in the US has been <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html">dropping</a> in recent times. Research institutes are closing, projects being put on hold or abandoned for want of funding. Increasingly, science philanthropy is stepping up to address the shortfall. </p>
<p>It is not surprising that wealthy technologists would want to invest in pushing the boundaries of science. Technology is, after all, applied science. Without the research, technological progress slows to a crawl. </p>
<p>As a result, we are seeing the priorities of science being influenced less by government policy and academia, and more by the priorities of the philanthropic giver. After all, who pays the piper calls the tune. It is a trend giving rise to some <a href="http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v11/n10/full/nn1008-1117.html">disquiet</a> in the science establishment. With pressure on government budgets from other priorities, the trend towards the outsourcing of science funding is likely to continue. </p>
<h2>The Gates Foundation</h2>
<p>Even the wealthiest of governments would be hard pressed to match the funding of some of the larger new “venture philanthropists”. </p>
<p>With assets of around US$44 billion, the <a href="http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do">Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation</a> is a prime example of the new philanthropy. To date it has spent roughly <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/16/science/billionaires-with-big-ideas-are-privatizing-american-science.html">US$10 billion</a> on a range of programs in developing countries to improve health care, provide education and reduce poverty. It has funded efforts to control infectious diseases, malaria, tuberculosis and sexually transmitted diseases. It also funds family planning, basic health care, nutrition and sanitation. </p>
<p>It would be difficult to criticise such efforts, though it will not stop some from claiming they are only giving back what they had no right to take in the first place. Being a philanthropist today can be a thankless business.</p>
<h2>Is there a dark side?</h2>
<p>Silicon Valley billionaire and philanthropist <a href="http://www.forbes.com/profile/peter-thiel/">Peter Thiel</a> incurred the wrath of his peers by strongly supporting Donald Trump, donating money and making speeches for his election. Thiel has since been <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/nov/11/peter-thiel-joins-donald-trump-transition-team">named a member</a> of the President-elect’s transition team, indicating that he is not just a supporter but a trusted friend. </p>
<p>What does Thiel expect in return? Time will tell, but it is likely he will be most valuable serving as a mediator between a Trump White House and the largely left-wing Silicon Valley establishment to implement a new policy agenda. Not an easy job. </p>
<h2>The new philanthropy is diversifying</h2>
<p>It is a measure of the hyper-partisan nature of politics today that would call participation in the political process a bad thing. It’s actually a good thing. We need more intelligent, capable people with technology skills to enter a field that has been brought into disrepute in recent times. Have you noticed how few politicians really understand technology?</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=1866&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=1866&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=1866&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=2346&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=2346&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/151310/original/image-20161221-4076-1wseeh6.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=2346&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.insidephilanthropy.com/">Inside Philanthropy/The Conversation</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/68741/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Tuffley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The priorities of science are being influenced less by government policy and academia, and more by the priorities of the philanthropic giver.David Tuffley, Senior Lecturer in Applied Ethics and Socio-Technical Studies., Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/636912016-10-13T01:27:47Z2016-10-13T01:27:47ZIs it time for a new model to fund science research in higher education?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141293/original/image-20161011-15652-2jyru0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Academic researchers need funding – especially as the federal government devotes less to basic research.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic.mhtml?id=1773236">Check image via www.shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The United States is at a crossroads with respect to many societal issues – think about the challenges of improving human health, eradicating hunger, protecting human rights. At the same time, federal support for higher education research and development – a primary venue to generate innovative new solutions for these kinds of vexing problems – is decreasing. America’s institutions of higher education are still considered by many <a href="http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Statistics-2016.html">the best in the world</a>, but they exist on a precipice.</p>
<p>Continued eroding support for American academic research will not only allow other countries to outpace the U.S. in innovation. A significant source of research capacity, both in talent and in facilities, that could be used to help address global challenges will also go untapped. International collaboration is increasingly common; because U.S. universities make up a <a href="http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU-Statistics-2016.html">large percentage of the world’s leading research enterprises</a>, if their capacity diminishes, other countries’ institutions will be affected too. </p>
<p>The hard fact is that there’s just not enough R&D money available to support the higher ed research capabilities our country has built. As <a href="http://www.research.umn.edu/about/vp.html">vice president</a> and <a href="http://research.umn.edu/umii/people/neuhauser.html">associate vice president for research</a> at the University of Minnesota, a top 10 U.S. public research university, we see the consequences of this shortfall every day. The long-term investment in academic research made by federal, state and local governments in the United States in the second half of the 20th century is <a href="http://www.uncpress.unc.edu/browse/book_detail?title_id=3467">at the heart of its current success</a>. We in American academia will continue to remind reluctant policymakers that long-term public investment in higher education R&D is needed to <a href="http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb071774">keep the U.S. at the forefront of innovation</a>. The alternative is identifying other sources of funds – perhaps disrupting business as usual in the academic research enterprise by rethinking the role of industry.</p>
<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-U2EGT" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/U2EGT/1/" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen" webkitallowfullscreen="webkitallowfullscreen" mozallowfullscreen="mozallowfullscreen" oallowfullscreen="oallowfullscreen" msallowfullscreen="msallowfullscreen" width="100%" height="400"></iframe>
<h2>The very cold hard numbers</h2>
<p><a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/figures">Federal support for research and development in the U.S. has declined</a> over the past 50 years, and languished at pre-Sputnik era levels for most of the recent past: 0.71 percent of GDP in 1953; a max of 1.86 percent of GDP in 1964; and back to 0.77 percent of GDP in 2012 (that’s US$124.6 billion). Thanks to business and industry stepping in to fill the funding gap, overall R&D expenditures are pretty close to what they had been (2.79 percent of GDP in 1964; 2.69 percent of GDP, or $435.3 billion, in 2012). </p>
<p>As long as the total expenditure is fairly constant for the nation as a whole, what’s the difference if it’s the federal government or industry holding more of the purse strings? The problem is that basic research takes a disproportionate hit. About <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/data-00193-en">half of all basic research is done within academia</a>, which relies heavily on the federal government. Business and industry tend to focus on applied research and development. Because of the need to find solutions to today’s grand challenges, funding agencies, too, emphasize translational research that advances fundamental biomedical findings into new disease treatments and cures that can be delivered to patients faster. </p>
<p>However, we know that basic research provides the necessary foundation for many of the products and services that contribute to the nation’s wealth. For instance, data suggest <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJM197605272942205">two-thirds of the key contributions</a> to the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disease derive from basic research. But in a tough funding climate, there are increasing external pressures to focus on research that provides quick rewards at the expense of the search for essential, basic knowledge that has a much longer lead time before any economic impact.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=545&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141519/original/image-20161012-16200-qgodm0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=684&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Academic research was a different enterprise in the 1950s.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/statelibrarync/6127014050">Government & Heritage Library, State Library of North Carolina</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Higher ed is eating its seed corn</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/institute_basic_biomedical_sciences/news_events/articles_and_stories/funding_science/200704_diversified_portfolios.html">Diversification of funding sources</a> is widely touted as a solution to declining or flat federal investment in higher education research. Potential sources to tap include business and industry, philanthropy, foundations and other nonprofits, and an institution’s own funds.</p>
