Here is the latest Federation newsletter, which was emailed to me
yesterday. I'm hoping to get a smaller, more html-based newsletter to
forward in future; this was one of the suggestions I made at the recent
annual meeting of the Federation.
There are signs that the Federation is becoming more international, which
is a positive move from the BGA perspective. However, the details of how
to help scientists in other countries to lobby for more government support
of behavioral science will take a bit of working out! If you have any
suggestions please feel free to contact me or the Federation directly.
Season's Greetings!
Mike Neale
********************************************************************
The Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive Sciences
Our Web Address is ~ http://www.am.org/federation/
IN THIS ISSUE: November 1998
1. House Approves Its Draft of New National Science Policy
In the closing days of the 105th Congress, the longawaited draft of a new
proposed national science policy was released by the House Science
Committee. Shortly thereafter, the House passed a resolution saying
that this document will be used by the House in the future to guide its
decisions with respect to Science. Rep. Ehlers has said he did not seek to
sharply define a science policy that would last far into the next century.
Instead, he describes his report as a work in progress.
2. NIH Seeking Members for New Council of Public Representatives
The National Institut es of Health is accepting nominations for the proposed
Director' s Council of Public Representatives (COPR), which will serve as a
forum for discussing issues and concerns and exchanging viewpoints that are
importa nt to NIH policies, programs, and research priorities. It is hoped
that COPR will bring to the NIH the concerns and interests of the many
external publics that have a stake in the agency's activities, programs,
policies and research. The Federation is encouraging behavioral and social
scientists to apply for a seat on this new advisory council.
3. Briefly Speaking
The Foundation for Child Development is sponsoring a mass media summer
fellowship for graduate students in behavioral and social sciences.
House Approves Its Draft of New National Science Policy
In the closing days of the 105th Congress, the longawaited draft of a
new proposed national
science policy was released by the House Science Committee. Shortly
thereafter, the House passed a resolution saying that this document will be
used by the House in the future to guide its decisions with respect to
science. The House's sole physicist (until the November election when a
second
was elected), Rep. Vern Ehlers (RMI), was appointed at the beginning of the
congressional session to head a task force whose mission was to revamp
national science policy. Hearings were held over the course of the past
year, and the product of task force efforts was made public by Ehlers and
Newt Gingrich in late September.
Recent History of Thinking on National Science Policy
It is accepted dogma that Vannevar Bush set our national science policy
near the end of World War II through the famous report to President
Roosevelt entitled Science: The Endless Frontier. National defense and
improvement of health were the justifications offered by Bush for federal
support of scientific research. The Cold War verified the wisdom of
supporting science to protect the country. But when the Cold War ended, it
seemed that a science policy based on defense might be outdated.
Consideration of how (and whether) to justify further federal support of
science began almost immediately in both the scientific community and the
government. In fact in the mid 1980s, somewhat before the end of the Cold
War, Don Fuqua (DFL), thenChair of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, appointed George Brown (DCA) to head a
task force much like that of Ehlers. When Brown became chair of the science
committee some years later, he was able to experiment with some of the
policy ideas produced by his task force.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (DMD) shares some of Brown's ideas about
scientific accountability, the need to forge links between federal support
of science and the advancement of commerce, public participation in the
grant process, and the need to redefine the purposes of national
laboratories. When she became chair of the Senate counterpart to the House
science committee, the two worked harmoniously to change practices at the
agencies under their jurisdictionthe National Science Foundation, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, and some of the research programs at the
Department of Energyin spite of administrators' reluctance. But once the
Republicans won control of the House and Senate, the BrownMikulski path of
change in national science policy came to an abrupt end.
Soon after President Clinton and Vice President Gore were elected they
convened a group of more than 100 scientists at the National Academy of
Sciences to help them create a new national science policy. Perhaps not too
surprisingly, the product of that effort was well received in the scientific
community. Similar to the Brown task force, the ClintonGore policy tied
federal support of science to human advancement. Their policy document was
followed up with a series of meetings with scientists to give guidance on
development of aspects of the new policy. For example, one meeting
concerned ways to link activities in related areas including improving
nutrition and health globally, sustaining the environment, diplomacy, and
national defense. This set of linkages indicates the interconnectedness
Clinton and Gore see between national science policy and a broad range of
other national endeavors.
