Tag Archives: science

In scientific race US sees China coming up from rear

Leave a reply

Sometime it seems as if scientific research is like a race with everyone competing for first place. As in most sports, there are multiple competitions for various sub-groups but only one important race. The US has held the lead position for decades although always with some anxiety. These days the anxiety is focused on China. A June 15, 2017 news item on ScienceDaily suggests that US dominance is threatened in at least one area of research—the biomedical sector,

American scientific teams still publish significantly more biomedical research discoveries than teams from any other country, a new study shows, and the U.S. still leads the world in research and development expenditures.

But American dominance is slowly shrinking, the analysis finds, as China’s skyrocketing investing on science over the last two decades begins to pay off. Chinese biomedical research teams now rank fourth in the world for total number of new discoveries published in six top-tier journals, and the country spent three-quarters what the U.S. spent on research and development during 2015.

Meanwhile, the analysis shows, scientists from the U.S. and other countries increasingly make discoveries and advancements as part of teams that involve researchers from around the world.

A June 15, 2017 Michigan Medicine University of Michigan news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, details the research team’s insights,

The last 15 years have ushered in an era of “team science” as research funding in the U.S., Great Britain and other European countries, as well as Canada and Australia, stagnated. The number of authors has also grown over time. For example, in 2000 only two percent of the research papers the new study looked include 21 or more authors — a number that increased to 12.5 percent in 2015.

The new findings, published in JCI Insight by a team of University of Michigan researchers, come at a critical time for the debate over the future of U.S. federal research funding. The study is based on a careful analysis of original research papers published in six top-tier and four mid-tier journals from 2000 to 2015, in addition to data on R&D investment from those same years.

The study builds on other work that has also warned of America’s slipping status in the world of science and medical research, and the resulting impact on the next generation of aspiring scientists.

“It’s time for U.S. policy-makers to reflect and decide whether the year-to-year uncertainty in National Institutes of Health budget and the proposed cuts are in our societal and national best interest,” says Bishr Omary, M.D., Ph.D., senior author of the new data-supported opinion piece and chief scientific officer of Michigan Medicine, U-M’s academic medical center. “If we continue on the path we’re on, it will be harder to maintain our lead and, even more importantly, we could be disenchanting the next generation of bright and passionate biomedical scientists who see a limited future in pursuing a scientist or physician-investigator career.”

The analysis charts South Korea’s entry into the top 10 countries for publications, as well as China’s leap from outside the top 10 in 2000 to fourth place in 2015. They also track the major increases in support for research in South Korea and Singapore since the start of the 21st Century.

Meticulous tracking

First author of the study, U-M informationist Marisa Conte, and Omary co-led a team that looked carefully at the currency of modern science: peer-reviewed basic science and clinical research papers describing new findings, published in journals with long histories of accepting among the world’s most significant discoveries.

They reviewed every issue of six top-tier international journals (JAMA, Lancet, the New England Journal of Medicine, Cell, Nature and Science), and four mid-ranking journals (British Medical Journal, JAMA Internal Medicine, Journal of Cell Science, FASEB Journal), chosen to represent the clinical and basic science aspects of research.

The analysis included only papers that reported new results from basic research experiments, translational studies, clinical trials, metanalyses, and studies of disease outcomes. Author affiliations for corresponding authors and all other authors were recorded by country.

The rise in global cooperation is striking. In 2000, 25 percent of papers in the six top-tier journals were by teams that included researchers from at least two countries. In 2015, that figure was closer to 50 percent. The increasing need for multidisciplinary approaches to make major advances, coupled with the advances of Internet-based collaboration tools, likely have something to do with this, Omary says.

The authors, who also include Santiago Schnell, Ph.D. and Jing Liu, Ph.D., note that part of their group’s interest in doing the study sprang from their hypothesis that a flat NIH budget is likely to have negative consequences but they wanted to gather data to test their hypothesis.

They also observed what appears to be an increasing number of Chinese-born scientists who had trained in the U.S. going back to China after their training, where once most of them would have sought to stay in the U.S. In addition, Singapore has been able to recruit several top notch U.S. and other international scientists due to their marked increase in R&D investments.

The same trends appear to be happening in Great Britain, Australia, Canada, France, Germany and other countries the authors studied – where research investing has stayed consistent when measured as a percentage of the U.S. total over the last 15 years.