<p>In 2014, <a href="https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/HERD2014_DST_01.html">industry supported 5.7 percent of higher education R&D</a> in the U.S. But, absent a change in approach or philosophy, current and longer-term trends don’t suggest business or other private sources will assume the mantle as a major funder of basic research. </p>
<p>Universities are increasingly using their own internal funds to finance research expenses that were once supported by external sources. Schools funded about 12 percent of research on campus in the 1950s. By 2014, almost a quarter of research dollars came not from outside funders but <a href="https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/herd/2014/html/HERD2014_DST_01.html">from university coffers</a>. This so-called institutional funding has served as a backfill, making up the difference for higher education when federal funding is flat. </p>
<p>But this trend is not sustainable. The indirect costs reimbursed by granting agencies have been crucial to building and maintaining the infrastructure needed to undertake academic research. Institutional funding does not provide for these overhead costs, and the shortfall is compounded for public universities; when they do recover indirect costs, they’re generally reimbursed at lower rates than their private peers. For example, here at the University of Minnesota, increasing investment of institutional funds from $237.3 million to $287.3 million (2013-2015) resulted in a loss of 1.5 percent in indirect cost recovery. That’s about $500,000 we don’t have to spend on research, tuition assistance or the campus’ physical plant.</p>
<h2>Less money, more competition</h2>
<p>Out of the over 4,500 colleges and universities in the U.S., the top 115 research universities garner 85 percent of <a href="https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/profiles/site?method=rankingBySource&ds=herd">all federal research funding for higher education</a>. The next group of 107 schools share another 11 percent. These top institutions are locked in a fierce battle for resources.</p>
<p>When an agency increases funding substantially, such as when the National Institutes of Health <a href="https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43341.pdf">budget doubled between 1998 and 2003</a>, the top institutions scramble to capture a proportional share of the increase in order not to lose relative standing among their peers. Many institutions <a href="http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb071774">expanded their infrastructure during this time</a> with the expectation that federal support for higher ed research would continue to increase. But now the top research institutions are fighting over a diminishing pool of resources. The result is increased competition.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=217&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141520/original/image-20161012-16238-knsoul.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=273&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Money must keep flowing after the fancy building is up.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/denverjeffrey/5303528963">Jeffrey Beall</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Most of these competing universities are locked into long-term debt to pay off the infrastructure they built in the expectation of increased research funding – things like new buildings, expensive equipment and enhanced faculty recruitment. To fill the space with rainmakers, universities use the promise of high salaries and plentiful resources to try to poach one another’s already successful scientists. While this approach may help some universities, it works against the development of a robust talent pipeline as short-term goals trump longer-term ones.</p>
<h2>Collateral damage</h2>
<p>The tough funding environment influences many aspects of the research life and academia itself.</p>
<p>Younger researchers now find that pursuing a career in higher education is increasingly risky for the return on many years of hard work. They <a href="http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1404402111">look toward other careers</a> that are more personally and financially rewarding.</p>
<p>The battle for funding increases the pressure on scientists to produce, leading to still lower success rates on grant submissions, and publication inflation. In the worst cases, it leads to <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/reproducibility-1.17552">less reproducible science</a> and perhaps even the cutting of ethical corners to survive. Today, a National Academies-sponsored survey finds that faculty members spend over <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_087667.pdf">40 percent of their time on administrative aspects</a> related to obtaining research funding – essentially halving the effective productivity of our research engines.</p>
<p>As institutions rely more on their own funding, tensions between the desire for research excellence and the needs of the local and regional community intensify. Universities have increasingly tried to align themselves with funder priorities for translational and collaborative research by choosing a few areas of excellence; they then let other areas of study recede.</p>
<p>While appealing on its surface, this approach runs counter to universities’ unique mission. Traditionally they’ve provided broad access to higher education for the economic benefit of their communities (local, state, national, international) through training and educating the workforce. And a broad research mission has spurred overall innovation. A laser-like focus on a handful of research programs ignores much of the broader societal expectations for higher education – particularly for our public universities. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/141524/original/image-20161012-16233-13jk00v.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Envisioning a path forward for on-campus research takes some ingenuity.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Photo by Andria Waclawski. Courtesy of the Office of the Vice President for Research at University of Minnesota.</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What’s to be done?</h2>
<p>Are there potential short and long-term solutions worth considering?</p>
<p>It’s possible <a href="http://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb071774">more coordination and collaboration</a> between institutions could help. By sharing resources, materials, data and infrastructure, schools could utilize economies of scale. Cutting down on the duplicative nature of some of these enterprises could result in significant cost savings that could be reinvested in the research enterprise. For instance, <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/about/transformative_research/">NSF</a> and <a href="http://grants.nih.gov/aboutoer/oer_offices/oep.htm">NIH</a> have programs that support research equipment and capabilities to be shared between multiple investigators and research institutions. </p>
<p>Harvard economist Michael Porter posits a bolder solution. He argues that historically there’s been a trade-off between social and economic performance – business can actually make a profit by causing a social problem. Increasingly, business leaders and entrepreneurs recognize that private sector solutions can help scale up enterprises to solve societal problems in ways that the public sector cannot, and they see that these ventures can also turn a profit. Porter cites the example of pollution: Businesses initially resisted reductions, but later on, some learned how to generate profits from cutting pollution. Business is increasingly realizing the need for a “<a href="https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_porter_why_business_can_be_good_at_solving_social_problems?language=en">shared value: addressing social issues with a business model</a>,” Porter argues.</p>
<p>How would this help higher education R&D? The concept of shared value means that we could create social and economic value at the same time. Aligning industry and academic interests would mean providing incentive for businesses to invest more resources in higher education R&D to tap into what research universities do best: arriving at innovative solutions that are then transferred to industry for scaling up and turning into economic value.</p>
<p>Partnering up certainly doesn’t look like a losing business proposition. One estimate puts the <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.06.004">return on investment for publicly funded basic research at 43 percent</a>. The NIH <a href="https://www.nigms.nih.gov/education/Documents/curiosity.pdf">places the value at $10 to $80</a> for every dollar spent on basic research. </p>