Simultaneous to Clinton and Gore efforts to develop U.S. science
policy, the Carnegie Corporation also produced a report on the same subject.
Though not as sweeping in its scope as the ClintonGore policy, the two
approaches both call for continued federal support of science on the power
of that support to improve the human condition.
The Ehlers Report
The Ehlers report is the latest contribution to the shaping of
postColdWar national science policy. To justify future federal support of
science, Ehlers relies on the founding principles of the country embodied in
the Declaration of Independence: The responsibility of the federal
government to support its citizens' unalienable right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness.
Clearly, there is considerable competition to determine national
science policy. While the attempts to articulate a new policy differ in
pedigree and scope, they differ little in general direction.
They all link continued federal support for science more heavily to
improving the world than to building an invincible national defense. The
differences among them, and particularly the differences between the
ClintonGore and the Ehlers approaches, will be operational. It will be
fascinating during the next two years to see if the two formulations mesh or
clash as legislation
embodying details of each approach is considered by Congress.
The ClintonGore policy links improvement in educational quality and
access with both strengthening and utilizing science. On the other hand,
the Republican approach has been to diminish the federal role in educational
improvement in favor of state, local, and parental determination of
education content and standards. Congress resisted most of the President's
proposals for educational improvement during the 105th Congress. Will that
stance change in light of the Ehlers report? Stay tuned. The full text of
the Ehlers report is available on line at
<http://www.house.gov/science/science_policy_report.htm>. Below is a
summary of report recommendations. The section of each paragraph not in
boldface is a short rationale, and the section in boldface is the
recommended policy. Italics are used to indicate this writer's commentary
on the recommendations.
Summary of Recommendations from the Ehlers Report
New ideas form the foundation of the research enterprise. It is in the
Nation's interest for scientists to continue pursuing fundamental,
groundbreaking research. U.S. experience with 50 years of government
support of basic research has demonstrated the economic benefits of this
investment.
1. To maintain our Nation's economic strength and international
competitiveness, Congress should make stable and substantial federal funding
for fundamental scientific research a high priority.
Despite projections of continued budget surpluses, the federal government's
resources are limited. So setting spending priorities for science and
engineering is essential.
2. Because the federal government has an irreplaceable role in funding basic
research, priority for federal fundingshould be placed on fundamental
research. An item of contention between Republicans and the White House has
been whether the government should involve itself in midstage development
of technology. Republicans have tried repeatedly to abolish the Advanced
Technology Program, a businessgovernment R&D partnership administered by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology. This recommendation
underscores the view that government should not support midstage technical
development, a stage Mr. Ehlers has called "the Valley of Death."
The government primarily stimulates knowledgedriven basic research through
research grants to individual scientists and engineers. Direct funding of
the individual researcher must continue to be a major component of the
federal government's research investment.
3. The federal government should continue to administer research grants that
include funds for indirect costs and use a peerreviewed selection process,
to [determine awards to] individual investigators. However, if limited
funding and intense competition for grants causes researchers to seek
funding only for "safe" research, the R&D enterprise as a whole will suffer.
4. Because innovation and creativity are essential to basic research, the
federal government should consider allocating a certain fraction of these
grant monies specifically for creative, ground breaking research.
The practice of science is becoming increasingly interdisciplinary, and
scientific progress in one discipline is often propelled by advances in
other, seemingly unrelated fields.
5. It is important that the federal government fund basic research in a
broad spectrum of scientific disciplines, mathematics, and engineering, and
resist concentrating funds in a particular area.
Much of the research funded by the federal government is related to the
mission of the agency or department that sponsors it. Although this
research is typically basic in nature, it is nevertheless performed with
overriding agency goals in mind.
6. In general, research and development in federal agencies and national
laboratories should be highly relevant to, and tightly focused on
agency or department missions. This is a possible point of contention
between the White House and Congress. Since the Reagan Administration,
there has been a movement to create supercategories of research investment
and to link resources of several science agencies to fulfill the goals of
the initiative. The Global Change Initiative and the Next Generation
Internet are examples. The Clinton Administration has referred to the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy as a "virtual agency,"
coordinating and integrating activities of the federal science agencies
through its interagency network the National Science and Technology Council.
