Tag Archives: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Scotland as an Arctic power? Hmmm

This is intriguing. The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ (Wilson Center’s) Polar Institute is hosting a conversation about Scotland’s future role in the Arctic that will be livestreamed on Tuesday, November 24, 2020 12:30 pm ET (9:30 am PT).

Here’s more from the Oct. 29, 2020 Wilson Center announcement (received via email),

Scotland’s Offer to the Arctic

Scotland’s Shetland Archipelago is a mere 400 miles south of the Arctic Circle. Due in part to this proximity, Scotland is seeking to establish itself as a European gateway to the High North. Similar rural and demographic features mean that Scottish and Arctic communities share many present-day priorities, from strengthening rural resilience to improving connectivity and promoting sustainable economic growth.

Scotland’s engagement with the Arctic region has intensified steadily over recent years. Published in September 2019, the Scottish Government’s first Arctic policy framework sets out “Scotland’s offer to the Arctic,” a prospectus for cooperation and knowledge exchange around the issues and ambitions that Scotland has in common with the Arctic.

On November 24th [2020], join us for a conversation on the future of cooperation between Scotland, Europe, and the Arctic. The live webstream will begin at 12:30 PM EST.

You might find this contextual information about Scotland’s Arctic Policy Framework, BREXIT, and the European Union (EU) useful (from a Sept. 24, 2020 post by the Polar Research and Policy Initiative on the Polar Connection website,

While the EU, the UK and Scotland are navigating the complex dynamics of Brexit to understand its implications on the three entities and their present and future interrelationships and interactions, one stage where the question of their future interplay rears its head is the Arctic region where the three have cooperated greatly in the past.

… the UK’s updated [in 2018 after the UK voted to leave the EU, i.e., BREXIT] Arctic policy framework clarified that leaving the EU “will not diminish our cooperation with EU nations but will enhance the possibility for forging even closer ties with non-EU nations”. It also observed how Scotland shared especially rich economic, social and cultural links with the Arctic region due to its history and geography, and acknowledged Scotland’s commitment to addressing climate change, promoting climate justice, driving the transition to a global low-carbon economy, developing its own Arctic Strategy on devolved matters, and collaborating, along with Northern Ireland, with Euro-Arctic states through the Northern Periphery and Arctic Programme.

In recognition of its shared history, geography, opportunities and challenges with several Arctic states, the Scottish Government itself has taken great interest in the Arctic in recent years. …

As the northernmost near-Arctic non-Arctic state, the UK is currently the northernmost EU state with Arctic interests, apart from Finland, Sweden and the Kingdom of Denmark (though Greenland is not a member of the EU) that are also member states of the Arctic Council. As the northernmost region/country within the UK, it is principally from Scotland that the UK derives that strategic advantage. Furthermore, as Finland and Sweden do not have direct access to the Arctic Ocean, save through Norway or Russia, and Greenland is not a part of the EU, the Scottish ports in Shetland [emphasis mine] and Orkney are currently the northernmost ports in the EU with direct maritime access to the North Sea and the Arctic Ocean.

I highlighted Shetland as there has been a pertinent development since Sept. 2019 according to a Sept. 11, 2020 article by Colby Cosh for the (Canada) National Post,

The council of the Shetland Islands, in which one official SNP [Scottish Nationalist Party] member is outnumbered 21-1 by independents of various stripes, voted 18-2 on Wednesday in favour of a motion to “formally begin exploring options for achieving financial and political self-determination.” [emphasis mine] As the makeup of the council implies, Shetland, about 170 kilometres north of the Scots mainland, has never been comfortable with the SNP’s goal of an independent, sovereign Scotland. In 2014’s Scottish independence referendum, Shetland delivered a 64 per cent vote for No.

Without knowing much about the politics it’s difficult to know if this is a serious attempt at separation or if it’s a gambit designed to get Shetland more autonomy without losing any advantages associated with being part of a larger entity.

Nevertheless, all this ‘arctic action’ is intriguing especially in light of the current loss of arctic ice and the attempts by various jurisdictions (including Canada) to establish or re-establish territorial rights.

Low cost science tools and the ‘Thing Tank’

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (or Wilson Center; located in Washington, DC) has a new initiative, the ‘Thing Tank’ (am enjoying the word play). It’s all about low cost science tools and their possible impact on the practice of science. Here’s more from a May 27, 2020 email notice,

From a foldable microscope made primarily from paper, to low cost and open microprocessors supporting research from cognitive neuroscience to oceanography, to low cost sensors measuring air quality in communities around the world, the things of science — that is, the physical tools that generate data or contribute to scientific processes — are changing the way that science happens.