<p>Yes, this needs to be done carefully to avoid inappropriate conflicts of mission. But the promise of business placing a value on solving societal grand challenges in partnership with higher education would represent a strong alliance, leading to a reinvigoration of the creation of new knowledge that simultaneously serves the needs of society and business.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/63691/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>With federal support for on-campus R&D dwindling as a percentage of GDP, keeping basic research afloat is a challenge. Schools and researchers are left to try to fill in the funding gaps.Brian Herman, Vice President for Research, University of MinnesotaClaudia Neuhauser, Associate Vice President for Research, University of MinnesotaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/660552016-10-09T17:11:10Z2016-10-09T17:11:10ZInnovation and research suffer when visa rules keep scientists at home<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139717/original/image-20160929-27047-3hwvyj.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Some changes to visa rules could make travel easier for scientists.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It is becoming increasingly difficult for people – particularly those from the developing world and the global south – to move around the globe. The UK voted “yes” to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/eu-referendum">Brexit</a>. Donald Trump wants to <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37243269">build a wall</a> on the US border with Mexico. <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/hungary-massive-new-border-fence-to-keep-out-refugees-prime-minister-orban-turkey-eu-hold-them-back-a7212696.html">Hungary</a> is also mulling a wall to keep “outsiders” from crossing its borders.</p>
<p>The attitude of citizens in higher income countries towards immigrants is <a href="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/12/in-views-of-diversity-many-europeans-are-less-positive-than-americans/">hardening</a>. Visas are harder to come by, no matter the purpose of your travel. And, as research we conducted in late 2015 <a href="https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/S36ZJW6">reveals</a>, scientists from the developing world are among those caught in the cross hairs.</p>
<h2>Barriers to travel</h2>
<p>As part of the research we conducted an online survey to examine the impact of visa requirements on scientific collaboration. Some of the respondents were postgraduate students; others were active researchers and academics in fields like biology, earth sciences, applied mathematics and engineering. In total, 232 people representing 46 citizenships – from Canada, Chile, France, Malaysia, New Zealand and Kenya, to name a few – took part in the research.</p>
<p>We found that researchers from countries <a href="http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/01/pdf/text.pdf">defined</a> as developing by the International Monetary Fund perceive current visa rules as a major impediment to professional travel. Their peers from developed countries did not experience visa rules as a significant barrier.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=364&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139403/original/image-20160927-14618-rl5jml.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=457&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Immigration legislation restricts movement by scientists from developing countries much more than those from advanced economies.</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Notably, 34% of the developing countries’ scientists reported losing out on professional opportunities because of visa delays and denials. This was in spite of investing on average more than 10 hours on each visa application to ensure they had provided all the required information.</p>
<p>Disturbingly, a number of student respondents who originally came from developing countries said they were reluctant to attend international conferences. The stated reasons was because they were not guaranteed readmission to the developed countries in which they were studying. These students said they were at the mercy of immigration officers with each border entry.</p>
<p>The results showed that it is becoming more commonplace for scientists from developing countries to forfeit short exchange visits and international conferences. This was echoed in an email we received from Professor Coleen Moloney of the University of Cape Town’s Department of Biological Sciences.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I now limit international travel because the whole visa application process is too time-consuming, expensive and stressful. And my travel is usually at the request of and funded by organisations in the country I am travelling to…</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Moloney and her international colleagues are losing out on valuable chances to strengthen their networks and further develop collaborative research.</p>
<h2>Sharing ideas, solving problems</h2>
<p>It is not only scientists from the developing world who benefit from being able to travel easily.</p>
<p>Humanity’s ability to innovate and solve challenging problems is strengthened in a global society. When scientists from around the world are able to work together, problems can be solved. This is evident in major international science projects like <a href="https://home.cern/">CERN</a>, the Square Kilometre Array (<a href="https://www.skatelescope.org/">SKA</a>) and the <a href="https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main/">International Space Station</a>. These all rely on global collaboration for success.</p>
<p>Travel and collaboration allow developing countries to strengthen their scientific capacity. Developed countries, in turn, receive an injection of ideas. Discriminatory immigration policies that impede the movements of those trying to invest in their home countries weaken innovation and progress.</p>
<p>How can this problem be proactively tackled?</p>
<h2>Possible solutions</h2>
<p>Few would argue against tight border control policies to keep citizens safe. But there are many ways in which streamlined immigration policy could better facilitate travel by bona fide scientists. In a recent <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6305/1216.1">letter</a> published in the journal Science, we outlined just two options. </p>
<p>First, developed countries could follow the example of the US visitor visa, which is valid for 10 years. The current UK and Schengen visas, meanwhile, seldom extend beyond six months. This would be a way for politicians to acknowledge that academic collaborations frequently extend beyond regular visa restrictions.</p>
<p>Second, developed nations could also adopt existing programmes that allow third-country access for some countries’ visa holders. Such programmes would expand on systems used by countries such as <a href="http://www.embassyofpanama.org/inmigration-and-visas">Panama</a>, along with European territories in the Caribbean, that accept USA, UK, Canadian, Australian and Schengen visas for entry - without requiring a separate visa application process. </p>
<p>This would still take public safety into account: such a system would favour holders of visas from countries with stringent vetting processes.</p>
<h2>Fair treatment benefits everyone</h2>
<p>We are not proposing that scientists receive special treatment, or that stringent vetting standards be diluted. </p>
<p>Instead, our suggestions will afford scientists from developing countries who have already been vetted easier movement across international boundaries – similar to the freedoms that citizens from developed countries already experience. This will greatly benefit the social and economic progress of society at large.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66055/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Scientists from the developing world perceive current visa rules as a major impediment to professional travel. They miss out on opportunities to collaborate globally.John W Wilson, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in Conservation Biology, University of PretoriaDuan Biggs, Senior Research Fellow Social-Ecological Systems & Resilience, Griffith UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/642722016-10-04T10:10:46Z2016-10-04T10:10:46ZScience is key to U.S. standing, but presidential candidates largely ignore it<p>Aside from Hillary Clinton’s brief mentions of the need to focus on developing technology and clean energy jobs and addressing climate change, science issues were absent from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/transcript-debate.html">first presidential debate</a>.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is indicative of how things have gone throughout the 2016 campaign. Amid all the talk from our leading presidential candidates about how crucial this election is to our nation’s future, science education and research funding – issues directly tied to our economic standing in the world and to national security – have received <a href="http://sciencedebate.org/20questions/">scant attention from either of the two major candidates</a>. </p>