We have the obligation to ensure that the money spent on basic research is
invested well and that those who spend the taxpayers' money are accountable,
which the Government Performance and Results Act was designed to do.
7. Government agencies or laboratories pursuing missionoriented research
should employ the Results Act as a tool for setting priorities and getting
the
most out of their research programs. In implementing the Results Act,
grantawarding agencies should define success in the aggregate, perhaps by
using a research portfolio concept.
This recommendation may be a signal to the science agencies that at least
the House Science Committee recognizes that the value of individual
scientific results is difficult to assess in the short term. And that the
Results Act should not constrain support for science by forcing the agencies
to
pick scientific "winners" in advance to justify continued support by
Congress. The National Science Foundation has chosen the qualitative route
toward measuring its results and will deliver its first annual progress
report to Congress in 2000 along with its 2001 budget request. That report
will be a test case for whether defining "success in the aggregate" will be
acceptable to
Congress.
Partnerships in the research enterprise can be a valuable means of getting
the most out of the federal government's investment. Cooperative Research
and Development Agreements (CRADAs) are an effective form of partnership
that leverages federal research funding and allows rapid commercialization
of federal research. 8. When the research effort involved in a CRADA
fulfills
a legitimate mission requirement or research need of the federal agency or
national lab, these partnerships should be encouraged and facilitated.
Partnerships between university researchers and industries also have become
more prevalent as a way for universities to leverage federal money and
industries to capture research results without building up inhouse
expertise.
9. Universityindustry partnerships should be encouraged so long as the
independence of the institutions and their different missions are respected.
This recommendation is deceptively simple. Many thorny questions about both
CRADAs as funding mechanisms and the extent to which universityindustry R&D
relationships limit the ability of universities to educate and scientists to
communicate remain unresolved.
International scientific collaborations form another important aspect of the
research enterprise.
While most international collaborations occur between individuals or
laboratories, the U.S. participates in a number of largescale
collaborations where the costs of large scale science projects can be shared
among the participants. 10. In general, U.S. participation in international
science
projects should be in the national interest. The U.S. should enter into
international projects when it reduces the cost of science projects we would
likely pursue unilaterally or would not pursue otherwise. Our experience
with international collaborations has not been uniformly successful, as our
participation in Mir and the International Space Station demonstrate.
11. Therefore, a clear set of criteria for U.S. entry into, participation
in, and
exit from an international scientific project should be developed. This
recommendation is easier to state than to fulfill. Collaborations with
Russia have been plagued by Russia's economic meltdown and represent
something of a special case. On the other hand, many other potential
international
collaborators shy away from research partnerships with the U.S. because
agreements made by the executive branch must be supported and sustained by
Congress, a requirement that is often not met and causes a lack of
confidence in the U.S. by the rest of the world. This problem is
addressed in the next recommendation.
Largescale international projects often take place over many years,
requiring stable funding for long periods. The annual appropriations cycle
in Congress can lead to instability in the funding stream for these
projects, affecting our ability to participate.
12. The importance of stability of funding for largescale, welldefined
international science projects should be stressed in the budget resolution
and appropriations process.
It is also important that international science projects not appear to be
simply foreign aid in the guise of research.
13. When the U.S. is a major contributor of funds to projects with
international participation, funding priority must be placed on the
U.S.based components. Stringent adherence to this recommendation could
cause problems for international collaboration on a number of issues that
are inherently global such as, understanding weather, climate, oceanic
change, environmental protection, maintaining biodiversity, economic
stability, and achieving standards for global electronic communications.
America's preeminent position in the world suggests new roles for U.S.
science policy in the international arena. To take advantage of these
opportunities, the State Department must broaden its scientific staff
expertise to help formulate scientific agreements that are in America's
interest.
The evidence suggests that the State Department is not fulfilling this role.
14. Mechanisms that promote coordination between various executive branch
departments for international scientific projects must be developed. The
State Department should strengthen its contingent of science advisors within
its Bureau of Oceans and International, Environmental, and
Scientific Affairs and draw on expertise in other agencies.
