Science policy news weekly roundup: September 16, 2016 ?>

Science policy news weekly roundup: September 16, 2016


The ASBMB’s Public Affairs Department encourages all readers of the Policy Blotter to alert the office about interesting and relevant articles. Please send tips to

What’s new in Blotter news?

Before adjourning for its fall recess, Congress must approve a temporary spending bill, also known as a continuing resolution, to prevent a government shutdown.

Continuing resolution: preventing a government shutdown and a coalition of 56 scientific societies, including the ASBMB, submitted questions to the 2016 presidential candidates regarding science, engineering, technology, health and the environment. The candidates’ responses will help voters determine how the candidates value science and innovation as components of their potential presidency.

Clinton and Trump answer questions on science


With the 2016 presidential election less than two months away, insight on how each candidate views the scientific enterprise is becoming clear.  Contrasts between the two major party candidates could not be more evident, including many calling out Republican nominee Donald Trump for dodging questions concerning climate change and vaccination. Despite glaring differences on how Trump and Democratic nominee Hilary Clinton value science as part of their campaigns, the candidates have found some common ground of a few health policy issues.

What do the presidential candidates know about science? (Scientific American)

Media call out Trump for dodging key science questions (Media Matters)

Clinton and Trump: common grounds on health policy (Forbes)


The biomedical research funding crisis has led many researchers to stall or abandon projects due to lack of funding. However, a study published in the journal Nature has found that more than $350 million a year is wasted in research labs due to poor-quality materials causing false results.

A scientific crisis that starts in the market, not the lab (Scientific American)


Leaders in the public health field agree on the need for a federal public health emergency fund, which would reduce budget shortfalls, like the one officials are facing amid the Zika crisis, for future health pandemics. While an increase to the overall federal budget for biomedical research would benefit the scientific community as a whole, an emergency fund is necessary to combat unforeseen public health scares.

Public health leaders push for emergency fund (MedPage Today)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.