<p>Science and engineering have driven the U.S. economy since World War II and contributed <a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/federal_investment">significantly to American growth</a> during that time. <a href="http://www.sciencecoalition.org/downloads/1383053868sparkingeconomicgrowthfinal10-21-13.pdf">Progress in research paves the way</a> for advancements in health, economic prosperity and national security.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139492/original/image-20160927-30425-s6bn77.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">NOAA researcher sampling the atmosphere using an innovative, tethered weather balloon.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">Patrick Cullis/NOAA-CIRES</span>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Researchers make life-changing discoveries daily. A <a href="https://www.bu.edu/today/2014/eng-profs-bionic-pancreas-takes-a-big-step-forward/">Boston University engineer</a> is developing a wearable bionic pancreas that could help millions of people with type 1 diabetes (thanks to National Institutes of Health support). <a href="http://research.noaa.gov/News/NewsArchive/LatestNews/TabId/684/ArtMID/1768/ArticleID/11878/NOAA-%E2%80%9Creels-in%E2%80%9D-data-on-Utah%E2%80%99s-winter-ozone-problem.aspx">National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration researchers</a> are figuring out how quickly the sun converts oil and gas facility emissions to ozone pollution that harms human health. A <a href="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/350/6266/1357">collaborative group of scientists</a>, including those here at the University of Kansas-based Center for Remote Sensing of the Ice Sheets, discovered a vast ice sheet in Greenland was melting faster than believed, with implications for global sea level rise for decades to come. </p>
<p>These are successes – and there are thousands more to point to in fields ranging from biotech to medical research to clean energy. Without such advancement, we risk stagnation in all these areas, threatening our nation’s well-being and our international standing, while eroding our role as global leaders in innovation. But recent low levels of federal funding impede the pace of scientific discovery.</p>
<p><a href="https://chancellor.ku.edu">As chancellor of a public research university</a>, my hope is that by Election Day the candidates will give us substantive plans that would prioritize science and the contributions it can make toward helping the United States stay on top. </p>
<h2>A decades-long decline</h2>
<p>Years of neglect and unstable funding pushed a 2005 National Academies commission led by retired Lockheed Martin CEO Norman Augustine to recommend increased investments in research and innovation and enhancement of STEM education from elementary to graduate levels. Their seminal report, <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/11463/chapter/1">Rising Above the Gathering Storm</a>, was a wake-up call for policymakers that <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK259112/">spurred new ideas</a> and <a href="http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/qa-will-senate-competes-bill-narrow-partisan-gap-congress-over-us-research-policy">new legislation</a>. Five years later, despite some progress, a <a href="http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12999">National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine special report</a> echoed many of Augustine’s findings and showed the United States lost even more ground. That trend continues unabated today.</p>
<p>Numerous statistics illustrate this decline. In 2014, the United States had <a href="https://data.oecd.org/rd/gross-domestic-spending-on-r-d.htm">slipped to 10th in research and development investment rankings</a>. Although we still spend more than any other country on research, our relative investment has declined. If current trends persist, China will likely surpass the United States in percentage of GDP investment in R&D within eight years and will <a href="http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/china-headed-to-overtake-eu-us-in-science-technology-spending.htm">outpace U.S. research spending in a decade</a>. </p>
<p>In 2009, for the first time, non-U.S. companies <a href="http://www.ificlaims.com/index.php?page=news&type=view&id=ifi-claims%2Famerican-companies_2">received more than half of the U.S. patents awarded</a>. In <a href="http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TX.VAL.TECH.MF.ZS?name_desc=false">high-tech exports</a> – think aircraft, computers, pharmaceuticals – <a href="http://thomsonreuters.com/en/articles/2014/china-emerges-as-world-patent-leader.html">China bypassed the United States as the world leader in patents</a> and is gaining ground as the <a href="https://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/january-february-2014/Pages/spending-investment-biomedical-research-development.aspx">second-leading publisher of biomedical research journal articles</a>. While increased research and innovation in other countries partially account for some of this trend, many observers also point to real declines in U.S. productivity. For example, the <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/12999/chapter/2#10">United States approved 157 new drugs</a> from 1996 to 1999, but <a href="http://www.nature.com/nrd/journal/v6/n2/fig_tab/nrd2247_F1.html">only 74</a> from <a href="http://www.mmm-online.com/channel/fda-bla-approvals-rose-in-2009-while-nmes-stumbled/article/160496/">2006 to 2009</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=461&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/139485/original/image-20160927-30435-13588rq.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=579&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">In the 1960s, the Kennedy administration encouraged scientists to reach for the stars.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Seamans,_von_Braun_and_President_Kennedy_at_Cape_Canaveral_-_GPN-2000-001843.jpg">NASA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Prioritizing science means funding it</h2>
<p>Despite its crucial role in driving economic growth, research and development in the STEM fields accounts for only a <a href="http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/Budget%3B.jpg">small portion of the federal budget</a> – currently less than 4 percent. That’s down from nearly 12 percent in 1965, during the height of the Space Race. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.aau.edu/uploadedFiles/AAU_Publications/AAU_Reports/Top%20Four%20Three-pager.pdf">Association of American Universities</a> and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have called for <a href="https://www.amacad.org/pdfs/InnovationAmericanImperativeCalltoAction.pdf">sustained 4 percent annual increases</a> in research funding for key federal agencies, including the NSF, DOE, NIH, NASA and the DOD. The ultimate goal should be a return to investing around 12 percent of the federal budget in research. </p>
<p>This type of aggressive and sustained growth in research funding provides a second benefit: It sends a signal that the U.S. is serious about holding on to its status as a leader in scientific and engineering innovation. More funding lays the groundwork for long-term stability in the field, especially as the next generation of scientists and engineers make their career-path choices. </p>
<p>Increasing investment and strengthening our pipeline of future scientists and engineers won’t matter, however, if we don’t translate their work into products and services that improve lives. Our next president should prioritize interdisciplinary research and connecting university research with the marketplace in a way that creates new products, technologies and services.</p>
<h2>Future scientists must be trained</h2>
<p>Uncertain funding opportunities discourage potential scientists and academic researchers – people think twice about signing on to careers that demand decades of training with no guarantee the necessary resources for conducting research will be waiting at the finish line. Adequate and sustained investment in research would address this problem. But another factor has played a major role in the research innovation gap we face: the inadequacy of our basic science and math education.</p>
<p>U.S. students have slipped to <a href="http://www.amacad.org/content/innovationimperative/progress.aspx">27th in math and 20th in science</a> in the ranking of 34 nations in the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development</a>. To catch up will take time and investment.</p>
<p>Industry already feels the repercussions of this underinvestment in science and engineering. American manufacturers have voiced concern about a <a href="http://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/manufacturing/articles/boiling-point-the-skills-gap-in-us-manufacturing.html">skills gap in the coming decade</a>. They expect to have 3.5 million jobs to fill, but estimates suggest only about 1.5 million workers are prepared to step in for example with electrical and mechanical technical skills to maintain complex machines for production.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ostp/pcast">President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology</a> has <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-executive-report-final_2-13-12.pdf">called for improved STEM education</a> programs. <a href="https://www.nms.org/Portals/0/Docs/STEM%20Crisis%20Page%20Stats%20and%20References.pdf">Math intervention programs</a> and expanded recruitment and training programs <a href="https://www.aip.org/fyi/2016/fy17-appropriations-bills-stem-education">for STEM teachers</a> can help. We still have a way to go, but steps like these and strengthening standards even on the K-12 level take us in the right direction. Federal leadership – and funding – can keep improving STEM education on the national agenda.</p>
<h2>Eliminate inefficient regulation</h2>
<p>Federal support for research is key. But there are also some obstacles posed by current federal regulations. The next president’s leadership could help clear away some of these well-intentioned but burdensome regulations that can hinder or undercut R&D efforts. </p>