The nature of tool design is changing, as more and more people share designs openly, create do-it-yourself (DIY) tools as a substitute for expensive, proprietary equipment, or design for mass production. The nature of tool access and use is changing too, as more tools become available at a price point that is do-able for non-professionals. This may be breaking down our reliance on expensive, proprietary designs traditionally needed to make scientific progress. This may also be building new audiences for tools, and making science more accessible to those traditionally limited by cost, geography, or infrastructure. But questions remain: will low cost and/or open tools become ubiquitous, replacing expensive, proprietary designs? Will the use of these tools fundamentally change how we generate data and knowledge, and apply it to global problems? Will the result be more, and better, science? And if so, what is standing in the way of widespread adoption and use?

In the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, we often consider how new approaches to science are changing the way that science happens. Over the last five years, we’ve investigated how emerging enthusiasm in citizen science — the involvement of the public in scientific research — has changed the way that the public sees science, and contributes to data-driven decision-making. We have explored crowdsourcing and citizen science as two important paradigms of interest within and beyond US federal agencies, and investigated associated legal issues. We’ve documented how innovations in open science, especially open and FAIR data, can make information more shareable and impactful. Across our efforts, we explore and evaluate emerging technology and governance models with the goal of understanding how to maximize benefit and minimize risk. In the process, we convene scientists, practitioners, and policy makers to maximize the value of new approaches to science.

Now, we are expanding our attention to explore how innovation in the physical tools of science accelerate science, support decision-making, and broaden participation. We want to understand the current and potential value of these tools and approaches, and how they are changing the way we do science — now, and in the future.

THING Tank, our new initiative, fits well within the overall mission of the Wilson Center. As a think tank associated with the United States federal government, the Wilson Center is a boundary organization linking academia and the public policy community to create actionable research while bringing stakeholders together. Innovative and accessible tools for science are important to academia and policy alike. We hope to also bridge these perspectives with critical, on the ground activities, and understand and elevate the individuals, non-profits, community groups, and others working in this space.

The notice was in fact an excerpt from a May 19, 2020 article by Alison Parker and Anne Bowser on the Wilson Center website, I believe Bowser and Parker are the organizers behind the Think Tank initiative.

There are big plans for future activities such as workshops, a member directory and other outreach efforts. There’s also this,

We want to hear from you!

This space touches many communities, networks and stakeholders, from those advancing science, those working together to promote ideals of openness, to those developing solutions in a commercial context. No matter your interest, we want to hear from you! We’re looking for contributions to this effort, that can take a variety of forms:

  • Help us catch up to speed. We recognize that there are decades of foundational work and ongoing activities, and are eager to learn more.
  • Help us connect to broader communities, networks, and stakeholders. What is the best way to get broad input?  Who isn’t in our network, that should be?
  • Introduce your communities and stakeholders to public policy audiences by contributing blog posts and social media messaging – more information on this coming soon! 
  • Explore converging communities and accelerators and barriers by participating in workshops and events – definitely virtually, and hopefully in person as well. 
  • Contribute and review content about case studies, definitions, and accelerators and barriers.
  • Share our products with your networks if you think they are useful.

To start, we will host a series of virtual happy hours exploring the role of openness, authority, and community in open science and innovation for crisis and disaster response. How have tools for science impacted the response to COVID-19, and how is the governance of those devices, and their data, evolving in emergency use?

How one is to contact the organizers is not immediately clear to me. They’ve not included any contact details on that webpage but you can subscribe to the newsletter,

Stay informed. Join our THING Tank email list to get updates about our work in low cost hardware.

This is very exciting news and I hope to hear more about the initiative as it proceeds.

‘One health in the 21st century’ event and internship opportunities at the Woodrow Wilson Center

One health

This event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars (Wilson Center) is the first that I’ve seen of its kind (from a November 2, 2018 Wilson Center Science and Technology Innovation Program [STIP] announcement received via email; Note: Logistics such as date and location follow directly after),

One Health in the 21st Century Workshop

The  One Health in the 21st Century workshop will serve as a snapshot of government, intergovernmental organization and non-governmental organization innovation as it pertains to the expanding paradigm of One Health. One Health being the umbrella term for addressing animal, human, and environmental health issues as inextricably linked [emphasis mine], each informing the other, rather than as distinct disciplines.

