Science policy weekly news update: October 27, 2017 ?>

Science policy weekly news update: October 27, 2017


Standardizing postdoc titles

Eight scientists and science policy experts with ties to the ASBMB published an opinion article in the journal eLife this week making the case that what we call postdoctoral researchers really does matter. Read the ASBMB announcement and the eLife article.


What is next for the March for Science?

It has been six months since the March for Science, a global event uniting hundreds of thousands of scientists from around the world to highlight the importance of research. Sarah Kaplan of the Washington Post explores the continuing efforts of the march organizers to build a sustainable movement. Ed Yong of The Atlantic discusses the controversies that still remain within the organization, including issues with diversity and leadership transparency.


Increasing diversity in the biomedical workforce

The National Research Mentoring Network, a $250 million diversity initiative from the National Institutes of Health designed to increase representation of minorities in biomedical research, turned 3 years old this month. Jeffrey Mervis of Science Magazine discusses the successes and continuing struggles of the program, which mainly utilizes a mentorship network to foster diversity.


NIH struggles to recruit diverse participants for new initiative

Rob Stein of National Public Radio writes about the NIH’s recently launched initiative called All of Us, a long-term research effort that is part of the Precision Medicine Initiative. The project is engaging a million participants to better understand individual needs, environments and genetic makeup to treat and prevent diseases. Given that some members of the black community remain skeptical of biomedical research in response to past abuses by medical professionals and scientists, program officials are working with black churches and community groups to allay fears and increase recruitment of African-Americans.


Congress holds hearing on facilities and administrative costs

Jeffrey Mervis of Science Magazine reports on a hearing on facilities and administrative costs, also known as indirect costs, of grants funded by the NIH.  U.S. Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., held the hearing to prevent the placement of a cap on F&A, which would be detrimental to the research enterprise. Cole said he hopes that the White House’s budget proposal for 2019 will not include a cap on F&A costs.


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.