<p>The next president should work with Congress to <a href="https://www.acenet.edu/news-room/Pages/Task-Force-on-Government-Regulation-of-Higher-Education-Main.aspx">streamline</a> and <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/stl/researchregs/index.htm%3Futm_source%3DCSTL%2BMailing%2BList%26utm_campaign%3Daf1df78538-University_Research_Regulations_Announcement%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_term%3D0_36510203a8-af1df78538-127923941">eliminate</a> redundant regulations and reporting requirements that even the <a href="http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-573?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery">federal government has already identified as problematic</a>. <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_087823.pdf">Studies</a> have found <a href="http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/pgasite/documents/webpage/pga_054586.pdf">around 40 percent</a> of time faculty spend on research goes to administrative duties instead of the actual research. </p>
<p>We need to ensure that the most talented foreign-born, U.S.-educated individuals, especially in STEM fields, have the opportunity to become American citizens and contribute to our economy. In addition, with all the talk in this campaign about immigration policy, the candidates should expand their platforms to phase out the <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit">7 percent cap per country</a> that limits employment-based green cards. I’d argue to replace it with a first-come, first-served system for <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/rahuldi/2016/03/19/24month-stem-opt-extension-universities-colleges-students/#36e5bf7036e2">qualified highly skilled immigrants</a>. </p>
<p>Other forms of regulation can also be costly. Politically motivated intrusions into research funding, such as the <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/286847-gop-blocks-dem-attempts-to-allow-federal-gun-research">ban on federal support for gun violence research</a>, mean we miss the opportunity to address major issues facing our society.</p>
<h2>Gearing up for a new golden age of research</h2>
<p>Trump and Clinton said little about science and engineering research in their first debate. But science and engineering issues are vital to our prosperity, our well-being, our status as a global leader and our national security. My hope is that in the final weeks of the campaign, voters and media can somehow force the candidates to address these crucial issues – and in essence, determine whether we can avoid the “gathering storm.”</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/64272/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>As Chancellor, Bernadette Gray-Little oversees a university that receives roughly $238.8 million in external research funding annually. This includes expenditures at all KU campuses for research and development, capital, training and service. Federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation account for more than 85 percent of KU’s total research funding. The rest comes from industry, private foundations and state sources. Gray-Little is also the 2016 chair of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities Board of Directors.</span></em></p>Neither major party has made science and engineering issues a big part of its platform. But research – and its funding – are crucial if the U.S. wants to maintain status as a global leader.Bernadette Gray-Little, Chancellor, University of KansasLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/656192016-09-21T00:01:46Z2016-09-21T00:01:46ZWhy isn’t science better? Look at career incentives<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138450/original/image-20160920-11131-1alomb3.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=49%2C65%2C5289%2C3660&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Experiment design affects the quality of the results.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8147632150">IAEA Seibersdorf Historical Images</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>There are often substantial gaps between the idealized and actual versions of those people whose work involves providing a social good. Government officials are supposed to work for their constituents. Journalists are supposed to provide unbiased reporting and penetrating analysis. And scientists are supposed to relentlessly probe the fabric of reality with the most rigorous and skeptical of methods. </p>
<p>All too often, however, what should be just isn’t so. In a number of scientific fields, <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/28/no-sciences-reproducibility-problem-is-not-limited-to-psychology/">published findings turn out not to replicate</a>, or to have smaller effects than, what was initially purported. Plenty of science does replicate – meaning the experiments turn out the same way when you repeat them – but the amount that doesn’t is too much for comfort.</p>
<p>Much of science is about identifying relationships between variables. For example, how might certain genes increase the risk of acquiring certain diseases, or how might certain parenting styles influence children’s emotional development? To our disappointment, there are no tests that allow us to perfectly sort true associations from spurious ones. Sometimes we get it wrong, even with the most rigorous methods.</p>
<p>But there are also ways in which scientists increase their chances of getting it wrong. Running studies with small samples, mining data for correlations and forming hypotheses to fit an experiment’s results after the fact are <a href="http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/science-isnt-broken/">just some of the ways</a> to <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/526182a">increase the number of false discoveries</a>. </p>
<p>It’s not like we don’t know how to do better. Scientists who study scientific methods have known about <a href="http://doi.org/10.1086/288135">feasible remedies for decades</a>. Unfortunately, their advice often falls on deaf ears. Why? Why aren’t scientific methods better than they are? In a word: incentives. But perhaps not in the way you think. </p>
<h2>Incentives for ‘good’ behavior</h2>
<p>In the 1970s, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_law">psychologists</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law">economists</a> began to point out the danger in relying on quantitative measures for social decision-making. For example, when public schools are evaluated by students’ performance on standardized tests, teachers respond by teaching “to the test” – at the expense of broader material more important for critical thinking. In turn, the test serves largely as a measure of how well the school can prepare students for the test.</p>
<p>We can see this principle – often summarized as “when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure” – playing out in the realm of research. Science is a competitive enterprise. There are <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/520144a">far more credentialed scholars and researchers</a> than there are university professorships or comparably prestigious research positions. Once someone acquires a research position, there is additional competition for tenure, grant funding, and support and placement for graduate students. Due to this competition for resources, scientists must be evaluated and compared. How do you tell if someone is a good scientist?</p>
<p>An oft-used metric is the number of publications one has in peer-reviewed journals, as well as the status of those journals (along with related metrics, such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index"><em>h</em>-index</a>, which purports to measure the rate at which a researcher’s work is cited by others). Metrics like these make it straightforward to compare researchers whose work may otherwise be quite different. Unfortunately, this also makes these numbers susceptible to exploitation. </p>
<p>If scientists are motivated to publish often and in high-impact journals, we might expect them to actively try to game the system. And certainly, some do – as seen in recent high-profile cases of scientific fraud (including in <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal">physics</a>, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html">social psychology</a> and <a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bcp.12992/full">clinical pharmacology</a>). If malicious fraud is the prime concern, then perhaps the solution is simply heightened vigilance.</p>
<p>However, most scientists are, I believe, genuinely interested in learning about the world, and honest. The problem with incentives is they can shape cultural norms without any intention on the part of individuals. </p>
<h2>Cultural evolution of scientific practices</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=784&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=986&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=986&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138454/original/image-20160920-11090-684nc6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=986&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists work within a culture of research.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8199500456">IAEA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In a <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsos.160384">recent paper</a>, anthropologist <a href="http://xcelab.net/rm/">Richard McElreath</a> and I considered the incentives in science through the lens of <a href="http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0038.xml">cultural evolution</a>, an emerging field that draws on ideas and models from evolutionary biology, epidemiology, psychology and the social sciences to understand cultural organization and change.</p>
<p>In our analysis, we assumed that methods associated with greater success in academic careers will, all else equal, tend to spread. The spread of more successful methods requires no conscious evaluation of how scientists do or do not “game the system.” </p>