This snapshot, facilitated by a partnership between the Wilson Center, World Bank, and EcoHealth Alliance, aims to bridge professional silos represented at the workshop to address the current gaps and future solutions in the operationalization and institutionalization of One Health across sectors. With an initial emphasis on environmental resource management and assessment as well as federal cooperation, the One Health in the 21st Century Workshop is a launching point for upcoming events, convenings, and products, sparked by the partnership between the hosting organizations. RSVP today.

Agenda:

1:00pm — 1:15pm: Introductory Remarks

1:15pm — 2:30pm: Keynote and Panel: Putting One Health into Practice

Larry Madoff — Director of Emerging Disease Surveillance; Editor, ProMED-mail
Lance Brooks — Chief, Biological Threat Reduction Department at DoD
Further panelists TBA

2:30pm — 2:40pm: Break

2:40pm — 3:50pm: Keynote and Panel: Adding Seats at the One Health Table: Promoting the Environmental Backbone at Home and Abroad

Assaf Anyamba — NASA Research Scientist
Jonathan Sleeman — Center Director for the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Wildlife Health Center
Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta — Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science for the Office of Research and Development and the EPA Science Advisor
Further panelists TBA

3:50pm — 4:50pm: Breakout Discussions and Report Back Panel

4:50pm — 5:00pm: Closing Remarks

5:00pm — 6:00pm: Networking Happy Hour

Co-Hosts:

Sponsor Logos

You can register/RSVP here.

Logistics are:

November 26
1:00pm – 5:00pm
Reception to follow
5:00pm – 6:00pm

Flom Auditorium, 6th floor

Directions

Wilson Center
Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: 202.691.4000

stip@wilsoncenter.org

Privacy Policy

Internships

The Woodrow Wilson Center is gearing up for 2019 although the deadline for a Spring 2019  November 15, 2018. (You can find my previous announcement for internships in a July 23, 2018 posting). From a November 5, 2018 Wilson Center STIP announcement (received via email),

Internships in DC for Science and Technology Policy

Deadline for Fall Applicants November 15

The Science and Technology Innovation Program (STIP) at the Wilson Center welcomes applicants for spring 2019 internships. STIP focuses on understanding bottom-up, public innovation; top-down, policy innovation; and, on supporting responsible and equitable practices at the point where new technology and existing political, social, and cultural processes converge. We recommend exploring our blog and website first to determine if your research interests align with current STIP programming.

We offer two types of internships: research (open to law and graduate students only) and a social media and blogging internship (open to undergraduates, recent graduates, and graduate students). Research internships might deal with one of the following key objectives:

  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Citizen Science
  • Cybersecurity
  • One Health
  • Public Communication of Science
  • Serious Games Initiative
  • Science and Technology Policy

Additionally, we are offering specific internships for focused projects, such as for our Earth Challenge 2020 initiative.

Special Project Intern: Earth Challenge 2020

Citizen science involves members of the public in scientific research to meet real world goals.  In celebration of the 50th anniversary of Earth Day, Earth Day Network (EDN), The U.S. Department of State, and the Wilson Center are launching Earth Challenge 2020 (EC2020) as the world’s largest ever coordinated citizen science campaign.  EC2020 will collaborate with existing citizen science projects as well as build capacity for new ones as part of a larger effort to grow citizen science worldwide.  We will become a nexus for collecting billions of observations in areas including air quality, water quality, biodiversity, and human health to strengthen the links between science, the environment, and public citizens.

We are seeking a research intern with a specialty in topics including citizen science, crowdsourcing, making, hacking, sensor development, and other relevant topics.

This intern will scope and implement a semester-long project related to Earth Challenge 2020 deliverables. In addition to this the intern may:

  • Conduct ad hoc research on a range of topics in science and technology innovation to learn while supporting department priorities.
  • Write or edit articles and blog posts on topics of interest or local events.
  • Support meetings, conferences, and other events, gaining valuable event management experience.
  • Provide general logistical support.

This is a paid position available for 15-20 hours a week.  Applicants from all backgrounds will be considered, though experience conducting cross and trans-disciplinary research is an asset.  Ability to work independently is critical.

Interested applicants should submit a resume, cover letter describing their interest in Earth Challenge 2020 and outlining relevant skills, and two writing samples. One writing sample should be formal (e.g., a class paper); the other, informal (e.g., a blog post or similar).

For all internships, non-degree seeking students are ineligible. All internships must be served in Washington, D.C. and cannot be done remotely.

Full application process outlined on our internship website.

I don’t see a specific application deadline for the special project (Earth Challenge 2010) internship. In any event, good luck with all your applications.

