- News Home
6 March 2014 1:04 pm ,
Vol. 343 ,
- 6 March 2014 1:04 pm , Vol. 343 , #6175
- About Us
- Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 6:55pm
President-elect Barack Obama continued last week's theme of energy independence—think Steve Chu. Today's announcement of his choices to lead the departments of the Interior and Agriculture focus instead on resources in the ground—oil, gas, and corn-based ethanol. Headed to Interior, Senator Ken Salazar (D–CO) has worked to promote fossil-fuel exploration, though he's respected by mainstream environmental groups for trying to balance that with environmental safeguards. Like Obama, both Salazar and Tom Vilsack, who will head USDA, are proponents of biofuels. But The New York Times's editorialists put science at the top of the agenda for Interior today, highlighting controversial decisions on endangered species during the Bush Administration:
Mr. Salazar’s most urgent task will be to remove the influence of politics and ideology from decisions that are best left to science.Continue Reading
- Wednesday, December 17, 2008 - 10:42am
Health care provider Kaiser Permanente has finally landed the money it needed to fulfill plans for a massive DNA biobank. It has just announced receiving an $8.6 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation that should allow the company to put together 500,000 DNA samples, along with health and environmental information about their donors. The intent is to ferret out the causes of and develop personalized treatments for common conditions such as cancer, diabetes, and heart disease.
The expanded biobank will be among the largest and will join several in Europe and one in Canada. It beats to the punch the National Children's Study, which has undergone delay after delay in enrolling 100,000 U.S. children.
The biobank will be run by Catherine Schaefer, director of Kaiser Permanente's Research Program on Genes, Environment and Health, and Neil Risch, a professor of human genetics at the University of California, San Francisco. The repository already contains 200,000 DNA samples and hopes to meet the 500,000 mark by 2012 now that funding is in place.Continue Reading
- Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 5:33pm
The science education community is adding its voice to the chorus of praise accompanying President-elect Barack Obama's selection of Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education. As CEO of Chicago Public Schools for the past 7 years, Duncan has pushed to narrow the achievement gap in math and science between poor, minority students and the rest of the student population as part of a broader program of reform. Along the way, he's made quite an impression on scientists working to improve the quality of what are called STEM—science, technology, engineering, and math—fields.
"He's a good guy, and he's been a breath of fresh air," says physics Nobelist Leon Lederman, a leader in STEM education in Illinois and around the country. "Of course, I wouldn't be so excited about his chances of being a good education secretary if the big boss wasn't also interested in improving STEM education."
Two years ago, Duncan wowed a commission, co-chaired by Lederman, that was asked by the oversight body of the National Science Foundation to examine STEM. Duncan described a host of changes, from streamlining the math curriculum to sending teachers back to school for additional training. That's no easy task for what was once one of the country's worst-performing school districts, although he admits that the district still has a long way to go.
Duncan has also brought in outside science groups to lend a hand. Next month, one such group, the Illinois Math and Science Academy (IMSA), will open its first field office at a school on the city's South Side. Staff at the academy, a residential high school for top students from around the state, will give students hands-on, inquiry-based instruction at the same time their teachers are learning how to incorporate such techniques into their daily lessons. "We canContinue Reading
- Tuesday, December 16, 2008 - 3:03pm
The Science Careers Blog has a nice summary of what we know so far about the impact of the Bernard Madoff scandal on scientific institutions and philanthropies that donate to scientific research. Many organizations invested in Madoff's hedge fund, which prosecutors allege was a $50 billion scam. The blog reads:
Yeshiva University in New York, home to the Albert Einstein School of Medicine, has apparently taken a significant hit. … Sources [say] that the school has lost at least $100 million from its endowment. …
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa, Israel, invested in Madoff's securities, according to the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, which estimates its losses at about NIS 25 million ($6.5 million). Victims of Madoff's apparent fraud include foundations headed by household names such as Nobel laureate Elie Weisel, Senator Frank Lautenberg, and film director Steven Spielberg, as well as many smaller family foundations and institutions that serve Jewish communities in North America, Europe, and Israel. Madoff managed most of the investment income of Spielberg's Wunderkinder Foundation, which donated some $3.3 million for medical research to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. …
The Madoff scandal has further shaken an already nervous environment for philanthropies. John Ruskay, executive vice president and CEO of the UJA-Federation of New York [said], "Already in the context of a very challenging economic environment this will present another significant difficulty. We don’t know yet the extent of the wreckage."Continue Reading
- Monday, December 15, 2008 - 5:17pm
Archaeologists around the world are condemning the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology for laying off 18 researchers, in particular one of the world's leading archaeobotanists, Naomi Miller, who has been in the field for 30 years. News of the planned layoffs, announced late last month, has ricocheted through the global archaeology community, with help from several academics who have notified more than 1000 of their colleagues.