<p>Recall that publications, particularly in high-impact journals, are the currency used to evaluate decisions related to hiring, promotions and funding. Studies that show large and surprising associations tend to be favored for publication in top journals, while small, unsurprising or complicated results are more difficult to publish.</p>
<p>But <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124">most hypotheses are probably wrong</a>, and performing rigorous tests of novel hypotheses (as well as coming up with good hypotheses in the first place) takes time and effort. Methods that boost false positives (incorrectly identifying a relationship where none exists) and overestimate effect sizes will, on average, allow their users to publish more often. In other words, when novel results are incentivized, methods that produce them – by whatever means – at the fastest pace will become implicitly or explicitly encouraged.</p>
<p>Over time, those shoddy methods will become associated with success, and they will tend to spread. The argument can extend beyond norms of questionable research practices to norms of misunderstanding, if those misunderstandings lead to success. For example, despite over a century of common usage, the <em>p</em>-value, a standard measure of statistical significance, is still <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108">widely misunderstood</a>.</p>
<p>The cultural evolution of shoddy science in response to publication incentives requires no conscious strategizing, cheating or loafing on the part of individual researchers. There will always be researchers committed to rigorous methods and scientific integrity. But as long as institutional incentives reward positive, novel results at the expense of rigor, the rate of bad science, on average, will increase. </p>
<h2>Simulating scientists and their incentives</h2>
<p>There is ample evidence suggesting that publication incentives have been negatively shaping scientific research for decades. The frequency of the words <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h6467">“innovative,” “groundbreaking” and “novel”</a> in biomedical abstracts increased by 2,500 percent or more over the past 40 years. Moreover, researchers often <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1255484">don’t report when hypotheses fail to generate positive results</a>, lest reporting such failures hinders publication.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=736&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/138455/original/image-20160920-11127-ntmb9h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=925&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">There doesn’t need to be anything nefarious going on for scientists to stick with the suboptimal methods that help them get ahead.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/iaea_imagebank/8198415199">IAEA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>We reviewed <a href="http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/power.html">statistical power</a> in the social and behavioral science literature. Statistical power is a quantitative measurement of a research design’s ability to identify a true association when present. The simplest way to increase statistical power is to increase one’s sample size – which also lengthens the time needed to collect data. Beginning in the 1960s, there have been <a href="http://datacolada.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/3416-Sedlmeier-Gigerenzer-Psych-Bull-1989-Do-studies-of-statistical-power-have-an-effect-on-the-power-of-studies.pdf">repeated outcries that statistical power is far too low</a>. Nevertheless, we found that statistical power, on average, <a href="http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/lookup/doi/10.1098/rsos.160384">has not increased</a>.</p>
<p>The evidence is suggestive, but it is not conclusive. To more systematically demonstrate the logic of our argument, we built a computer model in which a population of research labs studied hypotheses, only some of which were true, and attempted to publish their results.</p>
<p>As part of our analysis, we assumed that each lab exerted a characteristic level of “effort.” Increasing effort lowered the rate of false positives, and also lengthened the time between results. As in reality, we assumed that novel positive results were easier to publish than negative results. All of our simulated labs were totally honest: they never cheated. However, labs that published more were more likely to have their methods “reproduced” in new labs – just as they would be in reality as students and postdocs leave successful labs where they trained and set up their own labs. We then allowed the population to evolve.</p>
<p>The result: Over time, effort decreased to its minimum value, and the rate of false discoveries skyrocketed. </p>
<p>And replication – while a crucial tool for generating robust scientific theories – isn’t going to be science’s savior. Our simulations indicate that more replication won’t stem the evolution of bad science.</p>
<h2>Taking on the system</h2>
<p>The bottom-line message from all this is that it’s not sufficient to impose high ethical standards (assuming that were possible), nor to make sure all scientists are informed about best practices (though spreading awareness is certainly one of our goals). A culture of bad science can evolve as a result of institutional incentives that prioritize simple quantitative metrics as measures of success. </p>
<p>There are indications that the situation is improving. Journals, organizations, and universities are increasingly emphasizing <a href="http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/replication">replication</a>, <a href="https://royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/">open data</a>, <a href="http://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2015/02/25/positively-negative-new-plos-one-collection-focusing-negative-null-inconclusive-results/">the publication of negative results</a> and more <a href="https://www.idrc.ca/sites/default/files/sp/Documents%20EN/Research-Quality-Plus-A-Holistic-Approach-to-Evaluating-Research.pdf">holistic evaluations</a>. Internet applications such as <a href="https://twitter.com/lakens/status/774953862012755968">Twitter</a> and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFv2vS8ESkk&list=PLDcUM9US4XdMdZOhJWJJD4mDBMnbTWw_z">YouTube</a> allow education about best practices to propagate widely, along with spreading norms of holism and integrity. </p>
<p>There are also signs that the old ways are far from dead. For example, one regularly hears researchers discussed in terms of how much or where they publish. The good news is that as long as there are smart, interesting people doing science, there will always be some good science. And from where I sit, there is still quite a bit of it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/65619/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Paul Smaldino does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Embracing more rigorous scientific methods would mean getting science right more often than we currently do. But the way we value and reward scientists makes this a challenge.Paul Smaldino, Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Information Sciences, University of California, MercedLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/615542016-08-04T01:29:23Z2016-08-04T01:29:23ZExpanding citizen science models to enhance open innovation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/133010/original/image-20160803-12227-d71ph8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=342%2C8%2C4816%2C3548&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Imagine where working together on open data can get us?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-314041658/stock-photo-teamwork-concept-high-angle-view-of-businessmen-hands-forming-circle-and-holding-puzzle-pieces-on.html">Puzzle pieces image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Over the years, <a href="https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-citizen-science-16487">citizen scientists</a> have provided vital data and contributed in invaluable ways to various scientific quests. But they’re typically relegated to helping traditional scientists complete tasks the pros don’t have the time or resources to deal with on their own. Citizens are asked to count wildlife, for instance, or classify photos that are of interest to the lead researchers. </p>
<p>This type of top-down engagement has consigned citizen science to the fringes, where it fills a manpower gap but not much more. As a result, its full value has not been realized. Marginalizing the citizen scientists and their potential contribution is a grave mistake – it limits how far we can go in science and the speed and scope of discovery.</p>
<p>Instead, by harnessing globalization’s increased interconnectivity, citizen science should become an integral part of open innovation. Science agendas can be set by citizens, data can be open, and open-source software and hardware can be shared to assist in the scientific process. And as the model proves itself, it can be expanded even further, into nonscience realms.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132997/original/image-20160803-12223-n5ue2e.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Since 1900 the Audubon Society has sponsored its annual Christmas Bird Count, which relies on amateur volunteers nationwide.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/usfwsmtnprairie/5436727240">USFWS Mountain-Prairie</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Some major citizen science successes</h2>
