The United States of America and scientific research

To gauge the current commitment to scientific research in the United States of America (US), we compared federal research funding (FRF) with the US gross domestic product (GDP) and industry research spending during the past six decades. In order to address the recent globalization of scientific research, we also focused on four key indicators of research activities: research and development (R&D) funding, total science and engineering doctoral degrees, patents, and scientific publications. We compared these indicators across three major population and economic regions: the US, the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (China) over the past decade. We discovered a number of interesting trends with direct relevance for science policy. The level of US FRF has varied between 0.2% and 0.6% of the GDP during the last six decades. Since the 1960s, the US FRF contribution has fallen from twice that of industrial research funding to roughly equal. Also, in the last two decades, the portion of the US government R&D spending devoted to research has increased. Although well below the US and the EU in overall funding, the current growth rate for R&D funding in China greatly exceeds that of both. Finally, the EU currently produces more science and engineering doctoral graduates and scientific publications than the US in absolute terms, but not per capita. This study's aim is to facilitate a serious discussion of key questions by the research community and federal policy makers. In particular, our results raise two questions with respect to: a) the increasing globalization of science: “What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?”; and b) the ability to produce beneficial innovations for society: “How will the US continue to foster its strengths?”

The Multilateral Initiative on Malaria: looking back and looking ahead

The Multilateral Initiative on Malaria (MIM) started in 1997 with the aim of giving African scientists an equal voice with Northern scientists in making decisions about malaria research in Africa. Is there a need for MIM today with the large increase in funding for malaria research from governments and foundations? I conclude that MIM is still needed today to support African scientists' investigator-initiated research and training.

Critical materialism: science, technology, and environmental sustainability

There are widely divergent views on how science and technology are connected to environmental problems. A view commonly held among natural scientists and policy makers is that environmental problems are primarily technical problems that can be solved via the development and implementation of technological innovations. This technologically optimistic view tends to ignore power relationships in society and the political-economic order that drives environmental degradation. An opposed view, common among postmodernist and poststructuralist scholars, is that the emergence of the scientific worldview is one of the fundamental causes of human oppression. This postmodernist view rejects scientific epistemology and often is associated with an anti-realist stance, which ultimately serves to deny the reality of environmental problems, thus (unintentionally) abetting right-wing efforts to scuttle environmental protection. We argue that both the technologically optimistic and the postmodernist views are misguided, and both undermine our ability to address environmental crises. We advocate the adoption of a critical materialist stance, which recognizes the importance of natural science for helping us to understand the world while also recognizing the social embeddedness of the scientific establishment and the need to challenge the manipulation of science by the elite.

[Therapy optimization studies torn between science and funding]

There is no doubt that clinical studies are valuable cornerstones in the development of rational diagnostics and therapy, for the patients' safety, for quality assurance as well as for the development of a body of evidence in medicine. Well recognized multicentric study groups are active in several medical disciplines in Germany. Public funding resources however are miserable as compared to other countries. For example in hematology and oncology funds are almost exclusively available by private foundations as the Deutsche Krebshilfe only. Additionally physicians and institutions who are actively promoting clinical studies have to pay charges for patients' insurance and for registration of studies by the authorities. Furthermore there are increasing difficulties obtaining reimbursement for patients' care in clinical studies. In this context outdated regulations of the German Sozialgesetzbuch V lawbook play an important role. In summary a pronounced reform deficit paired with bureocratic tendencies has become manifested. The most important demands are in this situation: a reliable and realistic regulatory basis for treatment-related clinical studies has to be created. Studies on treatment strategies with registered drugs have to be free from the obligatory patients' insurance which is required for study with non-registered drugs. It has to be clarified that in these studies some regulations of good clinical practice as obligatory external monitoring and source data verification are not feasible and will not be required. The Sozialgesetzbuch V has to be adapted and the actual ban of clinical studies in private practice has to be ended. Treatment related clinical studies have to be free from charges of ethical committees and regulatory authorities. Thereby the financial overload of clinical studies could be reduced and some motivation for further bureocratic proliferation is removed. Finally a longterm, reliable funding resource has to be created independently from the pharmaceutical industry. A possible model could be a foundation for treatment-related studies which is financed by public funds and by funds from the reimbursement companies.