Miller's "departure from the field will have serious ramifications for many on-going archaeological projects throughout" the Near East, where she studies plant remains to better understand agricultural economies, wrote Melinda Zeder, director of the archaeobiology program at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., in a letter sent last weekend to Richard Hodges, the museum's director. Hodges was traveling and not available to speak with ScienceInsider, but spokesperson Pam Kosty said that "it's obviously difficult for everybody at the museum, these layoffs," and "we're doing what we can to try to save people." Like many other museums and nonprofits, the University of Pennsylvania Museum has been hard-hit by a sinking endowment and a difficult fundraising environment.
In an interview, Zeder, who has collaborated with Miller, sympathized with the museum's plight but argued that while the museum has presented the cuts as a solution to a short-term budget shortfall, "it seems to me counterintuitive to take measures that have a permanent impact on just the thing you're trying to save."
"There's quite an active campaign" to protest the loss of Miller, which will be effective at the end of May, Zeder says. "We're just stunned."
The director of the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology tells ScienceInsider this morning that the layoffs had been mislabeled and that many of those affected would be able toContinue ReadingPosted In:
- Monday, December 15, 2008 - 4:52pm
A new Institute of Medicine report released today by a prominent group of scientists and former public officials on a global health committee has a message for President-Elect Barack Obama: Give us some of that change you've promised.
The committee, co-chaired by Harold Varmus, head of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, and Thomas Pickering, retired Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, urges Obama to make "a major speech early in his tenure" that declares that the United States sees global health as "an essential component of U.S. foreign policy." In the eyes of the committee, a more substantial investment in global health will yield diplomatic, economic, and security returns. Specifically, they call on the administration to double its commitment from $7.5 billion to $15 billion by 2012. They suggest that $13 billion should go toward health-related Millennium Development Goals, and another $2 billion toward noncommunicable diseases and injury.
Although the committee commended the United States for making "dramatic increases" in global health during the past decade, it noted that the U.S. "does not come close" to the spending on development aid made by most other rich countries. Denmark, one of the most generous countries, spends $1.07 per day per person, while U.S. public and private contributions only amount to 35¢, for example. In terms of gross national income, the U.S. spends 0.16%, while several Scandinavian countries contribute more than 0.8% (see graph). "Overall as a percentage we're still battling with Greece at the bottom of the pile," Varmus, who also is on Obama's transition team, told ScienceInsider. "We ought to get the level up."
But is it realistic to call for a doubling of funding during the currentContinue Reading
- Monday, December 15, 2008 - 11:36am
Last week, the annual Nobel Prize award ceremony took place in Stockholm, but not everyone was celebrating. A brouhaha erupted when a Swedish government anticorruption official told the media he had concerns about a pharmaceutical company's ties to the Nobel Prize awarded this year to Germany's Harald zur Hausen for his discovery of the link between human papilloma virus (HPV) and cervical cancer. (Zur Hausen's Nobel lecture and those of the other winners can be viewed here.) The British-Swedish company AstraZeneca receives patent royalties from HPV vaccines, and in November, AstraZeneca launched a collaboration with Nobel Web, the Nobel Foundation's Web site, and Nobel Media, a subsidiary company, to produce documentaries and sponsor lectures that increase interest in the prize. The Swedish media also reported that a member of AstraZeneca's board, Bo Angelin, sits on the Nobel Assembly that awarded zur Hausen the prize. According to Forbes magazine, Angelin has received $42,000 in compensation for sitting on the company's board.