State Department use of science as a tool of diplomacy has been declining
over a number of years.
There are fewer science attaches at U.S. embassies. Many of those still
employed in these positions perform duties not related to science. By
default, the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and NASA have been handling much of our sciencerelated
diplomacy. What has been lacking is inhouse scientific expertise at the
State Department.
This recommendation is an attempt to rectify the situation.
A private sector capable of translating discoveries into products, advances
and other developments must be an active participant in the overall science
enterprise. However, there is concern that companies are focusing their
research efforts on technologies that are closest to market instead of on
midlevel research requiring a more substantial investment.
15. Capitalization of new technology based companies, especially those that
are focused on longterm, basic research, should be encouraged. In
addition, the R&D tax credit should be extended permanently, and needlessly
onerous regulations that inhibit corporate research should be eliminated.
This recommendation separates the Republican from the Democratic point of
view about how best to encourage midlevel research. The Republican
approach has been to give industry incentives to engage in such research,
while Democrats have supported both these incentives and more direct
government involvement on the contention that industry is unlikely to engage
in highriskpotentiallyhighfuturepayoff research without
governmentindustry partnerships.
Partnerships to develop technology are important. Wellstructured
universityindustry partnerships can create symbiotic relationships
rewarding to both parties.
16. These interactions and collaborations, which may or may not involve
formal partnerships, are a critical element in the technology transfer
process and should be encouraged. One premise behind the Ehlers report
is that national science policy should go beyond government. Some
recommendations in the report are aimed at nonfederal sectors of society
with a stake in science.
Partnerships that tie state governments, industries, and academia efforts
also show great promise in stimulating research and economic development.
States appear far better suited than the federal government to foster
economic development through technologybased industry.
17. As the principal beneficiaries, the states should be encouraged to play
a greater role in promoting the development of hightech industries, both
through their support of colleges and research universities and through
interactions between these institutions and the private sector. While
federal support for research has never been equitably distributed
geographically, it is also the case that a few states are far more capable
of creating and sustaining universitybased industryuniversity research
partnerships than are most other states. Also, a substantial share of
federal
research support has gone to private universities in part on the assumption
that state institutions draw on state taxes for support, an option not open
to private institutions. Implementing this recommendation could alter the
relationship of public to private institutions and the relative
wealth of states.
The university community, too, has a role in improving research capabilities
throughout its ranks.
18. Major research universities should cultivate working relationships with
less wellestablished research universities and technical colleges in
research areas where there is mutual interest and expertise and consider
submitting, where appropriate, joint grant proposals.
Less researchintensive colleges and universities should consider developing
scientific or technological expertise in niche areas that complement local
expertise and contribute to local economic development strategies.
To exploit the advances made in government laboratories and universities,
companies must keep abreast of these developments. The RAND Corporation's
RaDiUS database and the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database serve
useful purposes in disseminating information.
19. Consider expanding RaDiUS and PubMed databases to make them both
comprehensive and as widely available as possible. A struggle is underway
among paperbased publishers, electronic publishers, libraries, and database
developers to determine how to balance electronic access to information with
the need for the gatherers and managers of that information to make
sufficient profit to sustain their activities. Expanding access to
information is a desirable goal, but substantial obstacles lie in the path
of accomplishing it.
Intellectual property protections are critical to stimulating the private
sector to develop scientific and engineering discoveries for the market.
The BayhDole Act of 1980, which granted the licensing rights of new
technologies to the researchers who discover them, has served both the
university and commercial sectors reasonably well.
20. A review of intellectual property issues may be necessary to assure
that an acceptable balance is struck between stimulating the development of
scientific research into marketable technologies and maintaining effective
dissemination of results.
While the federal government may, in certain circumstances, fund applied
research, there is a risk that using federal funds to bridge the midlevel
research gap could lead to unwarranted market interventions and less funding
for basic research. It is important for companies to realize the
contribution investments in midlevel research can make to their
competitiveness.
