The roundup is formatted with the title of the story, followed by the news source in parentheses and a brief summary. If you find a particularly interesting article, please send it to firstname.lastname@example.org for inclusion in next week’s roundup.
Congress and the election
U.S. Senate science panels will have new leadership (Science Insider) When the 114th Congress takes office in January, Senate committees will have new Republican leadership. Science Insider predicts who these leaders are likely to be.
America voted—now what? (ASBMB Policy Blotter) The lame duck session, which commences next week, will need to address fiscal 2015 funding, and votes on several science bills are possible.
Research in the national interest (The Hill blog) U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, responds to an opinion piece he says misrepresents his views on social science funding by the National Science Foundation. Smith continues to confront the NSF on matters of merit review.
After the 2014 election (ScienceNOW) This series focuses on science issues legislators will face during the 114th Congress. This week includes article on the 21st Century Cures Initiative, research regulation and the R&D tax credit.
Science policy fellowships: creating your application packet (ASBMB Policy Blotter) The series on science policy fellowships continues with recommendations for creating a competitive application packet.
New research finds that lobbying influences research funding (Market Watch) Recent research shows targeted lobbying from disease special interest groups can affect funding for the National Institutes of Health.
Journals, the NIH and reproducibility of research (ASBMB Policy Blotter) The NIH reaches an agreement with many scientific journals that establishes new rules for publishing research to improve reproducibility.
White House seeks $6 billion in Ebola aid (Politico) President Obama requests $4.6 billion for immediate needs and $1.5 billion as a contingency fund to combat the ongoing Ebola outbreak in Africa.
Star Trek medicine (The Scientist, opinion) Long-term, high risk science has the potential to revolutionize medicine. However, the current funding environment favors safer projects with lower risks.