The anticorruption official who raised the potential conflict-of-interest issues reportedly said he may launch an investigation. Yet no evidence has come to light that AstraZeneca or Angelin had any special influence on the prize going to zur Hausen, and colleagues widely felt he was deserving of the honor. AstraZeneca's collaboration with Nobel Web and Nobel Media also came a month after the announcement of zur Hausen's prize.
Conflict of interest is a real problem that deserves serious scrutiny. But unless something more substantial surfaces about AstraZeneca or Angelin's role in this award, there's no need to put an asterisk next to zur Hausen's name.
The media flap may have had one result: According to Swedish news reports, the head of the Nobel Committee, which recommends potential prizewinners to the assembly, said the committeeContinue ReadingPosted In:
- Friday, December 12, 2008 - 4:36pm
A collection of U.S. research universities is making the case for science to be included in legislation aimed at reviving the moribund economy.
In a letter today to President-elect Barack Obama, the 62-member Association of American Universities proposes $2.7 billion in immediate spending on academic buildings, scientific equipment, and young researchers. AAU joins a long line of interest groups hoping to tap into an economic stimulus package topping $500 billion in emergency spending that will be taken up next month by Congress and the incoming administration. Several higher education groups are also making a pitch to make college more affordable, arguing that a better-trained workforce will help the country climb out of the recession sooner.
AAU's proposals mostly involve huge increases to existing programs at the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy. They are long-shots at best. But the letter also serves to remind politicians that science is important to the nation's economy, an argument that they hope will pay off next year as Congress completes work on the 2009 budget and then turns to President-elect Obama's request for 2010.
Letter follows after the jump.
December 12, 2008
President-elect Barack Obama
451 6th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Dear President-elect Obama:
As your transition team works with Congress to develop an economic stimulus package, the Association of American Universities offers for your consideration six recommendations that we believe would help college students and universities weather the economic downturn and boost the nation’s economic recovery.
The AAU recommendations include two major proposals on student access and academic infrastructure that will be discussed in greater detail in a forthcoming letter from the higher education associations, including AAU. Our four other recommendations focusContinue Reading
- Friday, December 12, 2008 - 3:37pm
California regulators yesterday laid out a plan to cut the state's greenhouse gas emissions by 15% over the next 12 years. That blueprint is the most ambitious greenhouse gas–reduction plan in the United States and could serve as a model for the incoming Obama Administration. The move is designed to combat the effects of the state's fast-growing population, which is expected to cause by 2020 a spike in greenhouse emissions by 30% over 1990 levels. Among the plan's hallmarks: producing at least one-third of all electricity from renewables, the most of any state.Continue ReadingPosted In:
- Friday, December 12, 2008 - 2:18pm
Austrian scientists are in a cold sweat after learning that they could face a 90% budget cut. That bomb was buried within a draft budget document released 2 weeks ago, just days after a major electoral win by the country's conservative Austrian People's Party. Austrian scientists had been promised a 5-year budget of €2.35 billion—that is, back in the warm and lazy summer days when the liberal party was in power and global financial markets were riding high. The number now suggested is just €350 million. "Scientists are upset and alarmed," says a spokesperson at the Austrian Council for Research and Technology Development who requested anonymity. "But the real numbers will come in January." If the cut turns out to be true, he predicts that scientists will take to the streets. However, he says, such a budget would be so disastrous for Austrian science that he can't believe the cut is a serious proposal. "I think it was just a clerical error."Continue ReadingPosted In:
- Friday, December 12, 2008 - 12:21pm
… gets full and mostly positive coverage today in the Washington Post's take on Energy nominee Steve Chu and their look at Carol Browner, Lisa Jackson, and Nancy Sutley, his respective picks for Climate Czar, Environmental Protection Agency Director, and Head of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. The Wall Street Journal, however, is not a fan.
More on how EPA science could be affected by the picks on ScienceInsider soon.Continue Reading
- Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 4:47pm
A 64-year-old biologist who's been teaching in the University of California system for 30 years is refusing to undergo sexual harassment training and has been made something of a cause célèbre.
Alexander McPherson, a protein crystallographer at the University of California, Irvine, for the past 11 years, decided to dig his heels in last month and refused to attend a 2-hour indoctrination session mandated by state law.
