ScienceInsider

As preparations for Inauguration Day and the Obama Administration move forward, people continue to consider the significance of the election of America's first black president. Walter Massey, who served in 1989 as president of AAAS, which publishes ScienceInsider, and directed the National Science Foundation from 1991 to 1993, says the scientific community must try to capitalize on the energy Obama's election has inspired and improve diversity in science. In an e-mail written in Chicago on election night, Massey reflected on the significance of the day:

As someone who grew up in Mississippi in a totally segregated society, I can say that this [is] indeed a new America, and I am grateful to be alive to see this. Congratulations to all of you who put so much effort into making this happen, that America will have its first black president.

The first black president of the United States of America. WOW! I have another dream left, that we will someday have a black Nobel Prize winner in science. Somewhere out there are many young "Barack Scientists to to be", if they could only be inspired to believe it could happen. I suspect that after tonight there [will be] many more young blacks in America who believe they could be president of the United States than those who believe they could win a Nobel Prize in Science. We all have to continue to work to change this situation.

That means taking advantage of every opportunity—however informal—to show children the role science plays in their daily lives, Massey tells ScienceInsider. It also means getting federal support for those efforts, he says: "The long-term growth of this country does depend on investing in innovation, investing in research and science education."

—Rachel Zelkowitz 

The news that U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates will serve for at least a year in the new Administration should be good news for basic science funded by the military. Since coming to the Pentagon, Gates has actively pursued an increase in the Department of Defense’s funding for basic research. Last year, he asked one of his top officials to produce a memo outlining a 5-year plan to grow the Pentagon’s basic research portfolio from $1.5 billion to $2 billion. The first installment of that increase was granted by Congress this year, boosting the basic research budget by $208 million to $1.7 billion in 2009. In a recent interview with Science, a Pentagon administrator said that "Gates is personally committed to science. He gets it."

Gates's extended tenure will also likely bolster ongoing efforts within the Pentagon to invest in more social science research and apply its results on the battlefield. Earlier this year, Gates launched Minerva, a 5-year, $100 million effort to advance sociological, cultural, and anthropological knowledge that could help the U.S. not just fight, but also avert wars.

—Yudhijit Bhattacharjee

Today, the U.K. Parliament's House of Lords approved the government's proposal to reclassify cannabis as a dangerous Class B drug, along with amphetamines and speed, against the recommendations of its own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD). Cannabis had been classified previously as a class C drug, one of those the government deems least likely to cause harm.

The vote prompted an angry reaction from high-profile members of the U.K. scientific community.
In a letter to the Guardian, the scientists wrote that "the ACMD clearly recommended—for the third time in the last six years—that cannabis remains a class C drug, and did so after examining all the available and latest evidence on short- and long-term health risks, as well as social harms, public attitudes and policing priorities.” The recommendations of the ACMD report, prepared at the request of the Home Office, argue against "greater criminalisation of possession," the letter says.

The scientists also warn about dangers to the drug classification system’s credibility: "Reclassification would send out an ambiguous message about the dangers of current class B drugs." Signatories of the letter include David King and Robert May, former government chief scientific advisers; Colin Blakemore, a member of the U.K. Drug Policy Commission and former director of the Medical Research Council; and Gabriel Horn, chair of the Academy of Medical Sciences Working Group on Brain Science, Addiction and Drugs.

—Sara Coelho

Scientists have learned that politicians like it when a discipline prioritizes its desires—the accompanying plea for money then comes across as more measured. Today, in the latest attempt at such internal deliberations, European astronomers released a road map of the top facilities and space missions they say they need to stay at the forefront of their science.

Topping the list are two awe-inspiring instruments: The European Extremely Large Telescope, which will sport a mirror 42 meters across; and the Square Kilometer Array, a network of 4000 radio dishes with a combined collecting area of a square kilometer, but scattered across thousands of kilometers. Others range from robotic probes to the giant planets and their moons, to a gravitational wave detector in space and a neutrino observatory at the bottom of the Mediterranean. The plan was commissioned by a group of funding
agencies called Astronet and reaching a consensus wasn't an easy task: “At the beginning, it looked almost impossible to do, because of the complexity of Europe and it had never been done before,” says Michael Bode, the astronomer with the unlucky honor of heading the road map effort. All Astronet and the politicians who support it have to do now is figure out how to fund this ambitious program. Astronomers reckon it will require a 20% increase over 10 years in Europe’s current €2 billion annual expenditure on astronomy. See Friday’s edition of Science for more details.