21. The private sector must recognize and take responsibility for the
performance of research. The federal government may consider supplementary
funding for privatesector research projects when
the research is in the national interest. Congress should develop clear
criteria, including peer review, to be used in determining which projects
warrant federal funding. What constitutes research in the national interest
is partly in the eye of the beholder. Industrial representatives point out
that while federal investment in research has been static for several years,
the share of industrybased research has been increasing.
Science and engineering also provide the basis for making decisions as a
society, as corporations and as individuals. Science can inform policy
issues, but it cannot decide them. In many cases science simply does not
have the answer, or provides answers with varying degrees of uncertainty.
If science is to inform policy, we must commit sufficient resources to get
the answers regulators need to make good decisions.
22. At the earliest possible stages of the regulatory process, Congress
and the executive branch must work together to identify future issues that
will require scientific analysis. Sufficient funding to carry out these
research agendas must be provided and should not be overly concentrated in
regulatory agencies.
For science to play any real role in legal and policy decisions, the
scientists performing the research need to be seen as honest brokers. One
simple but important step in facilitating an atmosphere of trust between the
scientific and the legal and regulatory communities is for scientists and
engineers
to engage in open disclosure regarding their professional background,
affiliations and their means of support.
23. Scientists and engineers should be required to divulge their
credentials, provide a resume, and indicate their funding sources and
affiliations when formally offering expert advice to decisionmakers.
The scientific opinions these experts offer also should stand up to
challenges from the scientific community.
24. To ensure that decisionmakers are getting sound analysis, all federal
government agencies pursuing scientific research, particularly regulatory
agencies, should develop and use standardized peer review procedures. The
House has required such information of scientists testifying before its
committees and subcommittees since Republicans took power. This kind of
disclosure is not required of others who testify. Regarding peer review, it
is
the case that each science agency has its own flavor of peer reviewoften
mated to its needs through trial and error. Whether standardizing peer
review across agencies is a beneficial thing to do is debatable.
Peer review constitutes the beginning, not the end, of the scientific
process, as disagreement over peerreviewed conclusions and data stimulate
debates that are an integral part of the process of science. Eventually,
scientists generate enough new data to bring light to previously uncertain
findings.
25. Decisionmakers must recognize that uncertainty is a fundamental aspect
of the scientific process. Regulatory decisions made in the context of
rapidly changing areas of inquiry should be reevaluated at appropriate
times.
Aside from being based on a sound scientific foundation, regulatory
decisions also must make sense. The importance of risk assessment has too
often been overlooked in making policy. We must accept that we cannot
reduce every risk in our lives to zero and must learn to deploy limited
resources to the greatest effect.
26. Comprehensive risk analysis should be standard practice in regulatory
agencies. A greater effort should be made to communicate various risks to
the public in understandable terms, perhaps by using comparisons that place
risks in the context of other, more recognizable ones. While risk analysis
is a worthwhile activity, it is worth noting that risk analysis itself is an
evolving field. A risk analysis can be helpful in formulating regulations,
but it should not be the only, or even the dominant, piece of information
considered.
Valuation of public goods is an especially tricky area of risk analysis.
The judicial branch of government increasingly requires access to sound
scientific advice. Scientific discourse in a trial is usually highly
contentious, but federal judges have recently been given the authority to
act as gatekeepers to exclude unreliable science from the courtroom. More
and more judges will seek out qualified scientists to assist them in
addressing complex scientific questions.
How these experts are selected promises to be an important step in the
judicial process.
27. Efforts designed to identify highly qualified, impartial experts to
provide advice to the courts for scientific and technical decisions must be
encouraged.
Science policy and funding issues are scattered across a broad range of
Congressional committees and subcommittees. Similarly, in the executive
branch, science is spread out over numerous agencies and departments. These
diffusive arrangements make effective oversight and timely
decision making extremely difficult.
28. Wherever possible, Congressional committees considering scientific
issues should hold joint hearings and perhaps even write joint authorization
bills. It has been estimated that at least half of federal legislation
involves science in some degree. Joint hearings and joint authorizations
are occasionally held, but most committee chairs are cautious about this
level of cooperation not wanting to open the door to jurisdictional
disputes. In fact about two decades ago, two Senate committees claimed
jurisdiction over the
National Science Foundation, and in part because of that longstanding
dispute, NSF has operated without official authorization for many of the
past 20 years.