The authors note that their study is based on data up to 2015, and that in the current 2017 federal fiscal year, funding for NIH has increased thanks to bipartisan Congressional appropriations. The NIH contributes to most of the federal support for medical and basic biomedical research in the U.S. But discussion of cuts to research funding that hinders many federal agencies is in the air during the current debates for the 2018 budget. Meanwhile, the Chinese R&D spending is projected to surpass the U.S. total by 2022.

“Our analysis, albeit limited to a small number of representative journals, supports the importance of financial investment in research,” Omary says. “I would still strongly encourage any child interested in science to pursue their dream and passion, but I hope that our current and future investment in NIH and other federal research support agencies will rise above any branch of government to help our next generation reach their potential and dreams.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output by Marisa L. Conte, Jing Liu, Santiago Schnell, and M. Bishr Omary. JCI Insight. 2017;2(12):e95206 doi:10.1172/jci.insight.95206 Volume 2, Issue 12 (June 15, 2017)

Copyright © 2017, American Society for Clinical Investigation

This paper is open access.

The notion of a race and looking back to see who, if anyone, is gaining on you reminded me of a local piece of sports lore, the Roger Banister-John Landy ‘Miracle Mile’. In the run up to the 1954 Commonwealth Games held in Vancouver, Canada, two runners were known to have broken the 4-minute mile limit (previously thought to have been impossible) and this meeting was considered an historic meeting. Here’s more from the miraclemile1954.com website,

On August 7, 1954 during the British Empire and Commonwealth Games in Vancouver, B.C., England’s Roger Bannister and Australian John Landy met for the first time in the one mile run at the newly constructed Empire Stadium.

Both men had broken the four minute barrier previously that year. Bannister was the first to break the mark with a time of 3:59.4 on May 6th in Oxford, England. Subsequently, on June 21st in Turku, Finland, John Landy became the new record holder with an official time of 3:58.

The world watched eagerly as both men approached the starting blocks. As 35,000 enthusiastic fans looked on, no one knew what would take place on that historic day.

Promoted as “The Mile of the Century”, it would later be known as the “Miracle Mile”.

With only 90 yards to go in one of the world’s most memorable races, John Landy glanced over his left shoulder to check his opponent’s position. At that instant Bannister streaked by him to victory in a Commonwealth record time of 3:58.8. Landy’s second place finish in 3:59.6 marked the first time the four minute mile had been broken by two men in the same race.

The website hosts an image of the moment memorialized in bronze when Landy looks to his left as Banister passes him on his right,

By Statue: Jack HarmanPhoto: Paul Joseph from vancouver, bc, canada – roger bannister running the four minute mileUploaded by Skeezix1000, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=9801121

Getting back to science, I wonder if some day we’ll stop thinking of it as a race where, inevitably, there’s one winner and everyone else loses and find a new metaphor.

Science cakery

Leave a reply

I have to thank Dean Burnett for his science cake extravagance on the Guardian science blogs. Here’s a few pictures of cake to tantalize you from Burnett’s Aug. 12, 2015 posting,

An evolution-of-life cake from @OxUniEarthSci Palaeontology Group. Bizarre how this life-sciences cake seems to defy physics with its structure. Photograph: @JackJMatthews

An evolution-of-life cake from @OxUniEarthSci Palaeontology Group. Bizarre how this life-sciences cake seems to defy physics with its structure.
Photograph: @JackJMatthews

A cake shaped like a subject entering an MRI scanner for @ImanovaImaging’s 1st birthday party. Because why not? Photograph: @M_Wall

A cake shaped like a subject entering an MRI scanner for @ImanovaImaging’s 1st birthday party. Because why not?
Photograph: @M_Wall

Katie Watkins created TMS coils on talking brains. For the record, it is not necessary or even helpful for the brain to be exposed during TMS. Photograph: Kate Watkins

Katie Watkins created TMS coils on talking brains. For the record, it is not necessary or even helpful for the brain to be exposed during TMS. Photograph: Kate Watkins

Katie Grifiths, posing with a DNA cake made by her sister Emma. What’s with these biology-themed cakes and their ability to overrule gravity? Do NASA know about this? Photograph: Katie Griffiths

Katie Grifiths, posing with a DNA cake made by her sister Emma. What’s with these biology-themed cakes and their ability to overrule gravity? Do NASA know about this?
Photograph: Katie Griffiths

Marilyn Audlsey produced this particles-in-a-cloud-chamber ginger cake. I’m not even going to pretend to know what that is, but it makes for a nice looking cake. Photograph: Marilyn Audsley

Marilyn Audlsey produced this particles-in-a-cloud-chamber ginger cake. I’m not even going to pretend to know what that is, but it makes for a nice looking cake. Photograph: Marilyn Audsley

And this is the last one I’m including,

Sara Barnes did this @ATLASexperiment. At last, the money spent on the Lare Hadron Collider starts to show useful results. Photograph: Sarah Barnes

Sara Barnes did this @ATLASexperiment. At last, the money spent on the Lare Hadron Collider starts to show useful results.
Photograph: Sarah Barnes

Burnett has many more areas of science memorialized in cake in his Aug. 12, 2015 posting.