—Dan Clery

Congress is wading into the murky question of whether people with Lyme disease should get long-term antibiotics or whether the drugs harm more than help. That issue, which has been a never-ending source of friction among biomedical researchers between researchers and patient-advocates, will get congressional hearings next year.

If there were a Nobel Prize awarded for disease-that-causes-the-most-controversy, Lyme disease would be a top contender. For years, the tick-borne illness has been the subject of vicious fights between scientists and patient advocates over whether long-term antibiotics can help. Many affected by the disease say yes, citing waning symptoms after treatment; many scientists say no, and several clinical trials back them up.

Now entering the Lyme fray is Representative Frank Wolf (R–VA), who used to oversee funding for the U.S. National Science Foundation and other science agencies as a powerful spending panel chair when Republicans controlled the House of Representatives. In September, he sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, demanding that it investigate the treatment guidelines of the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), which shuns long-term antibiotics. He has also requested that a congressional subcommittee hold hearings as soon as possible, and the office of Frank Pallone Jr. (D–NJ), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce panel's Subcommittee on Health, said they will occur next year. “We want an independent evaluation” of the treatment guidelines, said Wolf in an interview with Science. Patients “have lost confidence—some people are traveling for miles to get treatment.”

“I don’t believe” the IDSA guidelines should be used, he went on, “but I’m not a scientist.” IDSA, no stranger to tumult, says it’s happy to cooperate with any hearings but stands by its recommendations. In fact, IDSA recently began assembling an independent panel of eight to 12 people to review its guidelines for Lyme treatment. A spokesperson told ScienceInsider, "We took this extra step to say, 'Okay [if] you don't believe us, let's put this out for review.' "

—Jennifer Couzin

Note: Commenter swampcrawler points out that the IDSA's decision to conduct a review of its guidelines was part of a settlement with the Connecticut Attorney General in May

(Item corrected 12/15/08)

NASA managers are typically like old soldiers—they fade away once they leave the agency, discreetly joining aerospace companies, stepping into academia, or entering retirement. But Alan Stern's not going quietly. The former NASA science chief continues to blast away at the agency he resigned from this spring. In today's New York Times, Stern warns that "a cancer is overtaking our space agency." He rails against a program that is "running inefficiently" to the tune of $5 billion in overruns during the past five years—a crippling amount that roughly equals NASA's annual spending on science.

The result, Stern says, is the delay or abandonment of tomorrow's new missions to pay for today's spacecraft. Stern singles out the Mars Science Laboratory as the poster child for irresponsible spending, as he did in a recent letter to Science, because it will now cost more than $2 billion. The money being poured into the lab, slated for launch next year, puts plans at risk for an ambitious outer planets mission.

Who is to blame? Stern admits that he was in charge of the science effort, but insists he was "admonished and then neutered by still higher ups," a clear reference to his boss, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, "precipitating my resignation earlier this year." He maintains that the problem is rooted in Griffin's fear of angering members of Congress, who are more interested in protecting local jobs than ensuring taxpayers' money is well spent. He complains that NASA is guilty of "the coddling of errant projects" which encourages project managers to allow costs to rise.

Though Stern doesn't name names other than Griffin, agency officials say that his frustration is not just with his former boss. The Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, is famous for its world-class planetary missions as well as its retail price tags for these spacecraft—it is in charge of the expensive Mars lab—as well as its behind-the-scenes influence with the powerful congressional delegation from California.

Stern concludes that "this cancer is bad, but it is curable," and expresses hope that the new Administration of President-elect Barack Obama will be more willing to cancel projects that bust their budget. Stern's talk of change may resonate with Obama, who no doubt will be searching for a change agent to take over the space agency next year. Could Stern be auditioning for NASA's top job? His name is among a dozen mentioned for the position—stay tuned.

