Science Policy Weekly Roundup: March 16, 2018 ?>

Science Policy Weekly Roundup: March 16, 2018

Share the importance of your research in an op-ed

Join the ASBMB in advocating for the importance of research funding from March 19 to April 11 by writing an op-ed for your local paper. Op-eds help your legislators understand the importance of research and how it affects their constituents. Watch our webinar on how to write an op-ed, and then sign up here to make your voice heard.

Lawmakers disagree on details of budget as government shutdown looms, again

Congressional Democrats and Republicans disagree on whether to fund several programs in the federal budget as they iron out details on a two-year agreement that would add an additional $143 billion to the federal budget. The disputes are over funding Planned Parenthood, a U.S.-Mexico border wall, and a tunnel between New Jersey and New York that President Donald Trump seeks to block. Congress has until March 23 to pass a budget before another government shutdown. Read more here.

Columbia University won’t say exactly why neuroscientist was sacked

After revealing that neuroscientist Thomas Jessell would be let go and his lab shut down, Columbia University said in a short statement that a university investigation had “revealed serious violations of (u)niversity policies … governing the behavior of faculty members.” A statement by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, meanwhile, noted that the dismissal was “unrelated to review of his science.” Both institutions have come under fire for refusing to disclose the nature of Jessell’s offenses, which many scientists have speculated were sexual in nature. In the wake of the #metoo movement, universities and science institutions are still developing policies and guidelines for dealing with and investigating sexual misconduct and harassment allegations. Read more here.

Male LGBQ undergrads less likely to stay in STEM than straight peers

A recent study showed that undergraduate males identifying as LBGQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer) wareere less likely to stay in science, technology, engineering and math fields than their heterosexual counterparts. While the study didn’t provide reasons for the lower retention rate for LBGQ males, the authors suggested that a hostile work environment may be one factor. Read more here.

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Your email address will not be published.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.