<p>Citizen-powered science has been around for <a href="http://www.audubon.org/conservation/history-christmas-bird-count">over 100 years</a>, utilizing the collective brainpower of regular, everyday people to collect, observe, input, identify and crossmatch data that contribute to and expand scientific discovery. And there have been some marked successes.</p>
<p><a href="http://ebird.org/content/ebird/about/">eBird</a> allows scores of citizen scientists to record bird abundance via field observation; those data have contributed to over <a href="http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320713003820">90 peer-reviewed research articles</a>. <a href="http://earthquake.usgs.gov/data/dyfi/">Did You Feel It?</a> crowdsources information from people around that world who have experienced an earthquake. <a href="https://theconversation.com/crowdsourcing-the-serengeti-how-citizen-scientists-classified-millions-of-photos-from-home-42930">Snapshot Serengeti</a> uses volunteers to identify, classify and catalog photos taken daily in this African ecosystem.</p>
<p><a href="https://fold.it/portal/">FoldIt</a> is an online game where players are tasked with using the tools provided to virtually fold protein structures. The goal is to help scientists figure out if these structures can be used in medical applications. A set of users determined the <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/nsmb.2119">crystal structure</a> of an enzyme involved in the monkey version of AIDS in just three weeks – a problem that had previously gone <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/19/aids-protein-decoded-gamers_n_970113.html">unsolved for 15 years</a>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.galaxyzoo.org/#/story">Galaxy Zoo</a> is perhaps the most well-known online citizen science project. It uploads images from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and allows users to assist with the morphological classification of galaxies. The citizen astronomers discovered an entirely new class of galaxy – <a href="http://doi.org/10.1126/science.333.6039.173">“green pea” galaxies</a> – that have gone on to be the subject of over 20 academic articles. </p>
<p>These are all notable successes, with citizens contributing to the projects set out by professional scientists. But there’s so much more potential in the model. What does the next generation of citizen science look like?</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132998/original/image-20160803-12230-1adv34h.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">People can contribute to crowdsourced projects from just about anywhere.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Summer_-_Nazareth_College_(8510602468).jpg">Nazareth College</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Open innovation could advance citizen science</h2>
<p>The time is right for citizen science to join forces with open innovation. This is a concept that describes partnering with other people and sharing ideas to come up with something new. The assumption is that more can be achieved when boundaries are lowered and resources – including ideas, data, designs and software and hardware – are opened and made freely available.</p>
<p>Open innovation is collaborative, distributed, cumulative and it develops over time. Citizen science can be a critical element here because its <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/magazine/professional-amateurs.html?_r=0">professional-amateurs</a> can become another significant source of data, standards and best practices that could further the work of scientific and lay communities. </p>
<p>Globalization has spurred on this trend through the ubiquity of internet and wireless connections, affordable devices to collect data (such as cameras, smartphones, smart sensors, wearable technologies), and the ability to easily connect with others. Increased access to people, information and ideas points the way to unlock new synergies, new relationships and new forms of collaboration that transcend boundaries. And individuals can focus their attention and spend their time on anything they want.</p>
<p>We are seeing this emerge in what has been termed the “solution economy” – where citizens find fixes to challenges that are traditionally managed by government. </p>
<p>Consider the issue of accessibility. Passage of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act aimed to improve accessibility issues in the U.S. But more than two decades later, individuals with disabilities are still dealing with substantial mobility issues in public spaces – due to street conditions, cracked or nonexistent sidewalks, missing curb cuts, obstructions or only portions of a building being accessible. These all can create physical and emotional challenges for the disabled. </p>
<p>To help deal with this issue, several individual solution seekers have merged citizen science, open innovation and open sourcing to create mobile and web applications that provide information about navigating city streets. For instance, <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2013/10/14/wheelchair-inaccessible-the-story-behind-an-app-that-maps-obstacles-for-the-disabled/">Jason DaSilva</a>, a filmmaker with multiple sclerosis, developed <a href="https://www.axsmap.com/">AXS Map</a> – a free online and mobile app powered by Google Places API. It crowdsources information from people across the country about wheelchair accessibility in cities nationwide. </p>
<h2>Broadening the model</h2>
<p>There’s no reason the diffuse resources and open process of the citizen scientist model need be applied only to science questions.</p>
<p>For instance, <a href="https://www.sciencegossip.org/">Science Gossip</a> is a <a href="https://www.zooniverse.org/">Zooniverse</a> citizen science project. It’s rooted in Victorian-era natural history – the period considered to be the <a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Victorian_era">dawn of modern science</a> – but it crosses disciplinary boundaries. At the time, scientific information was produced everywhere and recorded in letters, books, newspapers and periodicals (it was also the beginning of mass printing). Science Gossip allows citizen scientists to pore through pages of Victorian natural history periodicals. The site prompts them with questions meant to ensure continuity with other user entries.</p>
<p>The final product is digitized data based on the 140,000 pages of 19th-century periodicals. Anyone can access it on <a href="http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/">Biodiversity Heritage Library</a> easily and for free. This work has obvious benefits for natural history researchers but it also can be used by art enthusiasts, ethnographers, biographers, historians, rhetoricians, or authors of historical fiction or filmmakers of period pieces who seek to create accurate settings. The collection possesses value that goes beyond scientific data and becomes critical to understanding the period in which data was collected.</p>
<p>It’s also possible to imagine flipping the citizen science script, with the citizens themselves calling the shots about what they want to see investigated. Implementing this version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/can-citizen-science-empower-disenfranchised-communities-53625">citizen science in disenfranchised communities</a> could be a means of access and empowerment. Imagine Flint, Michigan residents directing expert researchers on studies of their drinking water.</p>
<p>Or consider the aim of many localities to become so-called <a href="http://www.techrepublic.com/article/smart-cities-6-essential-technologies/">smart cities</a> – connected cities that integrate information and communication technologies to improve the quality of life for residents as well as manage the city’s assets. Citizen science could have a direct impact on community engagement and urban planning via data consumption and analysis, feedback loops and project testing. Or residents can even <a href="http://datasmart.ash.harvard.edu/news/article/prioritizing-resident-engagement-when-implementing-the-internet-of-things-8">collect data on topics important to local government</a>. With technology and open innovation, much of this is practical and possible.</p>
<h2>What stands in the way?</h2>
<p>Perhaps the most pressing limitation of scaling up the citizen science model is issues with reliability. While many of these projects have been proven reliable, others have fallen short.</p>
<p>For instance, <a href="http://doi.org/10.1038/515321a">crowdsourced damage assessments</a> from satellite images following 2013’s Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines faced challenges. <a href="http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/clay-westrope-28042014-065633-phl-osm-damage-assessment-final-report-to-submit.pdf">But according to aid agencies</a>, remote damage assessments by citizen scientists had a devastatingly low accuracy of 36 percent. They overrepresented “destroyed” structures by 134 percent.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=399&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/132999/original/image-20160803-12207-ni26bc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=501&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Crowds can’t reliably rate typhoon damage like this without adequate training.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/54329415@N00/10850549285">Bronze Yu</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Reliability problems often stem from a lack of training, coordination and standardization in platforms and data collection. It turned out in the case of Typhoon Haiyan the satellite imagery did not provide enough detail or high enough resolution for contributors to accurately classify buildings. Further, volunteers weren’t given proper guidance on making accurate assessments. There also were no standardized validation review procedures for contributor data.</p>