I last featured science and cakes in a March 31, 2012 posting about the periodic table of elements and cupcakes. On a closely related note, I wrote about mathematics and baking in a June 28, 2013 posting.

United Nations’ Scientific Advisory Board recommends scientific investment of up to 3.5% of GDP (gross domestic product)

Leave a reply

Somehow, it’s no surprise that the United Nations (UN) Secretary General’s (SG) Scientific Advisory Board has recommended that more money is needed for science and more science advice is necessary, too. Does anyone expect a group scientists to come to another conclusion regarding the money? Admittedly, the science advice is a little more controversial.

A July 9, 2015 UN SG’s Scientific Advisory Board news release on EurekAlert provides details,

Investing up to 3.5% of a nation’s GDP in science, technology and innovation – including basic science and education – is a key benchmark for advancing sustainable development effectively, leading experts say.

In papers released July 9 [2015] in New York, international scientists advising UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon say closing the gap between developed and developing countries depends on first closing international science, technology and innovation (STI) investment gaps.

According to the UN SG’s 26-member Scientific Advisory Board: “While a target of 1% of (Gross Domestic Product) for (research and development) is perceived high by many governments, countries with strong and effective STI systems invest up to 3.5% of their GPD in R&D.”

“If countries wish to break the poverty cycle and achieve (post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals), they will have to set up ambitious national minimum target investments for STI, including special allotments for the promotion of basic science and science education and literacy.”

The Board also recommends specific investment areas, including “novel alternative energy solutions, water filters that remove pathogens at the point-of-use, new robust building materials from locally available materials, nanotechnology for health and agriculture, and biological approaches to industrial production, environmental remediation and management.”

Instituted by the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on behalf of the Secretary-General, the Board is comprised of experts from a range of scientific disciplines relevant to sustainable development, including its social and ethical dimensions.

The Board contributes to a process concluding this fall to replace the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, agreed by nations in 2000 for achievement in 2015, with a new set of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), through which progress in improving quality of life around the world will be tracked through 2030.

Among other highlights of the papers presented at UN Headquarters:

The Board recommends a dedicated seat for science at an influential new world leaders’ forum created to promote and monitor sustainable development – the UN High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development – saying science needs to be engaged “formally in the HLPF as an advisor rather than an observer.”

“This could be accomplished by creating a formal seat for science on the HLPF, and/or by involving the UNSG’s Scientific Advisory Board and organizations such as the National Academies of Sciences, UNESCO, ICSU, Future Earth, regional scientific bodies, and others.”

The High-level Political Forum meets every four years at the level of Heads of State and Government under the auspices of the General Assembly, and annually under the auspices of the UN Economic and Social Council. The Forum adopts negotiated declarations.

The Board also suggests engaging scientific bodies in reviews of pending policy decisions against scientific evidence.

“The UN Scientific Advisory Board, ICSU (the International Council for Science), National Academies of Science, and other bodies and networks, in collaboration with UNESCO and the UN system, would run a rigorous process of scientific review and assessment identifying possible risks and opportunities related to key political decisions.”

In addition, the Board calls for an annual Global Sustainable Development Report – a flagship UN publication like the Human Development Report – that monitors progress, identifies critical issues and root causes of challenges, and offers potential ways forward.

The report would synthesize and integrate findings from a wide range of scientific fields and institutions, developed with strong inter-agency support involving a suggested consortium of UN agencies working on sustainable development.

Needed to support long-term thinking: A better educated, informed world

Creating and engaging a better informed and educated public, it adds, would help establish policies that serve humanity’s long-term wellbeing over decisions that favour short-term economic and political interests.

The success of STI “will depend on the efficiency of the science-policy-society interface,” involving stakeholders from governments, civil society, indigenous peoples and local communities, industry and business, academia and research organizations.

“Such an active cooperation of multiple stakeholders will need more than the occasional by-chance interaction of different groups of society. It will require institutionalized architecture that brings together all affected actors to ensure linking scientific information and data as well as findings, scientific assessments and evidence-based advice with both policy and society.”