The Imagineers of War: The Untold Story of DARPA, the Pentagon Agency That Changed the World on March 21, 2017 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

I received a March 17, 2017 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars notice (via email) about this upcoming event,

The Imagineers of War: The Untold Story of DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency], the Pentagon Agency That Changed the World

There will be a webcast of this event

In The Imagineers of War, Weinberger gives us a definitive history of the agency that has quietly shaped war and technology for nearly 60 years. Founded in 1958 in response to the launch of Sputnik, DARPA’s original mission was to create “the unimagined weapons of the future.” Over the decades, DARPA has been responsible for countless inventions and technologies that extend well beyond military technology.

Weinberger has interviewed more than one hundred former Pentagon officials and scientists involved in DARPA’s projects—many of whom have never spoken publicly about their work with the agency—and pored over countless declassified records from archives around the country, documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, and exclusive materials provided by sources. The Imagineers of War is a compelling and groundbreaking history in which science, technology, and politics collide.

Speakers


  • Sharon Weinberger

    Global Fellow
    Author, Imagineers of War, National Security Editor at The Intercept and former Wilson Center Fellow

  • Richard Whittle

    Global Fellow
    Author, Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution and Wilson Center Global Fellow

The logistics:

6th Floor, Woodrow Wilson Center

I first heard about DARPA in reference to the internet. A developer I was working with noted that ARPA (DARPA’s predecessor agency) was instrumental in the development of the internet.

You can register for the event here. Should you be interested in the webcast, you can check this page.

As a point of interest, the Wilson Center (also known as the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) is one of the independent agencies slated to be defunded in the 2017 US budget as proposed by President Donald Trump according to a March 16, 2017 article by Elaine Godfrey for The Atlantic.

Societal implications of emerging technologies (a Washington, D.C. event)

Here are the details about this book launch event,

Assessing the Societal Implications of Emerging Technologies: Book Launch

Please join us for the launch of Evan Michelson’s new book, Assessing the Societal Implications of Emerging Technologies: Anticipatory Governance in Action, which offers tangible insights into strategies deployed by well-known, high-profile organizations involved in anticipating the societal and policy implications of nanotechnology and synthetic biology.

The book lays out one of the first actionable roadmaps that interested stakeholders can follow when working toward institutionalizing anticipatory governance practices throughout the policymaking process.

David Rejeski, director of the Science & Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, will lead the discussion. A light lunch will be served at noon.

For more information, please visit:
https://www.routledge.com/products/9781138123434

Speakers:

Evan Michelson, author, Assessing the Societal Implications of Emerging Technologies

David Rejeski, Director, Science and Technology Innovation Program

Thursday, June 9th, 2016
12:00pm – 1:30pm

5th Floor Conference Room

Wilson Center
Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

If planning to attend in person, you can RSVP here.

Unfortunately, there is no indication as to whether or not the event will be livestreamed or webcast at a later date.

I have found a little more information about the author, Evan Michelson on the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation website,

Evan S. Michelson, Ph.D. is a Program Director at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. Dr. Michelson is responsible for overseeing the Foundation’s Energy and Environment Program, which seeks to advance understanding about the economic, environmental, security, and policy tradeoffs associated with the increased deployment of low- and no-carbon resources and technologies across the energy system. He also manages the Foundation’s grantmaking to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (IV), an international astrophysics research collaboration focused on exploring the evolution and structure of the universe, the formation of stars and galaxies, the history of the Milky Way, and the science behind dark matter.

Enjoy!

Legal Issues and Intellectual Property Rights in Citizen Science (Dec. 10, 2015 event in Washington, DC)

Surprisingly (to me anyway), two of the speakers are Canadian.

Here’s more about the event from a Nov. 30, 2015 email notice,

Legal Issues and Intellectual Property Rights in Citizen Science

Capitalizing on the momentum from the recent White House event — which appointed citizen science coordinators in Federal agencies, highlighted legislation introduced in Congress concerning funding mechanisms and clarifying legal and administrative issues to using citizen science, and launched a new Federal toolkit on citizen science and crowdsourcing —  the Commons Lab is hosting a panel examining the legal issues affecting federal citizen science and the potential intellectual property rights that could arise from using citizen science.