A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12

Logic models are based on linear relationships between program resources, activities, and outcomes, and have been used widely to support both program development and evaluation. While useful in describing some programs, the linear nature of the logic model makes it difficult to capture the complex relationships within larger, multifaceted programs. Causal loop diagrams based on a systems thinking approach can better capture a multidimensional, layered program model while providing a more complete understanding of the relationship between program elements, which enables evaluators to examine influences and dependencies between and within program components. Few studies describe how to conceptualize and apply systems models for educational program evaluation. The goal of this paper is to use our NSF-funded, Interdisciplinary GK-12 project: Bringing Authentic Problem Solving in STEM to Rural Middle Schools to illustrate a systems thinking approach to model a complex educational program to aid in evaluation. GK-12 pairs eight teachers with eight STEM doctoral fellows per program year to implement curricula in middle schools. We demonstrate how systems thinking provides added value by modeling the participant groups, instruments, outcomes, and other factors in ways that enhance the interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data. Limitations of the model include added complexity. Implications include better understanding of interactions and outcomes and analyses reflecting interacting or conflicting variables.

Science in the future of India

India has voted for Science. In May, half a billion people cast their ballots, and they decisively favored spurring the development of the world's second most populous nation. The reelected Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his new coalition government have made a commitment to reduce poverty and disease, create employment, and stimulate rural and industrial development. Attaining these goals will require substantial new investments in science and technology (S&T) plus much greater investments in human capital.

M.D. faculty salaries in psychiatry and all clinical science departments, 1980-2006

OBJECTIVE

The authors compare trends in the salaries of physician faculty in academic departments of psychiatry with those of physician faculty in all academic clinical science departments from 1980-2006.

METHODS

The authors compared trend lines for psychiatry and all faculty by academic rank, including those for department chairs, by graphing inflation-adjusted (2006 dollars) Association of American Medical Colleges Faculty Survey data over the 27-year span and computing compound annual growth rates.

RESULTS

Physician faculty salaries in both psychiatry and all departments increased between 1980 and 2006. Compared with salaries for physician faculty in all specialties, those for psychiatrists were lower and the trend lines were flatter. Salary gaps between chairs and professors increased considerably in all faculty and psychiatry departments.

CONCLUSION

Salaries for academic physicians are rising, and they are keeping pace with inflation. Relatively large and growing gaps exist between psychiatry and all faculty and between chairs and professors in both psychiatry and all clinical sciences departments.

The right of all nations to access science, new technologies and sustainable development

This article explores the need for reflection on the right of developing countries to science and technology in addition to explaining the place of the scientific rights of nations in human rights as a whole. The discussion was conducted in relation to sustainable development. Through the examination of the current situation and the challenges to sustainable development, and taking into account the imbalance in the distribution of the benefits of science and new technologies, the authors advocate a comprehensive approach to promote cooperation and capacity-building in this area. They argue that linkages should be adopted between micro-levels and macro-levels of analysis by elevating rights and related issues from individuals to the national level in the field of the right to science and technology, and from the national to the international level in the field of sustainable development in order to institutionalise and ensure individual and national rights to science, technology and sustainable development. The authors also believe in a multidimensional perspective based on the balanced flourishing of the material and immaterial aspects of humankind in order to realise these rights in the context of dialogue and cultural diversity and to promote the culture of sustainable and dynamic peace based on justice in knowledge societies.

Transitioning from fellowship to a physician-scientist career track

Given the remarkable advances in bio-medicine in recent years, there has never been a better time to devote one's efforts towards bench to beside medicine. Accordingly, well-trained physician-scientists are in high demand in the private and academic sectors, and there is increasing awareness of the need to support and nurture such individuals. Clinical fellows in hematology, oncology and hematopathology with an interest in the physician-scientist career path must be well prepared to succeed in transitioning from fellowship to their first academic position. This article will discuss some of the key elements that prospective clinical scientists need to assemble in order to survive this critical period.

Qualitative science policy

Qualitative research struggles against a tide of quantitative methods. To assist in this struggle, it is useful to consider the historical and philosophical origins of quantitative methods as well as criticisms that have been raised against them. Although these criticisms have often been restricted to discussions in the philosophy of science, they have become increasingly prominent in debates regarding science policy. This article thus reviews current science policy debates concerning scientific autonomy and the linear model of science-society relationships. Then, having considered the multiple meanings of quality, it argues for a science policy reassessment of quantitative research, for deeper engagements between science policy and the social sciences, and finally, for a more explicit alliance between science policy and qualitative methods.