McPherson's story first got widespread publicity in November. McPherson later said in an editorial that the training was "a disgraceful sham" and that "as far as I can tell from my colleagues, it is worthless, a childish piece of theater."
UC Irvine has responded by writing his funding sources, including NIH, to notify them that McPherson is no longer allowed to supervise people on his grants. According to the latest article, published today in The Scientist, McPherson will be stripped of his teaching assistants come January. McPherson has been posting responses to his plight—most of them supportive.Continue ReadingPosted In:
- Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 12:50pm
Steve Chu could be a groundbreaking energy secretary for the energy research efforts of President-elect Barack Obama's Administration in several ways. It's not just that Chu will be the first life-long scientist— and a Nobel prize-winning physicist at that—to run a department which spends more than $15 billion a year on physical science research, including weapons work. (Previous energy secretaries have usually been political allies of the president, which Chu isn't; a Naval Admiral and a power industry official have previously held the post.) But his selection, and new clues from Obama's transition team, could signal some big changes in the way that the United States conducts science to tackle the energy challenge.
First there's the big picture for the Department of Energy, a sprawling, $23 billion per year agency that manages twenty national laboratories and roughly a dozen nuclear waste cleanup projects. DOE spends roughly $9 billion to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal, roughly $10 billion on the waste sites, about only $4 billion on applied energy research, and close to $5 billion on basic physical science. Congress has historically preferred that lopsided balance. But recent fights between appropriators on Capitol Hill and a veto-threat-wielding White House over the budget (such as this skirmish) have prevented the agency from steadily doubling that basic research component—something both sides want to do. Money is tight, but Obama won't be threatening a veto over spending bills and moreover, he has promised to double the budget. So that, along with the appointment of a Nobel prize-winning physicist to run DOE, means the agency will probably do more and more science, including applied research as well as fundamental physics. Chu was one of the authors of a highly influential report from the U.S. National Academies on theContinue Reading
- Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 12:14pm
A new $500 million nuclear physics facility will be built at Michigan State University in East Lansing, the U.S. Department of Energy announced today. Known as the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams, the straight-shot linear accelerator will pump out beams of fleeting radioactive nuclei for studies in nuclear physics that could help unravel the origins of scores of elements and give physicists a much deeper understanding of how atoms work.
Michigan State's success ends a David-versus-Goliath competition that pitted a team from the university's plucky National Superconducting Cyclotron Laboratory against one from Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. Michigan State's lab is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation with 300 employees and a $20 million annual budget. Argonne is a giant multipurpose facility with a staff of 2800 and a $530 million budget. Some observers thought that Argonne's greater resources and DOE connections would play into its favor.
Stay tuned for analysis.Continue Reading
- Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 5:59pm
CNN, MSNBC and the AP are reporting that Steve Chu will be named president elect Obama's Secretary of Energy. If this story is true -- and the transition team is neither denying or confirming it -- it would be huge news for US physical science. Chu is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who has made Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California an international powerhouse in applied energy research and has lectured around the world on the need for aggressive basic energy research to reverse global warming. He also would be the first person who's been a scientist his whole career to lead the Department of Energy, which funds the majority of US physical science research.Continue Reading
- Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 5:11pm
Should academics who work on dangerous pathogens be required to undergo periodic psychological evaluations to ensure that they are not mentally imbalanced as U.S. Army researcher Bruce Ivins appears to have been? Currently, they're not. But the question was clearly on the table today at a meeting of the National Scientific Advisory Board on Biosecurity.
Over the last two years, the board has been discussing what federal agencies, institutions, and scientists must do in order to prevent the accidental or deliberate misuse of life sciences research. In the wake of Ivins' implication in the 2001 anthrax letter attacks, NSABB is now looking into ways to minimize the threat of an academic scientist with access to deadly pathogens carrying out a criminal or terrorist attack. Although federal rules already require institutions and individuals who do research on select agents to undergo a security check, the case of Ivins, who committed suicide on 29 July, has raised concerns about whether current procedures are good enough.
The board has yet to come up with any recommendations on the matter, but adding mental health evaluations to the screening process is a possibility. One NSABB member told Science that the board could decide not to recommend any new requirements in the end.Continue Reading
- Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 4:21pm
The tug of war over the best way to ensure the safety of nanotechnology is nearly over. The Bush Administration has lost ground. Its longtime critics in the U.S. Congress, academia, and nongovernmental organizations have gained ground.