This panel corresponds with the launch of two new Commons Lab Publications:
•    Managing Intellectual Property Rights in Citizen Science, by Teresa Scassa and Haewon Chung
•    Crowdsourcing, Citizen Science, and the Law: Legal Issues Affecting Federal Agencies, by Robert Gellman

As a project manager or researcher conducting citizen science, either at the federal level or in partnership with governmental agencies, there are certain issues like the Information Quality Act that will impact citizen science and crowdsourcing project design. Being aware of these issues prior to initiating projects will save time and provide avenues for complying with or “lawfully evading” potential barriers. The Commons Lab web-enabled policy tool will also be demonstrated at the event. This tool helps users navigate the complicated laws discussed in Robert Gellman’s report on legal issues affecting citizen science.
Intellectual property rights in the age of open source, open data, open science and also, citizen science, are complicated and require significant forethought before embarking on a citizen science project.  Please join us to hear from two experts on the legal barriers and intellectual property rights issues in citizen science and collect a hard copy of the reports.

Speakers

Teresa Scassa, Canada Research Chair in Information Law and Professor in the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa
Haewon Chung, Doctoral Candidate in Law, University of Ottawa
Robert Gellman, Privacy and Information Policy Consultant in Washington, DC

Moderator

Jay Benforado, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Here are the logistics, from the email,

Thursday, December 10th, 2015
11:00am – 12:30pm

6th Floor Auditorium

Directions

Wilson Center
Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: 202.691.4000

You can register here for the event should you be attending or check this page for the webcast.

Is safety all it’s cracked up to be? (three items about risk)

I have three items for this piece, two about human risk assessment and nanotechnology and one questioning the drive towards safety.

Proposal for a nanotechnology and human risk assessment scheme

A couple of academics, one from the Université de Montréal (Canada) and the other from the Université de Rennes (France) have proposed what they declare is a “well-developed human risk assessment (HRA) that applies to NPs (nanoparticles).” It’s a bold statement to be found in this paper (Note: There are some oddities about this paper’s citation),

Human Risk Assessment and Its Application to
Nanotechnology: A Challenge for Assessors (PDF) by Claude Emond and Luc Multigner.  2015 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 617 012039 http://iopscience.iop.org/1742-6596/617/1/01203

The first oddity is that the second author on the PDF version of the paper, Luc Multigner, is not listed on the paper’s page on the Journal of Physics website. where T N Britos is listed as the second author. Next, there’s the DOI (digital object identifier) which isn’t specified anywhere I can find it. There is something that looks like a DOI in the links to both the paper’s webpage and its PDF: 10.1088/1742-6596/617/1/012039.

Now on to the paper.

The authors are proposing that a methodology designed in 1983 (found in a document known as the Red Book) by the US National Research Council be adapted for use in nanotechnology human risk assessment,

… The approach divided the HRA into four different characterization steps: Source Identification Characterization (SIC), Exposure Assessment Characterization (EAC), Hazard Assessment Characterization (HAC) and Risk Assessment Characterization (RAC) [8, 9] (Figure 1).

Interspecies Variability Factors in Human Health Risk Assessment

This item comes from Lynn Bergeson’s Oct. 2, 2015 posting on Nanotechnology Now,

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) posted a new publication in its Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials, Preliminary Guidance Notes on Nanomaterials: Interspecies Variability Factors in Human Health Risk Assessment. See http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2015)31&doclanguage=en The report includes the following recommendations for further work:

– The Expert Opinion prepared in support of the project noted a general lack of availability of data from repeated-dose toxicity studies in different species. In particular, studies of extended duration such as 90-day subchronic or chronic toxicity studies were only available for a minor part of the analyzed nanomaterials and routes of exposures. …

– Physiologically-based models are receiving increased attention in human health risk assessment. With the available data on lung burden following inhalation exposure to nanomaterials, a useful comparison of measured vs. predicted data has been possible in this project for rats, suggesting that further refinement of the multiple path particle dosimetry (MPPD) model is required before it can be applied to (sub)chronic scenarios. Unfortunately, corresponding information has not been available for humans, preventing comparisons between rats and humans.

This document is no. 58 in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials. All of these documents are freely available.

Why Safety Can Be Dangerous

The third and final item in this post is an announcement for an event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. From an Oct. 14, 2015 email,

Why Safety Can Be Dangerous: A Conversation with Gregory Ip

The Science & Technology Innovation Program is proud to welcome journalist Gregory Ip to discuss his latest book, Foolproof: Why Safety Can Be Dangerous and How Danger Makes Us Safe (Little, Brown). In Foolproof, Ip looks at how we often force new, unexpected risks to develop in unexpected places as we seek to minimize risk from crises like financial downturns and natural disasters.