“Broader societal understanding and support of key scientific findings would make it more likely for science-based actions and evidence-based solutions to also be supported and promoted by decision-makers at all levels.”

The Board underlines that science, technology and innovation can be “the game changer” for the future development efforts.

“It can contribute to alleviating poverty, creating jobs, reducing inequalities, increasing income and enhancing health and well-being. It can assist in solving critical problems such as access to energy, food and water security, climate change and biodiversity loss.”

Not everyone is entirely supportive of this recommendation as Stuart Freedman notes in his July 2015 article (Developing nations urged to spend big on science) for SciDev.net,

Only a handful of countries have reached this figure (3.5%), including Finland and South Korea.

Zakri Abdul Hamid, a board member, gives the examples of Germany, Japan and South Korea, which, he says, upped their science investment to boost economic recovery after the devastation of the Second World War.

But Rafael Palacios Bustamante, a Venezuelan sociologist who specialises in science and innovation policy in Latin America, says this comparison is inappropriate.

“The gap between developing and industrialised countries is much bigger now and our dependence on technology has become more radical,” he says. …

Investing more money is a gamble but the opposite (not investing) is also a gamble and I think there’s the will to invest. From the materials I stumble across, it seems there’s an appetite at the grassroots level for more science as a means towards self-sustaining economies whether the scope is village, city, regional, or national.

For anyone curious about the UN’s Scientific Advisory Board, I wrote an Oct. 24, 2013 posting which listed the members whose two-year terms of appointment are almost complete.

For anyone interested in the two reports which form the bases for the recommendations,

Science, Technology and Innovation: Critical Means of Implementation for the SDGs (report)

Strengthening the High-Level Political Forum and the UN
Global Sustainable Development Report

Pop up event based on European Commission’s Science: It’s a girl thing on July 27, 2012 in Vancouver (Canada)

Leave a reply

The Society for Canadian Women in Science and Technology (SCWIST) will be holding a free ‘pop up’ event at Joey’s on Broadway (1424 W. Broadway at Hemlock St.) on Friday, July 27, 2012 from 6 pm – 8 pm.This event is a local outcome of the international discussion taking place about the European Commissions’ Science: It’s a Girl Thing campaign video (first mentioned in my July 6, 2012 posting and then in my July 18, 2012 posting).

Here’s more about the Vancouver topic and the event (from the July 20, 2012 posting on the Westcoast Women in Engineering, Science, and Technology (WWEST) blog on the University of British Columbia website),

Topic: It’s a girl thing: How do we get more girls to pursue STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] careers?

What is a SCWIST Pop-Up Discussion? A casual evening of networking, socializing, and discussion on current and relevant media topics held at a local restaurant! It’s a chance to get out and chat and network with like-minded people!

There’s also information abut th4 event on the SCWIST  Facebook page.

Who’s the global leader in supporting science and technology research?

1 Reply

According to a US government report, the US has a very narrow lead in supporting science and technology (S & T) research. From the Jan. 18, 2012 news item on physorg.com,

“This information clearly shows we must re-examine long-held assumptions about the global dominance of the American science and technology enterprise,” said NSF (US National Science Foundation) Director Subra Suresh of the findings in the Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 released today. “And we must take seriously new strategies for education, workforce development and innovation in order for the United States to retain its international leadership position,” he said.

…

According to the new Indicators 2012, the largest global S&T gains occurred in the so-called “Asia-10”–China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand–as those countries integrate S&T into economic growth. Between 1999 and 2009, for example, the U.S. share of global research and development (R&D) dropped from 38 percent to 31 percent, whereas it grew from 24 percent to 35 percent in the Asia region during the same time.

In China alone, R&D growth increased a stunning 28 percent in a single year (2008-2009), propelling it past Japan and into second place behind the United States.

There has been mounting concern in the US about its eroding leadership position. In fact, Barack Obama’s administration released in 2009 a document, Strategy for American Innovation, to address this situation. The administration recently released a new (2012?) Strategy for American Innovation document to update and enhance the previous document. Here are the new initiatives that have been added (from the executive summary for the new Strategy for American Innovation),

Key Administration priorities will improve America’s economic growth and competitiveness on many critical dimensions.