No factor is more important in maintaining a sound R&D enterprise than
education. Yet, student performance on the recent Third International Math
and Science Study highlights the shortcomings of current K12 science and
math education in the U.S. We must expect more from our Nation's
educators and students if we are to build on the accomplishments of previous
generations. New modes of teaching math and science are required.
29. Curricula for all elementary and secondary years that are rigorous in
content, emphasize the mastery of fundamental scientific and mathematical
concepts as well as the modes of scientific inquiry, and encourage the
natural
curiosity of children must be developed.
Perhaps as important, it is necessary that a sufficient quantity of teachers
wellversed in math and science be available.
30. Programs that encourage recruitment of qualified math and science
teachers, such as flexible credential programs, must be encouraged. In
general, future math and science teachers should be expected to have had at
least one college course in the type of science or math they teach, and
preferably, a minor. Ongoing professional development for existing teachers
also is important.
Another disincentive to entry into the teaching profession for those with a
technical degree is the relatively low salaries K12 teaching jobs offer
compared to alternative opportunities.
31. To attract qualified science and math teachers, salaries that make the
profession competitive may need to be offered. School districts should
consider merit pay or other incentives as a way to reward and retain good
K12 science and math teachers.
The revolution in information technology has brought with it exciting
opportunities for innovative advances in education and learning. As
promising as these new technologies are, however, their haphazard
application has the potential to adversely affect learning.
32. A greater fraction of the federal government's spending on education
should be spent on research programs to improve curricula and to increase
the effectiveness of science and math teaching.
Graduate education in the sciences and engineering must strike a careful
balance between continuing to produce the world's premier scientists and
engineers and offering enough flexibility so that students with other
ambitions are not discouraged from embarking on further education in math,
science, or engineering.
33. While continuing to train scientists and engineers of unsurpassed
quality, higher education should also prepare students who plan to seek
careers outside of academia by increasing flexibility in graduate training
programs. Ph.D. programs should allow students to pursue course work and
gain relevant experience outside their specific area of research.
The training of U.S. scientists and engineers occurs primarily through an
apprenticeship model in which a student learns how to perform research
through handson experience under the guidance of the student's thesis
advisor. A result of this link between education and research is that
students and postdoctoral researchers are responsible for actually
performing much of the federallyfunded research done in universities.
34. Mechanisms for direct federal funding of postdocs are already
relatively common. Expansion of these programs to include greater numbers
of graduate students in math, science and engineering should be explored.
Increased support for Masters programs would allow students to pursue an
interest in science without making the long commitment to obtaining a Ph.D.,
and thus attract greater numbers of students to careers in science and
technology.
35. More university science programs should institute speciallydesigned
Masters of Science degree programs as an option for graduate study that does
not require a commitment to the Ph.D.
The length of time involved and the commensurate forfeiture of income and
benefits in graduate training in the sciences and engineering is a clear
disincentive to students deciding between graduate training in the sciences
and other options.
36. Universities should be encouraged to put controls on the length of time
spent on graduate school and postdoctoral study, and to recognize that
they cannot attract talented young people without providing adequate
compensation and benefits. The length of graduate training has been
increasing. Many explanations are offered for the phenomenon. One
explanation is that students delay their own completion because it is
increasingly difficult to find work in some science professions. Many who
complete their Ph.D. find themselves in postdoc positions for years. This
recommendation gets at a part of a multidimensional supply and demand
problem.
Educating the general public about the benefits and grandeur of science is
also needed to promote an informed citizenry and maintain support for
science. Both journalists and scientists have responsibilities in
communicating the achievements of science. However, the evidence suggests
that the gap between scientists and journalists is wide and may be getting
wider. Closing it will require that scientists and journalists gain a
greater appreciation for how the other operates.
37. Universities should consider offering scientists, as part of their
graduate training, the opportunity to take at least one course in journalism
or communication. Journalism schools should also encourage journalists to
take at least one course in scientific writing.