<p>Another challenge for open source innovation is organizing and standardizing data in a way that would be useful to others. Understandably, we collect data to fit our own needs – there isn’t anything wrong with that. However, those in charge of databases need to commit to data collection and curation standards so anyone may use the data with complete understanding of why, by whom and when they were collected.</p>
<p>Finally, deciding to open data – making it freely available for anyone to use and republish – is critical. There’s been a strong, popular push for government to open data of late but it isn’t <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/2014/10/29/measuring-the-value-of-open-data/">done widely</a> or <a href="https://www.brookings.edu/2014/11/06/the-transparency-tragedy-of-open-data/">well enough</a> to have widespread impact. Further, the opening of of nonproprietary data from nongovernment entities – nonprofits, universities, businesses – is lacking. If they are in a position to, organizations and individuals should seek to open their data to spur innovation ecosystems in the future.</p>
<p>Citizen science has proven itself in some fields and has the potential to expand to others as organizers leverage the effects of globalization to enhance innovation. To do so, we must keep an eye on citizen science reliability, open data whenever possible, and constantly seek to expand the model to new disciplines and communities.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/61554/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kendra L. Smith does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>This method of crowdsourcing science legwork is ready to expand into other disciplines – and maybe the amateurs themselves can start calling some of the shots.Kendra L. Smith, Policy Analyst at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/494712016-02-15T04:04:26Z2016-02-15T04:04:26ZHow fruit flies can help keep African scientists at home<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/111121/original/image-20160211-29190-158k5gm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Tiny fruit flies under a microscope are a powerful weapon for science.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Dr Martha Vicente-Crespo</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The humble fruit fly is being put to an unusual use in sub-Saharan Africa: it’s being used as bait. Its intended lure? It’s hoped that the tiny creature, whose scientific name is _Drosophila melanogaster, _can stop the exodus of researchers from Africa.</p>
<p>At the moment most of the biomedical research being done in African laboratories is performed using rats. Now a <a href="http://drosafrica.org/home">project</a> called DrosAfrica is underway to promote the use of the fruit fly as a model organism for research into human diseases.</p>
<p>There are several reasons for this. Firstly, rats are far more expensive to keep than fruit flies. As an affordable alternative, the fruit fly requires fewer resources to maintain and not as much expensive preparation for experiments.</p>
<p>Also, as a model system, <em>Drosophila</em> enables researchers to perform sophisticated genetics, live imaging, genome-wide analysis and other state-of-the-art approaches. <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25624315"><em>Drosophila</em> research</a> has identified thousands of genes with human equivalents. This has provided key insights into cancer biology, pathology, neurobiology and immunology.</p>
<p><em>Drosophila</em> is a prime model organism with tens of thousands of researchers working on every aspect of their biology. This work is aided by electronic open resources such as <a href="http://flybase.org/">Flybase</a> and stock <a href="http://flystocks.bio.indiana.edu/">centres</a> like the one in Bloomington, Indiana in the US. The centre will send <em>Drosophila</em> to any lab in the world for the cost of shipping. These stock centres are funded by governmental grants enabling 100 000s flies to be kept alive in warehouses. </p>
<p>An entire research unit has been built with a focus on understanding a specific aspect of the fly. The most famous is called <a href="https://www.janelia.org/">Janelia</a> Farm, founded by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in the US. </p>
<h2>A bigger agenda</h2>
<p>The project that’s using fruit flies as bait for scientists is known as DrosAfrica. It wants to drive the paradigm shift from rats to flies as experimental organisms. To do this, project leaders have organised workshops to share fruit fly techniques with universities and research institutes across sub Saharan Africa.</p>
<p>But there’s more to the work than merely extolling the virtues of fruit flies.</p>
<p>We also try to provide basic equipment such as dissecting microscopes, buffers, slides and antibodies for labelling proteins to facilitate the creation of local research communities. Such strong communities will ultimately be able to provide PhD programmes and research opportunities for African researchers. This will mean students don’t automatically feel they have to emigrate when seeking research opportunities.</p>
<p>Powerful local research programmes will also help to place the continent in the spotlight of international research. This could ultimately lead to a return of expatriates with a strong scientific background.</p>
<h2>Activities organised by DrosAfrica: Past and Future</h2>
<p>During the last three years, DrosAfrica has organised three workshops at the Institute of Biomedical Research <a href="http://shs.kiu.ac.ug/">Kampala International University-Western Campus, Uganda</a>. Two focused exclusively on the use of <em>Drosophila</em> for biomedical research. The other concentrated on image and data analysis techniques. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=450&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/107786/original/image-20160111-6981-1akcr6a.JPG?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=566&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Attendants and faculty members of the first DrosAfrica workshop ‘Drosophila in Biomedical Research: Affordable AND Impacting!’ (Summer 2013)</span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The workshops’ participants came from sub-Saharan Africa and included Nigerians, Kenyans, Ugandans and a delegate from South Sudan. They were able to work on several common projects and then networked after the workshops using information and resources on a dedicated website. These interactions planted the seed for developing an African <em>Drosophila</em> research community. At this institute, we’ve been lucky to build on the work that the non-profit organisation <a href="http://trendinafrica.org/">Trend</a> has already done. Their team of volunteer scientists equipped the institute’s lab and introduced insect research models to the local scientists.</p>
<p>In 2016 the project plans to deliver workshops at Kenya’s <a href="http://www.icipe.org/index.php">International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology</a>. The team is also visiting Nigeria during the second half of February to pave the way for future research collaborations.</p>
<p>The work done over the past few years has already paid dividends. Alumni from the workshops have presented their work at international scientific conferences and supervised undergraduate, Masters and PhD projects. Undergraduate and MSc candidates have graduated on the basis of their research done on flies. One student has submitted an abstract to the <a href="https://www.asbmb.org/">American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology</a>. </p>
<h2>DrosAfrica vision</h2>
<p>The DrosAfrica project is taking important steps to increase the African contribution to scientific advancement. In the coming years we hope to further boost local research opportunities to promote genuine African research led by African researchers, all of them investigating matters of interest to Africans.</p>
<p>And to think: it all started with a tiny little fruit fly.</p>
<p>*DrosAfrica would like to acknowledge the generosity of Faculty members and sponsors, without whom the workshops described above wouldn’t have been possible. They are:</p>
<p>(<a href="http://www.cambridge-africa.cam.ac.uk/">Cambridge Africa</a>, <a href="http://sayansiixd.blogspot.co.uk/">Sayansi</a>, <a href="http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/">Wellcome Trust</a>, <a href="http://twas.org/">TWAS</a>, <a href="http://shs.kiu.ac.ug/">KIU</a>, <a href="http://www.pem.cam.ac.uk/">Pembroke College-Cambridge</a>, <a href="http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/">St John’s College-Cambridge</a>, <a href="http://www.emma.cam.ac.uk/">Emmanuel College-Cambridge</a>, <a href="http://www.embo.org/funding-awards/fellowships/short-term-fellowships">EMBO</a>, <a href="https://fruit4science.wordpress.com/about/">Fruit4Science</a>, and very specially to FRS <a href="http://www2.gurdon.cam.ac.uk/%7Ekouzarideslab/">Tony Kouzarides</a>).*</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49471/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Fruit flies aren’t just a remarkable organism for research. They are also central to a project that aims to provide more at-home research opportunities for African scientists.Silvia Muñoz-Descalzo, Lecturer in Biology & Biochemistry; Developmental Biology Theme, University of BathTimothy Weil, Lecturer, Department of Zoology, University of CambridgeLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.