  • The Administration’s proposed Wireless Initiative will help businesses reach 98% of Americans with high-speed wireless access within five years and also facilitate the creation of a nationwide interoperable public safety network.  The Initiative will substantially expand the development of new wireless spectrum available for wireless broadband, by freeing up 500 MHz over 10 years.  Expanding new commercial spectrum is necessary to avoid “spectrum crunch” and facilitate the rapidly growing wireless technology revolution.  The initiative will support advances in security, reliability, and other critical wireless features; accelerate wireless innovations in health, education, transportation, and other application areas; and engage community participation in generating and demonstrating next generation wireless applications.
  • The patent reform agenda is essential to reducing the enormous backlog of patent applications at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO).  By stalling the delivery of innovative goods and services to market, this backlog impedes economic growth and the creation of high-paying jobs.  The patent reform legislative agenda will enable the USPTO to adequately fund its operations through user fees and allow the agency to implement new initiatives to improve patent quality while reducing the average delay in patent processing times from 35 months to 20 months.  Once implemented, the USPTO’s proposed three-track model will allow applicants to prioritize applications, enabling the most valuable patents to come to market within 12 months.
  • The Administration is developing new initiatives to improve K-12 education with an emphasis on graduating every student from high school ready for college and a career.  The Administration’s FY 2012 Budget will launch the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Education (ARPA-ED) to support research on breakthrough technologies to enhance learning.  The Budget also supports continuation of the historic Race to the Top, with an expanded focus on school districts prepared to implement and sustain comprehensive reforms.  Working with a coalition of private sector leaders called Change the Equation, the Administration is encouraging public-private partnerships that inspire more students – including girls and other currently underrepresented groups – to excel in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).  The Administration will also work to prepare 100,000 STEM teachers over the next decade with a down payment in the FY 2012 Budget to recruit STEM teachers and improve teacher training.
  • To accelerate the development of clean energy technologies, the President has proposed a Clean Energy Standard that will help us reach a goal of delivering 80% of the nation’s electricity from clean sources by 2035.  The Administration’s FY 2012 Budget proposes to expand the funding to date for the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) and to create three new Energy Innovations Hubs to solve challenges in critical areas.  The Budget also proposes a reauthorization of the Clean Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit and provides funding for research, development, and deployment to help the U.S. reach the goal of one million advanced technology vehicles on the road by 2015.
  • The Startup America initiative will facilitate entrepreneurship across the country, increasing the success of high-growth startups that create broad economic growth and quality jobs.  The Administration launched the Startup America initiative with new agency efforts that accelerate the transfer of research breakthroughs from university labs; create two $1 billion initiatives for impact investing and early-stage seed financing, among other incentives to invest in high-growth startups; improve the regulatory environment for starting and growing new businesses; and increase connections between entrepreneurs and high-quality business mentors.  Responding to the President’s call to action around the national importance of entrepreneurship, private-sector leaders are independently committing significant new resources to catalyze and develop entrepreneurial ecosystems across the country.

There are two initiatives that are particularly interesting to me, the first one being patent reform. The wording on this one suggests the big problem is a backlog but clearing the backlog won’t solve all the problems with patents. As I noted in my Patents as weapons and obstacles post of Oct. 31, 2011 companies routinely use patents as a means of inhibiting competition and innovation. How is giving the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) more funding for staff positions going to address that problem?

The Startup America is the other initiative I found interesting as I don’t understand how this is going to help entrepreneurship in the US. It looks like more government money will be spent to fund startups, which is, no doubt, a good thing. What I find puzzling is that the wording of the initiative doesn’t indicate a grasp of any issue beyond that of getting people to create startups. The issue isn’t just funding at an early stage of development; it’s getting enough capitalization to launch the company into profitability. Tomorrow, I’ll publish a post with an example of a company (Canadian but I’m sure entrepreneurs from other countries will tell you the same thing happens there) facing that problem (ETA Jan. 22, 2012: my Jan.19, 2012 posting about D-Wave Systems).

Getting back to where I started originally, there is great concern in the US now (and for some years) about losing its leadership role in science and technology. While Canadians have not been in the position of losing leadership, it is fascinating to note the similarities.

There’s one more thing in the Jan. 18, 2012 news item (on physorg.com), the US National Science Foundation (NSF) revealed its initiatives to address innovation,

NSF has launched a number of new initiatives designed to better position the United States globally and at home by enhancing international collaborations, improving education and establishing new partnerships between NSF-supported researchers and those in industry, for example.

