Archive for the 'Funding News' Category

Page 2 of 8

Scientific version of insider trading

This is not within demography, but here’s a snippet that every researcher shudders to think about:

[From the Retraction Watch website]

Case Western dermatology department hit with second ORI sanction within 6 months

The charge:

“engaged in research misconduct by plagiarizing significant portions from research grant application R21 AR061881 that she had reviewed for NIAMS, NIH, and inserting that text into her submitted grant application R01 AR062378-01. Respondent also plagiarized significant portions of text from the following scientific articles and one U.S. patent application available on the Internet.”

Friday News: Bad

Here is some bad news for scientific research funding, which pretty much missed the news cycle. This will be updated with the reactions and responses which will hit the media cycle next week.

NSF cancels political-science grant cycle
US funding agency said to be dodging restrictions set by Congress.
Beth Mole | Nature
August 2, 2013

The NSF’s decision removes one of the main financial lifelines for political-science research. “This is somewhere between devastating and crippling,” says Henry Farrell, a political scientist at George Washington University in Washington DC and an author of the Monkey Cage, a widely read political-science blog. But Farrell blames the political climate rather than the funding agency for the cut. “The NSF is in an extremely awkward situation,” he says.

. . . . . Avoiding the August funding round may be a strategic move by Hume to see whether the constraints disappear when the next spending bill is passed, says Aldrich. “If he can save the money and spend it later when there’s more clarity, that would be helpful,” Aldrich says.

Other researchers agree. “I think they’re probably worried about upsetting Congress,” says Rick Wilson, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston, Texas, and editor of the American Journal of Political Science. “So why not pull the plug rather than risk it?”

Why is Science Behind a Paywall?

This is one of the more thorough pieces on the open data/open access issue. And, it is a timely piece as Pamela Smock takes over the editorship of Demography, which is a Springer product. Springer is mentioned in the piece.

Why is Science Behind a Paywall?
Alex Mayyasi | The priceonomics blog
May 10, 2013

Canada’s “NSF” Problem

House Republicans are trying to implement serious changes to the evaluation and funding of NSF science [here and here].

Canada is perhaps a bit further down this road. Here’s the latest on the decision to fund research that has industry applications rather than basic science.

When science goes silent
Jonathan Gatehouse | MacLean’s
May 3, 2013
This article touches on the shift in funding from basic science to applied science, but it is more in-line with an earlier post on the muzzling of environmental scientists.

National Research Council move shifts feds’ science role
Canadian Press | CBC News
May 7, 2013
‘Job-neutral’ restructuring to make agency streamlined, efficient and functional, president says

The Harper government is telling the National Research Council to focus more on practical, commercial science and less on fundamental science that may not have obvious business applications.

The government says the council traditionally was a supporter of business, but has wandered from that in recent years — and will now get back to working on practical applications for industries.

Some folks disagree with this shift:

In a statement, the executive director of the Canadian Association of University Teachers said the government is “killing the goose that laid the golden egg.”

“By transforming the NRC into a “business-driven, industry-relevant” organization, you are denying its ability to support basic research,” said Jim Turk.

“At the same time, you are cutting support to basic research in the universities.”

And is this part of the Tory ‘war on science’? [more coverage on this]

NDP science critic Kennedy Stewart called the shift in direction for the NRC “short-sighted” and said it could actually hurt economic growth in the long run, because it scales back the kind of fundamental research that can lead to scientific breakthroughs.

Research Council to focus on commercially viable projects, rather than science for science’s sake
Jessica Hume | Sun News
May 7, 2013
Two quotes say it all:

The government of Canada believes there is a place for curiosity-driven, fundamental scientific research, but the National Research Council is not that place.

“Scientific discovery is not valuable unless it has commercial value,” John McDougall, president of the NRC, said in announcing the shift in the NRC’s research focus away from discovery science solely to research the government deems “commercially viable”.

Political Science is not Alone [NSF]

The following are a series of articles on the potential changes to how NSF projects are reviewed and funded. They are in chronological order.

The first is the draft of the High Quality Research Act. It takes some time before that name shows up in an article.

High Quality Research Research Act: [Discussion Draft]
April 18, 2013

NSF Peer Review Under Scrutiny by House Science Panel
Jeffrey Mervis | ScienceInsider
April 18, 2013

“The peer-review process is the backbone of our basic research enterprise, and we’ve done very well with it,” he [Holdren] told Representative Randy Weber (R-TX). “That doesn’t say it never makes a mistake. But I think it’s better than any alternative, including me or you trying to determine what is good basic research in fields not our own.”

Holdren didn’t flinch when asked specifically by Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) whether he agreed that Coburn’s two criteria—that a political science grant must relate to economic or national security interests—”were a good and proper filter” to apply to all proposals. “I respectfully disagree,” Holdren replied. “I think that it is too narrowly drawn.”

Posey then asked Holdren to suggest other criteria that should be applied. The question gave Holdren a chance to deliver his real take-home message. “I think it’s a dangerous thing for Congress, or anybody else, to be trying to specify in detail what types of fundamental research NSF should be funding,” he told Posey.

Political Science is not alone
Henry Farrell | The Monkey Cage blog
April 26, 2013
The title to this entry is because earlier this year, political science research was singled out as not worthy of funding by NSF. The threat has expanded to the rest of the scientific community, although social sciences seem the most vulnerable. See previous PSC-Info blog entry for more.

U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants
Jeffrey Mervis | ScienceInsider
April 28, 2013

Quotes by Eddie Bernice Johnson, ranking Democrat on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology:

“In the history of this committee, no chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by NSF,” Johnson wrote in a letter obtained by ScienceInsider. “I have never seen a chairman decide to go after specific grants simply because the chairman does not believe them to be of high value.”

In her letter, Johnson warns Smith that “the moment you compromise both the merit review process and the basic research mission of NSF is the moment you undo everything that has enabled NSF to contribute so profoundly to our national health, prosperity, and welfare.” She asks him to “withdraw” his letter and offers to work with him “to identify a less destructive, but more effective, effort” to make sure NSF is meeting that mission.

Links to Letters: via @kjhealy on Twitter
Lamar Smith to Cora Marrett
Eddie Bernice Johnson to Lamar Smith and Cora Marrett

Note that one of the NSF studies that Lamar Smith did not think warranted funding was titled “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice” which was pretty close to the title of PSC’s April 29th brownbag “On the Use of Demographic Evidence at International War Crime Tribunals”

House chair wants congressional guidelines to replace peer review for federal science research
Tim Carmody | The Verge
April 29, 2013

A Congressman’s Own Peer Review
Doug Lederman | Inside Higher Education
April 29, 2013

Eddie Bernice Johnson vs Lamar Smith and the NSF
John Sides | Monkey Cage blog
April 29, 2013

Lamar Smith, GOP Push Politicization of Scientific Research
Ryan Grim | Huffington Post
April 29, 2013
This is one of the few articles the “not duplicative” requirement:

“The requirements laid out in the bill are problematic on several levels. The basic scientific method itself is by its nature duplicative, and is often carried out purely for investigative purposes.”

Obama Promises to Protect Peer Review in Salute to NAS
David Malakoff | ScienceInsider
April 29, 2013
Obama was speaking at the 150th anniversary of the National Academy of Sciences, but touched on the issues associated with NSF funding:

In addition to touting his administration’s support for research, Obama took an oblique swipe at political adversaries in Congress who want to require the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other funding agencies to adopt new grant funding criteria.

“[W]e’ve got to protect our rigorous peer review system and ensure that we only fund proposals that promise the biggest bang for taxpayer dollars,” Obama said. “And I will keep working to make sure that our scientific research does not fall victim to political maneuvers or agendas that in some ways would impact on the integrity of the scientific process.”

Obama also gave a shout-out to the social sciences, which have borne the brunt of recent congressional complaints. “[O]ne of the things that I’ve tried to do over these last 4 years and will continue to do over the next 4 years is to make sure that we are promoting the integrity of our scientific process,” he said. “That not just in the physical and life sciences, but also in fields like psychology and anthropology and economics and political science—all of which are sciences because scholars develop and test hypotheses and subject them to peer review—but in all the sciences, we’ve got to make sure that we are supporting the idea that they’re not subject to politics, that they’re not skewed by an agenda, that, as I said before, we make sure that we go where the evidence leads us. And that’s why we’ve got to keep investing in these sciences.”

The Republican War on Social Science
Dave Weigel | Slate
May 1, 2013
Great introduction to a mostly sobering piece on the lack of response by Democrats to Republican attacks on science, data, information.

The first time anyone outside of Florida’s Space Coast heard of Rep. Bill Posey, he was talking about Barack Obama’s birth certificate. It was March 2009. Posey had been in office for two months, and he was the first to propose a bill requiring presidential nominees to hand over “documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility.” He was Internet-famous overnight. Stephen Colbert was asking him to prove that he, Posey, wasn’t part alligator. “There is no reason to say that I’m the illegitimate grandson of an alligator,” said the congressman.

Posey’s been re-elected twice since then, and on April 17, he got the chance to stare down the president’s science czar, John Holdren. Posey and fellow Republicans on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee wanted Holdren to explain why the National Science Foundation was wasting so much money from an asked-for budget of $7.6 billion.

Lamar Smith: Science Peer Review Process Would ‘Improve’ With Political Oversight
Michael McAuliff | Huffington Post
April 30, 2013
It is all in the first sentence:

“The chairman of the House Science Committee on Tuesday defended his controversial draft legislation that would subject the National Science Foundation’s peer review process to politics as necessary to “improve” science.”

Lamar Smith, [R, TX] says that the bill is bipartisan:
“The draft legislation was the result of bipartisan discussions about how NSF grants should be prioritized. It was circulated to Committee Democratic staff, the NSF and the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. This was a first step in what we hoped would be a bipartisan initiative to improve accountability of NSF grants.”

Dear Congress: Why are you so Anti-Science?
Rebecca Boyle | Popular Science
May 2, 2013
This is a really strong piece, covering the long-term implications of changing the way science is reviewed and funded. Here are the first few paragraphs:

Of the many and varied things going wrong in Washington today, the frontal assault on science is one of the most alarming. Sequestration will be a blip compared to the setback that could result if Congress makes science–the peer-reviewed, community-checked, fact-based realm of science–all about politics.

The chair of the U.S. House of Representatives’ science committee is floating a bill that would eliminate peer review at the National Science Foundation, essentially replacing it with a Congressional stamp of approval. President Obama has signaled he opposes this, and the bill’s future is unclear right now. But Republican lawmakers are nothing if not tenacious.

Science has been suffocating in a toxic political atmosphere for years, with national leaders outwardly denying climate change is happening, celebrities pushing dangerous anti-vaccine (and anti-science) views on a frightened and malleable public, and conservatives angling to teach creationism using taxpayer dollars. The proposed 2014 federal budget doesn’t help, with major cuts in planetary research and high-energy physics just two of the problems. But this latest salvo could be one of the most damaging anti-science campaigns yet.

That’s because on its face, it sounds innocuous. Wise, even. It’s called the “High Quality Research Act.”

Is Any Science Safe?
Kenneth Prewitt | Science
May 3, 2013
Prewitt argues against the micromanaging of NSF grants on several grounds. He provides excellent background for each point he makes:

“First, it favors research that promises near-term benefits, overlooking the fact that there is knowledge useful under today’s conditions and knowledge that becomes useful when conditions change.”

“Science is an interconnected enterprise. Research on schoolyard bullies can unexpectedly lead to theory that explains suicide bombers. Two U.S. political scientists, Herbert Simon and Elinor Ostrom, received Nobel Prizes for theoretical work on government decisionmaking under uncertainty. Their theories are broadly applicable, including in explanations of failed states—often home to terrorist cells.”

“Members of Congress who believe that the executive branch should not try to pick winners and losers in the market economy should certainly realize that the legislative branch should not try to pick winners and losers in science.”

Congressional debate over science funding draws fire from critics
Wynne Perry | Fox News
May 3, 2013
This piece is littered with quotes from scientists who are against the rule changes. It does include an argument for Constitutional support for Congressional oversight:

Proponents of more oversight do have a strong argument, Cook-Deegan said, because the U.S. Constitution gives Congress oversight over executive branch agencies, including the NSF. (Congress, as part of the federal budget, approves the NSFs budget.)

Both Smith and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who proposed the criteria for political science studies, have questioned the merits of individual, NSF-funded studies. Their lists have included studies on the evolving depiction of animals in the magazine National Geographic; on attitudes toward majority rule and minority rights focusing on the Senate filibuster; and on the International Criminal Court and the African Union Commissions interpretation of international justice and human rights.

These lists are the latest in a well-established history of singling out individual research projects for criticism. Beginning in March 1975, Wisconsin Sen. William Proxmire began issuing Golden Fleece Awards, highlighting what he considered wasteful government spending. His research picks included studies to determine why people fall in love, and under what conditions people, monkeys and rats bite and clench their jaws, according to the Wisconsin Historical Society.

It is unlikely to be a coincidence that social science research, including political science, has been a particular target for Republican lawmakers. Historically, conservatives have perceived social science as a tool to advance the liberal agenda, Cook-Deegan said.

This perception has created political conflict over research in a number of topics, including gun violence, he said. Gun violence research, stymied for many years by congressional decree, received a boost from President Barack Obama earlier this year as part of his response to the shootings in Newtown, Conn.

War on Science: Canada

While Political Science has had its major funding source cut for the remainder of this fiscal year [see synopsis] and Congressional Republicans want to tinker with the American Community Survey (ACS) or completely cut its funding [see synopsis], Canada’s experience with governmental interference into scientific research is more drastic. The trend has been to fund “applied” research – sort of like funding MRI machines and not the science that developed the technology. Likewise, government scientists and even librarians are muzzled – not able to speak to the press without clearance.

Some of this has been covered in Nature and Science Insider, but most of the details require reading some Canadian news.

[Muzzling Scientists]
Harper government’s muzzling of scientists a mark of shame for Canada
Jeffrey Hutchins | thestar.coom
March 15, 2013
Notable Quotations
Since 2006 the federal government has been shortening the leash on its scientists. In some departments researchers are now not allowed to speak about their studies without ministerial (meaning political) permission. And in several documented instances that permission has been refused. In February, Fisheries and Oceans Canada raised additional non-science barriers to the publication of scientific research.

Let’s be clear. When you inhibit the communication of science, you inhibit science. The legitimacy of scientific findings depends crucially on unfettered engagement, review, and discussion among interested individuals, including members of the public.

Refreshingly, a Scandinavian with impeccable credentials provides an enlightened perspective. Gro Harlem Brundtland, three times Prime Minister of Norway and chair of the renowned Brundtland Commission on sustainable development, argues that:

“If we compromise on scientific facts and evidence, repairing nature will be enormously costly – if possible at all. Politics that disregard science and knowledge will not stand the test of time.”
If politics that diminish and devalue science should not stand the test of time, then neither should politically motivated barriers to the communication of science.

The Canadian government’s current communication controls are clearly not the hallmark of a confident, mature, and progressive society. We can and should do much, much better.

[Political Interference]
Canada puts commercialization ahead of blue-sky research
Brian Owens | Nature
March 22, 2013
Notable Quotations
But the government’s relentless focus on business innovation does not represent a coherent science strategy, says Paul Dufour, director of Paulicy Works, a science-and-technology consultancy in Gatineau, Quebec. He notes that the budget makes no reference to a national science-and-technology strategy that Harper released in 2007. “We have to assume that it’s dead, and that the government has no strategy,” Dufour says.

Instead, Dufour says, there is a piecemeal approach, with the government “picking winners” and providing new money to the automotive, aerospace, forestry and aquaculture sectors. “It’s very short-term thinking,” he says.

Canadian Budget Targets Industrial Applications
Wayne Kondro | Science Insider
March 22, 2013
Notable Quotations
The new budget promises stiffer competition for a smaller pool of research grants. What little new money is made available will again be funneled into targeted “industry-academic” partnerships.

Program after program [within the councils] is becoming company specific,” he says. “This is all money that’s being squeezed out of what should be going for discovery research. Previous budgets had signaled a shift of priorities from basic research to various collaborations with industry. This budget confirms that.”

The budget reaffirms plans by Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear to revamp the National Research Council, the government’s primary in-house research arm. The goal is to create a “concierge” service that provides one-stop shopping and solutions for industrial needs

The Canadian war on public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information
John Dupuis | Science Blogs
March 22, 2013
This blog entry provides a synopsis of a resolution voted on by the Canadian Parliament:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) public science, basic research and the free and open exchange of scientific information are essential to evidence-based policy-making; (b) federal government scientists must be enabled to discuss openly their findings with their colleagues and the public; and (c) the federal government should maintain support for its basic scientific capacity across Canada, including immediately extending funding, until a new operator is found, to the world-renowned Experimental Lakes Area Research Facility to pursue its unique research program.

Which was defeated 157 to 137 – every conservative voted Nay, including Prime Minister Harper.

Closure of Experimental Lakes Area part of assault on science
Stephen Scharper | the
March 29, 2013
Notable Quotations
Last May, scientists were told that the federal government intended to stop funding the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) research facility, a site encompassing 58 lakes which, for more than 40 years, has provided cutting-edge findings on myriad ecological issues, including phosphate and mercury pollution, acid rain and aquatic effects of climate change. They were also told, according to some sources, not to talk about it with the media or other colleagues.

The government claims the move will save $2 million annually, and says it is willing to allow another operator to take over. As of now, no alternative agency has come forward to assume operation of the facility.

According to Cynthia Gilmour, senior scientist with the Smithsonian Institution, the ELA is “the only place in the world” where you can do controlled experiments within a lake ecosystem.

Research and Politics

The field of Political Science has been hit hard by an amendment to the Continuing Approriations Act of 2013, which pretty much axes the NSF political science funding mechanism. The money remains with NSF rather than being shifted to the National Cancer Institute and political science research can still be funded, but only if their research is useful for “national security” or “the economic interests” of the United States.

This amendment only applies until the end of this fiscal year, but NSF funding for political science has been on Tom Coburn’s radar for years. Expect more of the same and perhaps even for the rest of the softer sciences.

The links are in presented in order of publication – oldest first:

First, the prequel
New Attempt to Cut NSF Funding for Political Science
March 15, 2013

NSF’s political science program siphons valuable resources away from higher priority research that will yield greater applied benefits and potential to stir further innovation. This amendment does not aim to hinder science, but rather to allocate more support for research that will save lives.
Tom Coburn’s Fact Sheet

The amendment sets up a false dichotomy between medical research and research in
the social sciences that we emphatically reject
Hunter R. Rawlings III, president of the Association of American Universities

Senate Delivers a Devastating Blow to the Integrity of the Scientific Process at the National Science Foundation
March 20, 2013
Notable Quotes
Adoption of this amendment is a gross intrusion into the widely-respected, independent scholarly agenda setting process at NSF that has supported our world-class national science enterprise for over sixty years.

The amendment creates an exceptionally dangerous slippery slope. While political science research is most immediately affected, at risk is any and all research in any and all disciplines funded by the NSF. The amendment makes all scientific research vulnerable to the whims of political pressure.

Adoption of this amendment demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the breadth and importance of political science research for the national interest and its integral place on the nation’s interdisciplinary scientific research agenda.

Singling out any one field of science is short-sighted and misguided, and poses a serious threat to the independence and integrity of the National Science Foundation.

And shackling political science within the national science agenda is a remarkable embarrassment for the world’s exemplary democracy.

Money for Military, Not Poli Sci
Libbie A. Nelson | Inside Higher Education
March 21, 2013
Notable Quotes
The amendment defunding political science was adopted in a voice vote that surprised many observers. Ending federal funding for political science research has been a longtime cause for some Republicans in Congress, including the measure’s sponsor, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, and the effort has failed many times in the past.

Senate Moves to Limit NSF Spending on Political Science
Paul Basken | Chronicle of Higher Education
March 21, 2013
Notable Quotes
The amendment was proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma who has sharply criticized the foundation’s spending priorities.

Mr. Coburn sent a letter last week to the NSF’s director, Subra Suresh, listing a series of agency-financed projects he considered a waste of taxpayer money. His list included several involving political science, including studies of voter attitudes toward the Senate filibuster and of the cooperation between the president and Congress.

Projects likely to be affected, he said, include the American National Election Studies, a landmark series of studies and polls dating to 1948. Its current principal investigators are at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor and Stanford University.

Political Science Research: Singled Out
R.D.N. | The Economist
March 21, 2013

Tom Coburn Doesn’t Like Political Science
Henry Farrell | Chronicle of Higher Education
March 22, 2013
Notable Quotes
The NSF pays for 61 percent of basic research in the social sciences. Publicly supported academic research is, and should be, democratically accountable. Yet politicians have wisely delegated the particulars of funding lines to the scientific community. Politicians are not scientists, and do not have the expertise to judge which research areas and questions are promising and which are not.

The Coburn amendment changes that. It imposes crude political criteria on scientific grant making, arbitrarily decreeing that social scientists cannot get funds for studying key aspects of politics. It is clear that Coburn’s ambitions stretch far beyond the social sciences. In previous reports he has attacked the NSF for purportedly useless research in robotics, biology, and other areas of the natural sciences.

If this precedent is not reversed, it will probably be expanded in unhappy ways. Politicians will attach ever-more-onerous conditions to NSF funds, in order to make sure that research they like gets money, while research that they dislike does not. Politicians should not micromanage the grant-making process. They are likely to not only misunderstand the science but use their influence to mischaracterize good research in attempts to score political points.

In the worst-case scenario, Coburn’s amendment could also set a dangerous precedent for academic research in general. Introducing political micromanagement into a system that should be governed by scientific criteria would essentially politicize science. The NSF finances important research in politically controversial areas such as climate science, biology, and evolutionary science. To date, the NSF has been able to shield grant-making decisions in those areas from broader political acrimony. Politicians who deny global warming and evolution have not wanted to seem overtly anti-science, and have refrained from direct attack.

That delicate balance may be upset, as it becomes more acceptable to interfere with the inner workings of decision making at the NSF. Research on global warming, evolution, and biology may become fair game. The Coburn amendment is a tragedy for both political science and public debate. Its broader legacy may be a tragedy for the basic process of scientific discovery, if it is not swiftly reversed. Tom Coburn may not like political science. It’s important to remember that many of his colleagues don’t like science at all.

What We Need to Know about the NSF Funding Vote
Seth Masket | Mischiefs of Faction Blog
March 26, 2013
This blog entry is mostly a call to action among political scientists. He starts out by commenting on some of the technical details of the legislation from his history as a Congressional staffer.

That Time Where Tom Coburn Didn’t Believe in Micro-Managing Scientific Research
John Sides | The Monkey Cage Blog
March 27, 2013
In this post, Sides finds a time when Tom Coburn argues against micromanaging scientific research:

Coburn told Nature Medicine that he will continue to oppose any disease-specific legislation because he doesn’t think Congress should micromanage the leaders of the NIH. “If you’re going to do a disease-specific bill, you ought to tell them what mass spectrometer to buy,” he quips.

Tom Coburn Flip-Flops on NSF Funding of Political Science Research
John Sides | The Monkey Cage Blog
December 20, 2011
This piece gives some nice examples of Coburn deriding political science research and then using some NSF-funded political science research to support a point he was making about the decline in Congressional oversight.

Update on Sequestration Cuts for Statistical Agencies

Sequestration Cuts’ Impact on Statistical Agencies
Steve Pierson | The Census Project Blog
February 19, 2014

This is up-to-date information on selected statistical agencies, primarily the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. However, at the end of the post are links to impacts on NIH and NSF.

An Exercise in Inefficiency: Sequestration/Threat of Sequestration

This is a collection of recent news articles on sequestration. For the most part, the articles concern NIH funding, although a few discuss all federal agencies. An earlier post links to a agency-by-agency cuts as well as UM-specific information.

Sequestration cuts no longer the ‘bad policy’ bogeyman for Congress
Jeremy Herb | The Hill
January 29, 2013
This news source focuses on Congress and the Federal government. It concludes “With the sequestration deadline a little over four weeks away, there appears to be little momentum in Congress or the White House to stop the cuts.”

Threats of automatic cuts costly to federal agencies
Lisa Rein |Washington Post
January 27, 2013

Paul Ryan Insists Republicans are ready to let the Sequester Happen
Suzy Khimm | Wonk Blog (Washington Post)
January 27, 2013

Ryan: No Sequestration had Romney and I Won
Pema Levy | Talking Points Memo
January 27, 2013

Sequestration means mass furloughs in April
Stephen Losey | Federal Times
January 25, 2013

NIH Director Francis Collins: Medical Research at Risk
Paige Winfield Cunningham | Politico
January 16, 2013

Sequestering Science
Michael D. Purugganan | Huffington Post
January 16, 2013

Is the NIH Funding Model Efficient?

Money and Science: To He that Hath
The Economist
December 8th, 2012
This analysis is based on the publication and funding record of the most highly cited biomedical papers and concluded that NIH may not support the best researchers. The link to the original article, in Nature, is provided below.

Research grants: Conform and be funded
Joshua M. Nicholson & John P.A. Ioannidis | Nature
December 5, 2012
Tag line: Too many US authors of the most innovative and influential papers in the life sciences do not receive NIH funding.

And, perhaps related to the above, NIH is considering anonymity for grant applicants:

NIH Considers Anonymity for Grant Applicants
Paul Basken | The Chronicle of Higher Education
December 10, 2012

And, be careful about unattributed text. Some federal agencies are using software to detect unattributed copying in research proposals. See below.

Plagiarism in Grant Proposals
Karen M. Markin | The Chronicle of Higher Education
December 10, 2012