The two sides have fought to a standoff for years over the strategy the federal government should take to ensure that the environmental, health, and safety (EHS) risks of nanotechnology are adequately addressed. Administration officials have long maintained that the agencies funding the research—such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—are best qualified to set their own research priorities to ensure nanotech safety. Critics, meanwhile, have argued that this leads to a duplication of efforts and gaps where no agency is willing to pick up the ball. What's needed, they argue, is an overall vision and plan for how to get there and to come up with the money to do so.
The House Science and Technology Committee passed a bill earlier this year reauthorizing the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), which coordinates federal agencies participating in nanotech research. Within the bill were add-ons that pushed much of the critics' agenda, including a proposal to appoint an EHS czar. But the Administration pushed back on the czar, among other things, and with the economic chaos this fall, the bill never made it through.
Last year, the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, which oversees day-to-day operations of NNI, asked the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) for an independent review of NNI's EHS strategic plan. This morning, NRC came down squarely in the critics' camp. In its report, the NRC committee concludes that NNI's plan suffers from serious weaknesses and represents essentially an ad hoc collection of research priorities from the 25 federal agencies that make upContinue Reading
- Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 3:45pm
President-elect Barack Obama will reportedly name Nancy Sutley as head of White House Council on Environmental Quality, the top environmental post in the White House. Sutley is deputy mayor for energy and environment in Los Angeles and has served on the California State Water Resources Control Board. She was a top adviser in the Environmental Protection Agency during the Clinton Administration.Continue Reading
- Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 1:29pm
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has quietly dropped plans to halt the use of certain long-term antibiotics in animals that end up on our dinner plates. Many public health officials have long worried about the overuse of antibiotics in people and animals, which can promote drug resistance, now a major problem in many hospitals. Antibiotics in cattle, pigs, and other animals killed for food have been particularly controversial. On the one hand, they can protect animals from certain infections and promote growth. On the other, for at least 20 years, researchers have known that humans who develop infections, such as salmonella, after eating meat from animals fed copious amount of antibiotics are less likely to respond to related drugs.
In July, FDA said it would push against use of cephalosporin antibiotics in animals. In late November, it reversed its decision days before the rule was scheduled to take effect. The FDA said in a notice in the Federal Register that it had received "many substantive comments" on its planned ban and was "taking this action so that it may fully consider these comments." An agency spokesperson says FDA could later implement the ban.Continue Reading
- Wednesday, December 10, 2008 - 12:43pm
The U.S. government lacks an effective plan for ensuring the safety of nanotechnology, a new report concludes today. The report, by the National Research Council, finds that the current plan for coordinating federal research on environmental, health, and safety risks of nanotechnology represents more of an ad hoc collection of research priorities from the 25 federal agencies that make up the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative.
“The current plan catalogs nano-risk research across several federal agencies, but it does not present an overarching research strategy needed to gain public acceptance and realize the promise of nanotechnology," David Eaton of the University of Washington, Seattle, chair of the NRC committee that wrote the report, said in a statement.
More to come soon on the topic from ScienceInsider.Continue Reading
- Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 3:54pm
A detailed series on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency running this week in The Philadelphia Inquirer includes new information about how the agency had initially decided to regulate carbon dioxide.
In December 2007, one of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson's top deputies emailed the White House a long-awaited rule that spelled out EPA's rationale and approach for regulating CO2 emissions. But the White House refused to open the email and 6 months later the agency issued a much weaker rule that essentially took no action. What was in the draft? Aside from EPA officials, only a handful of U.S. Senators have seen the document. The Inquirer has this to report:
According to confidential records reviewed by The Inquirer, Johnson cited strong evidence: rises in sea level, extreme hot and cold days, ecosystem changes, melting glaciers, and more. Minor doubts about long-term effects, he wrote, were not enough to alter his conclusion.
Two sentences in Johnson's draft stood out. In sum: The U.S. emits more greenhouse gases from cars than most countries do from all pollution sources. This fact is so compelling that it alone supports the administrator's finding.