  • Science Across Virtual Institutes (SAVI) fosters interaction among scientists, engineers and educators around the globe. Because S&T excellence exists in many parts of the world, scientific advances can be accelerated when scientists and engineers work together across international borders. The Wireless Innovation Between Finland and the United States, for instance, provides a platform for building long-term research and education collaborations between the U.S. and Finland-two world leaders in wireless technology-who have formed a virtual institute to study dynamic radio spectrum access. SAVI collaborations are also underway between U.S. teams and researchers in India, Brazil, France, Germany, Israel, Singapore and the United Kingdom.
  • The NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program, a public-private partnership, will connect NSF-funded scientific research with the technological, entrepreneurial and business communities to help create a stronger national ecosystem for innovation. NSF, the Deshpande Foundation, and the Kauffman Foundation are founding members along with a national network of advisors and partnering institutions. Technology developers, business leaders, venture capitalists and others from private industry will provide critical expertise to help transform scientific and engineering results into potentially successful technologies.
  • NSF investment in advanced manufacturing holds great potential for significant short-term and long-term economic impact by promising entirely new classes and families of products that were previously unattainable, including emerging opportunities in cyber-physical systems, advanced robotics, nano-manufacturing, and sensor- and model-based smart manufacturing.
  • Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability, or (SEES), is a cross-disciplinary approach to sustainability science designed to spark innovations for tomorrow’s clean energy. It will also improve our capabilities for rapid response to extreme events.

The report first mentioned, Science and Engineering Indicators 2012, is not yet available in its entirety (full access Feb. 15, 2012) but you can access portions here. The speech by Dr. Subra Suresh for the FY2012 funding request for the National Science Foundation was supposed to be available by now, hopefully when you try it will be.

Science research spending and innovation in Europe and reflections on the Canadian situation

Leave a reply

I thought I’d pull together some information about science funding and innovation for closer examination. First, in early July 2011 the European Union announced plans for a huge spending increase, approximately 45%, for science. Their current programme, the Seventh Framework Programme (US$79B budget) is coming to an end in 2013 and the next iteration will be called, Horizon 2020 (proposed US$114B budget).  Here’s more from Kit Eaton’s July 6, 2011 article on Fast Company,

The proposal still awaits approval by the E.U.’s parliament and member states, but just getting this far is a milestone. The next phase is to forge spending into the next generation of the E.U.’s Framework Programme, which is its main research spending entity, to produce a plan called Horizon 2020. The spending shift has been championed by E.U. research commissioner Márie Geoghan-Quinn, and means that the share of the E.U. budget portioned out for scientific research will eventually double from its 4.5% figure in 2007 to 9% in 2020.

How will Europe pay for it? This is actually the biggest trick being pulled off: More than €4.5 billion would be transferred from the E.U.’s farm subsidies program, the Common Agricultural Policy. This is the enormous pile of cash paid by E.U. authorities to farmers each year to keep them in business, to keep food products rolling off the production line, and to keep fields fallow–as well as to diversify their businesses.

Nature journal also covered the news in a July 5, 2011 article by Colin Macilwane,

Other research advocates say that the proposal — although falling short of the major realignment of funding priorities they had been hoping for — was as good as could be expected in the circumstances. “Given the times we’re in, we couldn’t realistically have hoped for much more,” says Dieter Imboden, president of Eurohorcs, the body representing Europe’s national research agencies.

Geoghegan-Quinn told Nature that the proposal was “a big vote of confidence in science” but also called on researchers to push to get the proposal implemented — especially in their home countries. “The farmers will be out there lobbying, and scientists and researchers need to do the same,” she says.

While the European Union wrangles over a budget that could double their investment in science research, Canadians evince, at best, a mild interest in science research.

The latest Science, Technology and Innovation Council report, State of the Nation 2010: Canada’s Science, Technology and Innovation System, was released in June 2011 and has, so far, occasioned little interest despite an article in the Globe & Mail and a Maclean’s blog posting by Paul Wells. Hopefully,  The Black Hole Blog, where Beth Swan and David Kent are writing a series about the report, will be able to stimulate some discussion.

From Beth’s July 12, 2011 posting,

The report – at least the section I’m talking about today – is based on data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) Programme for International Student Assessment and Statistics Canada. Some of the interesting points include:

  • 15-year-old Canadians rank in the top 10 of OECD countries for math and science in 20091.
  • 80% of 15-19 year-old Canadians are pursuing a formal education, which is lower than the OECD average
  • But Canada ranks 1st in OECD countries for adults (ages 25–64 years) in terms of the percentage of the population with a post-secondary education (49%)
  • The numbers of Canadian students in science and engineering at the undergraduate level increased (18% increase in the number of science undergraduate degrees, 9% increase in the number of engineering undergraduate degrees) in 2008 compared to 2005

…

This all begs the question, though, of what those science-based graduates do once they graduate. It’s something that we’ve talked about a fair bit here on the Black Hole and the STIC report gives us some unhappy data on it. Canada had higher unemployment rates for science-based PhDs (~3-4%) compared to other OECD countries (e.g., in the US, it’s about ~1-1.5%).  Specifically, in 2006 Canada had the highest rate of unemployment for the medical sciences -3%- and engineering -4%- and the third highest rate of unemployment for the natural sciences -3%- among the OECD countries: the data are from 2006.

