Science policy news weekly roundup: November 11, 2016 ?>

Science policy news weekly roundup: November 11, 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 astothert@asbmb.org.

What’s new in Blotter news?

The ASBMB’s Director of Public Affairs, Ben Corb, gives a quick analysis of the 2016 election results.

Election 2016 – A quick analysis

 

The 45th President of the United States will be businessman Donald Trump. In what is being considered by many a shocking victory, Trump defeated former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton by claiming an Electoral College majority despite losing the popular vote.  This win has many in the scientific community not only scratching their heads but concerned about what it will mean for the state of scientific research in America. Where does Trump stand on biomedical research? Who will Trump chose to lead federal science and health agencies? In the coming months, we’ll have clear-cut answers. But we already have some clues.

Donald Trump’s U.S. election win stuns scientists (Nature)

What does Trump’s win mean for science and medicine (STAT)

Scientists’ top concerns in Trump’s America (Motherboard)

How President Trump will change science policy, starting with climate issues (GeekWire)

The U.S. election is over. Who will hold key science leadership jobs? (ScienceNOW)

 

Besides choosing our next president, voters across America made crucial decisions on state-ballot items related to science and research. These items included carbon tax, biomedical research funding, wildlife protection, solar energy and legalization of recreational or medicinal marijuana.

How states voted on science-related initiatives (Science)

 

In 2015, the National Institutes of Health adopted the use of an algorithm, called the Relative Citation Ratio, to score the influence of scientific research articles, allowing the agency to more fairly compare articles from different fields of study. The RCR quickly became an invaluable grant-management tool, allowing NIH officials to determine which types of grants offered the greatest return on investment. With the RCR’s success, other funding agencies around the world have adopted similar metrics as a way to better evaluate their own funding initiatives.

The quiet rise of the NIH’s hot new metric (Nature)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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