The story cites four previous (and Republican) EPA chiefs who think Johnson, with science on his side, shouldn't have backed down. But Johnson does get glowing praise from James Connaughton, the top environmental adviser in the White House. "He was a shining star from the outset," Connaughton told The Inquirer. "He has done as we would have expected and hoped."Continue ReadingPosted In:
- Tuesday, December 9, 2008 - 11:03am
A long-shot attempt to block U.K. researchers from creating human-animal hybrid cells or embryos has ended quickly, with a judge dismissing a new lawsuit filed by the Christian Legal Centre and the Comment on Reproductive Ethics and ruling that the groups should pay £20,000 in court costs. The two parties had challenged the decision by the U.K's. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) to grant licenses for the interspecies work to several research teams. (A new law expanding the types of research regulated by HFEA was recently adopted.) In a statement, Stephen Minger of King's College London, who has one of the licenses, hailed the court decision:
It is gratifying that Justice Mrs. Dobbs recognized that the science behind the creation of hybrid embryos was always about creating unique cloned human cell lines that could accelerate the development of therapies for a number of important neurodegenerative conditions. We welcome her decision and would also like to thank our legal team who worked so hard to defend our science.Continue Reading
- Monday, December 8, 2008 - 2:13pm
Worried that the U.S. Congress will force its hand because of public concern, the National Institutes of Health is moving to change its rules on financial conflicts of interest for scientists who receive its grants. A new set of regulations could be ready in 6 months to 1 year, according to acting NIH director Raynard Kington at a meeting on Friday in Bethesda, Maryland. Last week, NIH submitted a draft list of questions to the White House on which it wants public input, which will help them shape the new rules:
--How to define whether a financial interest is "significant." Should the current definition, which exempts any financial conflict worth less than $10,000, get replaced with a more stringent limit or no lower limit at all?
--Whether NIH should strengthen its policing to make institutions comply by requiring independent confirmation of institutions' reports?
--Whether NIH should look for conflicts involving financial agreements between universities and companies
--Whether NIH should require investigators to disclose any and all of their financial interests
The last possibility prompted Christine Seidman, a professor of medicine and genetics at Harvard Medical School in Boston, to observe that new requirements could mean that the amount of paperwork required to disclose financial ties could "very quickly exceed the scientific content" of a grant application.
She spoke at a meeting of the NIH director's advisory committee, which was webcast and should soon appear archived online. The questions will be released soon for public comment, officials said.
Current regulations require NIH grantees to submit "significant" financial conflicts to their institution, which then must report the conflict to NIH and assure that it has been managed or eliminated. This year, NIH reviewed 20 cases of alleged failure to follow the rules. Six are still being investigated, but so far,Continue Reading
- Monday, December 8, 2008 - 2:10pm
Turns out it depends on which type of scientist you ask. As part of its upcoming examination of more than 2000 U.S. doctoral research programs, the National Research Council asked faculty members to weigh the relative importance, in percentages, of five types of diversity among faculty and student populations.
The NRC asked the scholars, which included academics in the humanities, to rank the importance of faculty and student diversity with respect to women and to underrepresented minorities--African-Americans, Hispanics, and native Americans/Pacific Islanders--as well as international students. The program assessment won't be out until mid-February, but study director Charlotte Kuh previewed the diversity component during a talk Friday at the annual meeting of the Council of Graduate Schools in Washington, D.C.
The results follow. Remember that the numbers add up to one within each scientific discipline:
* Those in the health sciences are far more concerned (0.38) than are those in any other discipline with the number of students belonging to underrepresented minorities. That discipline also tops the list with regard to faculty members belonging to underrepresented minorities (0.24). In contrast, those in the physical sciences put much less weight, 0.20 and 0.10, respectively, on those issues. Health scientists are least concerned (0.07) about the presence of international students.
* The number of female students is the top concern for those in the physical sciences (0.29), with the number of international students (0.21) their second biggest worry.
* The number of international students is three times more important to those in the physical sciences (0.21) than to those in the health sciences (0.7), and more than twice that for biology (0.9).
* The number of women faculty members is a bigger issue for biologists (0.23) than for those in any other discipline. But physical scientists are more worried than areContinue ReadingPosted In: