The Chronicle of Higher Education
Julia Piper
December 9, 2018
Research universities rely on government agencies for funding, but the latest word on those agencies’ science policies doesn’t reach campuses instantly. That’s why a few universities have created senior leadership roles dedicated to communicating between Capitol Hill and campus research laboratories. "You can’t really have a loud bell go off and have everybody change their behavior across the country" in response to new policy directions, says Keith Yamamoto, who three years ago became the University of California at San Francisco’s first vice chancellor for science policy and strategy.
His job faces both outward and inward, he says. "The outward-facing is to make our voice heard in Washington and other circles where science policy is set and shaped." The inward-facing part "is to be able to help craft policies on the campus that best move us toward our mission and goals."
Read More...
News posts of interest to researchers, social scientists, and those following new Harvard Kennedy School research.
Thursday, December 13, 2018
Wednesday, December 12, 2018
What These Medical Journals Don’t Reveal: Top Doctors’ Ties to Industry
The New York Times
Charles Ornstein and Katie Thomas
December 8, 2018
One is dean of Yale’s medical school. Another is the director of a cancer center in Texas. A third is the next president of the most prominent society of cancer doctors.
These leading medical figures are among dozens of doctors who have failed in recent years to report their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and health care companies when their studies are published in medical journals, according to a review by The New York Times and ProPublica and data from other recent research.
Read More...
Charles Ornstein and Katie Thomas
December 8, 2018
One is dean of Yale’s medical school. Another is the director of a cancer center in Texas. A third is the next president of the most prominent society of cancer doctors.
These leading medical figures are among dozens of doctors who have failed in recent years to report their financial relationships with pharmaceutical and health care companies when their studies are published in medical journals, according to a review by The New York Times and ProPublica and data from other recent research.
Read More...
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
NIH: Notice of Fiscal Policies in Effect for FY 2019
National Institutes of Health
Notice Number: NOT-OD-19-031
November 27, 2018
This Notice provides guidance about the NIH Fiscal Operations for FY 2019 and implements The Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (Public Law 115-245), signed into law on September 28, 2018.With the passage of the Act, NIH received a 5.6 percent increase over the FY 2018 final funding level, for a total of $39.3 billion in program level funding, including $711,000,000 authorized under the 21st Century Cures Act and specific increases for Alzheimer’s disease, the All of Us Research Program, and the BRAIN Initiative.
Read More...
Notice Number: NOT-OD-19-031
November 27, 2018
This Notice provides guidance about the NIH Fiscal Operations for FY 2019 and implements The Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 (Public Law 115-245), signed into law on September 28, 2018.With the passage of the Act, NIH received a 5.6 percent increase over the FY 2018 final funding level, for a total of $39.3 billion in program level funding, including $711,000,000 authorized under the 21st Century Cures Act and specific increases for Alzheimer’s disease, the All of Us Research Program, and the BRAIN Initiative.
Read More...
Monday, December 10, 2018
Companion Guidelines on Replication & Reproducibility in Education Research
The National Science Foundation and Institute of Education Sciences
November 28, 2018
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) jointly issued the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development in 2013 to describe “shared understandings of the roles of various types of ‘genres’ of research in generating evidence about strategies and interventions for increasing student learning” (IES and NSF, 2013: 7). In the intervening period, the education research community and federal policymakers have been increasingly attentive to the role of, and factors that promote and inhibit, replication and reproducibility of research.
In order to build a coherent body of work to inform evidence-based decision making, there is a need to increase the visibility and value of reproducibility and replication studies among education research stakeholders. The purpose of this companion to the Common Guidelines is to highlight the importance of these studies and provide crossagency guidance on the steps investigators are encouraged to take to promote corroboration, ensure the integrity of education research, and extend the evidence base.
Read More...
November 28, 2018
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) jointly issued the Common Guidelines for Education Research and Development in 2013 to describe “shared understandings of the roles of various types of ‘genres’ of research in generating evidence about strategies and interventions for increasing student learning” (IES and NSF, 2013: 7). In the intervening period, the education research community and federal policymakers have been increasingly attentive to the role of, and factors that promote and inhibit, replication and reproducibility of research.
In order to build a coherent body of work to inform evidence-based decision making, there is a need to increase the visibility and value of reproducibility and replication studies among education research stakeholders. The purpose of this companion to the Common Guidelines is to highlight the importance of these studies and provide crossagency guidance on the steps investigators are encouraged to take to promote corroboration, ensure the integrity of education research, and extend the evidence base.
Read More...
Thursday, November 15, 2018
Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others
The New York Times
Aaron E. Carroll
November 5, 2018
Even before the recent news that a group of researchers managed to get several ridiculous fake studies published in reputable academic journals, people have been aware of problems with peer review.
Throwing out the system — which deems whether research is robust and worth being published — would do more harm than good. But it makes sense to be aware of peer review’s potential weaknesses.
Read More...
Aaron E. Carroll
November 5, 2018
Even before the recent news that a group of researchers managed to get several ridiculous fake studies published in reputable academic journals, people have been aware of problems with peer review.
Throwing out the system — which deems whether research is robust and worth being published — would do more harm than good. But it makes sense to be aware of peer review’s potential weaknesses.
Read More...
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Omidyar Network Announces New Approach, Spins Off Initiatives
Philanthropy News Digest
October 24, 2018
To better address emerging issues in a society altered by shocks to its economic, political, and technological systems, Omidyar Network has announced significant changes to its focus areas, approach, and initiatives.
In a blog post, Omidyar Network managing partner Mike Kubzansky outlined three principal changes. First, ON will focus on a core set of pressing, difficult, and deeper issues that have emerged across four areas — reimagining capitalism; promoting the beneficial use of technology; building bridges in a pluralistic world; and fostering individual capabilities and empowerment.
Read More...
To better address emerging issues in a society altered by shocks to its economic, political, and technological systems, Omidyar Network has announced significant changes to its focus areas, approach, and initiatives.
In a blog post, Omidyar Network managing partner Mike Kubzansky outlined three principal changes. First, ON will focus on a core set of pressing, difficult, and deeper issues that have emerged across four areas — reimagining capitalism; promoting the beneficial use of technology; building bridges in a pluralistic world; and fostering individual capabilities and empowerment.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
A Data Sharing Renaissance: Music to My Ears!
Open Mike: The NIH Extramural Nexus
Carrie Wolinetz
Carrie Wolinetz
October 11, 2018
When world famous cellist, Yo-Yo Ma, visited the NIH campus, he shared a story from the history of music, in which the peak of stringed instrument quality occurred in the late 17th century at a time of great collaboration and sharing of knowledge. When instrument makers began to compete, all of that changed: secrets of craftsmanship were held close and the quality of instruments plummeted. This decline lasted, according to Ma, until the 20th century, when again the free-flow of knowledge resumed. NIH Director Francis Collins noted, “There’s a lesson here about science.”
Data sharing is important. It is critical to continued progress in science, to maximize our investment in research, and to ensure the highest levels of transparency and rigor in science. But data sharing is a means to an end, not itself an end goal and, as such, needs to be done thoughtfully, in a way that fulfills the vision and mission of NIH and continues the advancement of treatments for disease and improvement of human health. NIH has long been on the forefront of making access to the results of our research accessible and has described our vision for expanding access to publications and data both in the 2015 NIH Plan for Increasing Access to Scientific Publications and Digital Scientific and in the 2018 Strategic Plan for Data Science.
Read More...Data sharing is important. It is critical to continued progress in science, to maximize our investment in research, and to ensure the highest levels of transparency and rigor in science. But data sharing is a means to an end, not itself an end goal and, as such, needs to be done thoughtfully, in a way that fulfills the vision and mission of NIH and continues the advancement of treatments for disease and improvement of human health. NIH has long been on the forefront of making access to the results of our research accessible and has described our vision for expanding access to publications and data both in the 2015 NIH Plan for Increasing Access to Scientific Publications and Digital Scientific and in the 2018 Strategic Plan for Data Science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)