David, in his July 16, 2011 posting, focuses on direct and indirect Canadian federal government Research & Development (R&D) spending,

It appears from a whole host of statistics, reports, etc – that Canada lags in innovation, but what is the government’s role in helping to nurture its advancement.  Is it simply to create fertile ground for “the market” to do its work?  or is it a more interventionist style of determining what sorts of projects the country needs and investing as such?  Perhaps it involves altering the way we train and inspire our young people?

Beth then comments on Canadian business R&D investment, which has always been a low priority according to the material I’ve read, in her July 25, 2011 posting on ,

Taken together, this shows a rather unfavourable trend in Canadian businesses not investing in research & development – i.e, not contributing to innovation. We know from Dave’s last posting that Canada is not very good at contributing direct funds to research and my first posting in this series illustrated that while Canada is pretty good at getting PhDs trained, we are not so good at having jobs for those PhDs once they are done their schooling.

The latest July 27, 2011 posting from David asks the age old question, Why does Canada lag in R&D spending?

Many reports have been written over the past 30 years about Canada and its R&D spending, and they clamour one after the other about Canada’s relative lack of investment into R&D.  We’ve been through periods of deep cutbacks and periods of very strong growth, yet one thing remains remarkably consistent – Canada underspends on R&D relative to other countries.

…

The waters around such questions are extremely murky and tangible outcomes are tough to identify and quantify when so many factors are at play.  What does seem reasonable though is to ask where this investment gap is filled from in other countries that currently outstrip Canada’s spending – is it public money, private money, foreign money, or domestic money?  Hopefully these questions are being asked and answered before we set forth on another 30 year path of poor relative investment.

As I stated in my submission to the federal government’s R&D review panel and noted in my March 15, 2011 posting about the ‘Innovation’ consultation, I think we need to approach the issues in more imaginative ways.

Brief bit about science in Egypt and brief bit about Iran’s tech fair in Syria

1 Reply

I came across (via Twitter) this article  in Nature magazine about scientists in Egypt and their response to the current protests, ‘Deep fury’ of Egyptian scientists,

As the protests against President Hosni Mubarak gather pace across Egypt, the growing possibility of regime change is inspiring hope among many sectors of the population. The swelling number of protestors has seen academics add their voices to the call for change (see ‘Scientists join protests on streets of Cairo to call for political reform’).

The article goes on to recount a Q & A (Questions and Answers) session with Michael Harms of the German Academic Exchange Service offering his view from Cairo,

How would you describe Egyptian science?

There are many problems. Universities are critically under-funded and academic salaries are so low that most scientists need second jobs to be able to make a living. [emphasis mine] Tourist guides earn more money than most scientists. You just can’t expect world-class research under these circumstances. Also, Egypt has no large research facilities, such as particle accelerators. Some 750,000 students graduate each year and flood the labour market, yet few find suitable jobs – one reason for the current wave of protests.

But there are some good scientists here, particularly those who have been able to study and work abroad for a while. The Egyptian Ministry of Higher Education has started some promising initiatives. For example, in 2007 it created the Science and Technology Development Fund (STDF), a Western-style funding agency. And Egypt is quite strong in renewable energies and, at least in some universities, in cancer research and pharmaceutical research.

(Harms has more interesting comments in the article.) I must say the bit about needing 2nd jobs was an eye-opener for me.

There’s been some talk about the role that social media may or may not played in the civil unrest in Tunisia and Egypt. Jenara Nerenberg in her article, Iran Tech Expo Features Nuclear Might, Doubts, Concerns, for Fast Company, highlights comments from a Nobel Laureate who has no doubts that social media played a role in those countries and suggests the same could occur in Iran.

In fact, Iran is holding a five-day technology fair (starting this Saturday, Feb. 5, 2011) boasting its accomplishments. It has held such fairs before but for the first time Iran is holding its fair in another country, Syria. From Nerenberg’s  Feb. 3, 2011 article,

“Technological achievements” appears to be handy code words for nuclear achievements, based on recent reports and statements. [sic] But rockets, satellites, nanotechnology, and aerospace technology are all expected to be exhibited.