As important as bridging the gap between scientists and the media is, there
is no substitute for scientists speaking directly to people about their
work. In part because science must compete for discretionary funding with
disparate interests, engaging the public's interest in science through
direct
interaction is crucial. All too often scientists or engineers who decide to
spend time talking to the media or the public pay a high price
professionally, as such activities take precious time away from their work,
and may imperil their ability to compete for grants or tenure.
38. Scientists and engineers should be encouraged to take time away from
their research to educate the public about the nature and importance of
their work. Those who do so, including tenuretrack university researchers,
should not be penalized by their employers or peers.
The results of research sponsored by the Federal government should be more
readily available to the general public, both to inform them and to
demonstrate that they are getting value for the money the
government spends on research.
39. Government agencies have a responsibility to make the
results of federallyfunded research widely available. Plain English
summaries of research describing its results and implications should be
prepared and widely distributed, including posting on the Internet. Rep.
Ehlers has said that he did not seek to sharply define a science
policy that would last far into the next century. Instead, he describes his
report as a work in progress. Public comment was invited throughout the
process that led to the final report. In theory at least, comments are now
invited on this report. The impetus for this was provided by
Newt Gingrich. It is not clear at this point what impact his departure as
Speaker of the House and as a member of Congress will have on the
opportunities to help this work progress.
NIH Seeking Members for New Council of Public Representatives
The National Institutes of Health is accepting nominations for the
proposed Director's Council of Public Representatives (COPR), which will
serve as a forum for discussing issues and concerns and exchanging
viewpoints that are important to NIH policies, programs, and research
priorities. It is hoped that COPR will help bring to the NIH the concerns
and interests of the many external publics that have a stake in the agency'
s activities, programs, policies, and research. In addition to serving as a
forum, the COPR will assist the NIH in enhancing the participation of the
public in myriad NIH activities that have an impact upon the public, in
increasing public understanding of the NIH and its programs, and in bringing
important matters of interest forward for discussion in public settings.
Twenty individuals with an interest in NIH's mission will be selected
to serve on this new national advisory committee. COPR is expected to meet
approximately twice a year to interact directly with NIH leaders on a wide
range of programs and issues. In addition to these two meetings
annually, the COPR may suggest other activities, subject to approval by the
Chair of the COPR, the Director of the NIH. Members of the first COPR will
serve, one, two, or threeyear terms. In subsequent years, members will
serve threeyear terms. To serve on the COPR, an individual must
have some interest in the work of NIH and meet one of the following minimum
eligibility requirements:
a patient or family member of a patient;
a health care professional;
a member of a patient advocacy group;
an individual who works as a volunteer in the health field;
a scientist or a student of science;
a communicator in health, medicine, or science;
an individual in public service, academia, or in a professional society
touching the medical field.
These examples are not meant to limit nominations to those listedany
member of the public with special interests in the NIH may be nominated or
may nominate themselves. Nominations are being accepted now until January
15, 1999. For complete nomination and application procedures
visit NIH's website at: http://www.nih.gov:/welcome/publicliaison/toc.htm
Nomination packages should be mailed to: Palladian Partners, Inc., Call for
Nominations (COPR), 7315 Wisconsin Ave., Suite 440W, Bethesda, MD 20814.
For more information, call Anne Thomas or Laura Vazquez, at
the NIH Office of Communications (301) 4964461.
Briefly Speaking
The Foundation for Child Development is sponsoring a graduate student
fellowship for a behavioral scientist in child development through the AAAS
Mass Media and Scientists Program. The Mass Media and Scientists Program is
an opportunity for graduate students in the natural and social
sciences and engineering to spend 10 weeks during the summer working as a
reporter, researcher, or production assistant with media organizations
nationwide. A modest stipend is included to help cover living expenses for
the duration of the fellowship.
The application form is available at:
http://ehrweb.aaas.org/ehr/3_4_0.html. The deadline is January 15, 1999.
For more information, contact Amie King at AAAS, (202) 3266760 or by
Email: AKING@aaas.org
Federation of Behavioral, Psychological
and Cognitive Sciences
750 First Street, N.E.
Washington, D.C. 200024242
TEL (202) 3365920
FAX (202) 3365953
federation@apa.org
http://www.am.org/federation
November '98