More information about the Science & Technology Innovation Program’s Public Engagement in an Age of Complexity can be found here: http://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/public-engagement-age-complexity

Tuesday, October 20th, 2015
10:00am – 11:00am

6th Floor Auditorium

Directions

Wilson Center
Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: 202.691.4000

The Foolproof event page provides more information,

In Foolproof, Ip looks at how we often force new, unexpected risks to develop in unexpected places as we seek to minimize risk from crises like financial downturns and natural disasters. This is a phenomena only likely to increase as our financial systems and cities become more complex and interconnected, but Ip concludes that these crises actually benefit society.

Final comments

We’re always engaged in a balancing act between risk and safety. How we resolve that conundrum can have huge and unexpected impacts on our future.

As an example of unintended consequences, I live in a region with many forests and a very successful fire suppression programme. Risk from forest fires has been reduced at the cost of building up  so much debris on the forest floor that forest fires which do occur are more devastating than if theyhad regularly diminished the debris.

Funding trends for US synthetic biology efforts

Less than 1% of total US federal funding for synthetic biology is dedicated to risk research according to a Sept. 16, 2015 Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars news release on EurekAlert,

A new analysis by the Synthetic Biology Project at the Wilson Center finds the Defense Department and its Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) fund much of the U.S. government’s research in synthetic biology, with less than 1 percent of total federal funding going to risk research.

The report, U.S. Trends in Synthetic Biology Research, finds that between 2008 and 2014, the United States invested approximately $820 million dollars in synthetic biology research. In that time period, the Defense Department became a key funder of synthetic biology research. DARPA’s investments, for example, increased from near zero in 2010 to more than $100 million in 2014 – more than three times the amount spent by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The Wilson Center news release can also be found here on the Center’s report publication page where it goes on to provide more detail and where you can download the report,

The report, U.S. Trends in Synthetic Biology Research, finds that between 2008 and 2014, the United States invested approximately $820 million dollars in synthetic biology research. In that time period, the Defense Department became a key funder of synthetic biology research. DARPA’s investments, for example, increased from near zero in 2010 to more than $100 million in 2014 – more than three times the amount spent by the National Science Foundation (NSF).

“The increase in DARPA research spending comes as NSF is winding down its initial investment in the Synthetic Biology Engineering Research Center, or SynBERC,” says Dr. Todd Kuiken, senior program associate with the project. “After the SynBERC funding ends next year, it is unclear if there will be a dedicated synthetic biology research program outside of the Pentagon. There is also little investment addressing potential risks and ethical issues, which can affect public acceptance and market growth as the field advances.”

The new study found that less than one percent of the total U.S. funding is focused on synthetic biology risk research and approximately one percent addresses ethical, legal, and social issues.

Internationally, research funding is increasing. Last year, research investments by the European Commission and research agencies in the United Kingdom exceeded non-defense spending in the United States, the report finds.

The research spending comes at a time of growing interest in synthetic biology, particularly surrounding the potential presented by new gene-editing techniques. Recent research by the industry group SynBioBeta indicated that, so far in 2015, synthetic biology companies raised half a billion dollars – more than the total investments in 2013 and 2014 combined.

In a separate Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars Sept. 16, 2015 announcement about the report, an upcoming event notice was included,

Save the date: On Oct. 7, 2015, the Synthetic Biology Project will be releasing a new report on synthetic biology and federal regulations. More details will be forthcoming, but the report release will include a noon event [EST] at the Wilson Center in Washington, DC.

I haven’t been able to find any more information about this proposed report launch but you may want to check the Synthetic Biology Project website for details as they become available. ETA Oct. 1, 2015: The new report titled: Leveraging Synthetic Biology’s Promise and Managing Potential Risk: Are We Getting It Right? will be launched on Oct. 15, 2015 according to an Oct. 1, 2015 notice,

As more applications based on synthetic biology come to market, are the existing federal regulations adequate to address the risks posed by this emerging technology?

Please join us for the release of our new report, Leveraging Synthetic Biology’s Promise and Managing Potential Risk: Are We Getting It Right? Panelists will discuss how synthetic biology applications would be regulated by the U.S. Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, how this would affect the market pathway of these applications and whether the existing framework will protect human health and the environment.

A light lunch will be served.

Speakers

Lynn Bergeson, report author; Managing Partner, Bergeson & Campbell

David Rejeski, Director, Science and Technology Innovation Program

Thursday,October 15th, 2015
12:00pm – 2:00pm

6th Floor Board Room

Directions

Wilson Center
Ronald Reagan Building and
International Trade Center
One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania, Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: 202.691.4000

RSVP NOW »