The event also comes at a time when there is growing use of consumer technology for political purposes, as seen in the case of Tunisia and Egypt. Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, in reference to recent events in those two countries, said, “I can tell you that thanks to technology dictators can’t get a good night’s sleep. As to what is going to happen in the future it is too early to say. But I can say the people in Iran are extremely unhappy with the current situation. Iran is like the fire underneath the ashes and the ashes can suddenly make way for the fire at the slightest event.”

I present these two bits because they point to the fact that science and technology are deeply entwined in society and have social impacts that we don’t always understand very well. There have been social uprising and revolutions that owed nothing to “consumer technology”. There are many questions to be asked including, does scientific or technological change somehow foment social unrest? Perhaps we should be calling on the philosophers.

My apologies for arsenic blooper

4 Replies

I made a mistake when reporting on NASA and the ‘arsenic’ bacterium. Apparently, the research methodology was problematic and the conclusion that the bacterium can substitute arsenic for phosphorus in its DNA is not supported by the evidence as presented.

Martin Robbins at the Lay Scientist blog (one of The Guardian’s science blogs) has posted an analysis of how this ‘media storm’ occurred. The article which started it all was in a well respected,  peer-reviewed journal, Science (which is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science).  From Robbins’s Dec. 8, 2010 posting,

Should the paper have been published in the first place? Carl Zimmer’s blog post for Slate collects the responses of numerous scientists to the work, including the University of Colorado’s Shelley Copley declaring that: “This paper should not have been published.”

There are two distinct questions here to tease apart: ‘should the paper have been published?’ and ‘should it have been published in Science?’

To the first question I would say ‘yes’. Peer review isn’t supposed to be about declaring whether a paper is definitely right and therefore fit for publication on that basis. The purpose of publishing paper is to submit ideas for further discussion and debate, with peer review serving as a fairly loose filter to weed out some of the utter crap. The contribution a paper makes to science goes far beyond such trivialities as whether or not it’s actually right.

Wolfe-Simon et al’s paper might be wrong, but it has also sparked an interesting and useful debate on the evidence and methodology required to make claims about this sort of thing, and the next paper on this subject that comes along with hopefully be a lot stronger as a result of this public criticism. You could argue on that basis that its publication is useful.

I would argue that the real bone of contention is whether it should have been published in Science – after all, if it had appeared in the Journal of Speculative Biological Hypotheses (and not been hyped) nobody would have given a crap. On this I’m not really qualified to comment, but what I can say is that given the wealth of scientists coming forward to criticize the work, it’s remarkable that the journal found three willing to pass it.

Robbins goes on to analyze the impact that the embargo (story is considered confidential until a prescribed date) that Science applied to the story about the article had on mainstream and other media. He also notes the impact that bloggers had on the story,

The quality, accuracy and context of material available on leading blogs exceeded that of much of mainstream media reporting by light years. While newspapers ran away with the story, it was left to bloggers like Ed Yong, Carl Zimmer, Lewis Dartnell and Phil Plait to put things into perspective.

But more importantly it turns out that peer review is being done on blogs. John Hawks and Alex Bradley – both scientists with relevant expertise – found methodological problems. Rosie Redfield, a microbiology professor a the University of British Colombia [sic], wrote an extensive and detailed take-down of the paper on her blog that morphed into a letter to Science, which I sincerely hope they publish.

Robbins does not suggest that the blogosophere is the perfect place for peer review only that it played an important role regarding this research. There is much more to the posting and I do encourage you to read it.

I did look at Rosie Redfield’s postings about the papers. I found her Dec. 4, 2010 posting to provide the most accessible analysis of the methodological issues of the two. Her Dec. 8, 2010 posting is her submission to Science about the matter.

I do apologize for getting caught up in the frenzy.

Canadian government announces science and technology funds for 2010/11 fiscal year

Leave a reply

According to a news item on CBC News, Ottawa will be spending $11.7B next year on science and technology. From the news item,

The government said that $5.9 billion will be allocated to departments and agencies within the federal government while other sectors will receive $5.8 billion. These sectors include higher education, business and non-profit and foreign groups.

The plans include spending $7.4 billion on research and development and $4.3 billion on gathering and synthesizing data, information services, museum services, policy studies and education.

Three-quarters of the government’s proposed spending will be directed to natural sciences and one-quarter toward social sciences and humanities.

I assume the recent $2M investment announced on October 8, 2010 for Alberta’s nanotechnology sector (more details in my Oct. 11, 2010 posting) will be coming out of this $11.7B budget for science and technology.