—Andrew Lawler

Scientists frequently lament that politicians are clueless when it comes to science. Britain's Conservative party apparently agrees, having developed a plan for its party's new members of Parliament to undergo what it calls "compulsory lessons in scientific literacy." The lessons, which will cover the scientific method and basic concepts in science, are the brainchild of Adam Afriyie, the Member of Parliament who represents the Conservative party on science and innovation issues. Last week, he explained the motivation for the project, telling the Times that: “The evidence-based scientific approach extends well beyond subjects like embryology or GM crops. It is also critical to social policy and criminal sentencing, and it cuts across all areas of government.”

—John Travis

Those who worry that the United States isn't producing enough Ph.D.s in science and engineering can take heart from the National Science Foundation's latest Survey of Earned Doctorates, which has just come out. It shows that U.S. institutions granted a record high 31,801 science and engineering doctorates in 2007, a 6.5% increase over 2006. The increase continues a steady, upward trend that began in 2003. And it wasn't just more non-U.S. citizens earning science and engineering doctorates (up 6% from 2006) but also more U.S. citizens (up 3.6%). There was also a bigger increase in the number of women receiving Ph.D.s (up 6.8%) than men (up 6.2%).

Are these numbers evidence of the increasing attractiveness of doctoral programs or simply the reflection of a weak economy? It's hard to tell. Traditionally, students tend to seek refuge in graduate school when it gets tough to find jobs. In fact, the last slump in Ph.D. production occurred between 1998 and 2002, which some experts attribute to the booming economy of the 1990s. (The logic being that fewer students enrolled in Ph.D. programs in the mid-to-late 1990s because they were snapped up by industry, and hence fewer students graduated with Ph.D.s between the late 1990s and the early 2000s.) Another thought that might dampen excitement over the report is this: more Ph.D.s means more competition for scarce academic jobs.

—Yudhijit Bhattacharjee

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) has landed another big name in his probe of financial conflicts of interest in science. Today the New York Times reports on Grassley's investigation of psychiatrist Frederick Goodwin, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) who hosts the radio show The Infinite Mind. The show, which airs on National Public Radio stations, has covered the effects of pharmaceuticals on the brain. (Slate was onto the story back in May.)

Grassley's investigators dug up evidence that Goodwin, who left NIMH in 1994, has taken at least $1.3 million from the drug industry that was not disclosed on the program. For example, in 2005 he received $329,000 for giving promotional lectures for a mood-stabilizing drug made by GlaxoSmithKline--and in September that year, told listeners that mood-stabilizing drugs can help children with bipolar disorder. The producers of The Infinite Mind taped their last episode in October, but the show continues in reruns. NPR told the Times it was pulling The Infinite Mind from its satellite channels.

--Jocelyn Kaiser

XIAMEN, CHINA—The drinks were flowing freely and firecrackers were popping off as Chinese and U.K. scientists celebrated the opening of a new Sino-U.K. center on environmental science and technology. The endeavor is a joint effort of the Institute of Urban Environment in Xiamen and the University of Aberdeen in the U.K., to speed technology transfer to China and spur the development of homegrown environmental technologies.

The new center has a golden opportunity to make a mark: Last week, the Chinese government announced a 4 trillion yuan ($586 billion) economic stimulus package largely targeted at infrastructure projects that, IUE and Aberdeen researchers hope, will incorporate environmental technologies from the get-go. The grand opening ceremony took place outdoors on a clear, blustery day in this southeastern coastal city, as workers were landscaping and outfitting buildings on the 2-year-old institute's bayside campus. After IUE director Zhao Jingzhu and Ken Killham, research director of Aberdeen's Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, finished their benedictory remarks, the ceremony ended with a bang, Chinese style, by a deafening fusillade of firecrackers.

The center's goals include the development of advanced water treatment techniques such as photoelectric catalysis. "There are tremendous opportunities in this area here in China," says Kilham. "We want our scientists to take an entrepreneurial approach," he says. "They need to be thinking beyond the lab." Demonstrating their prowess at doing just that last night, the researchers rang in the new center with a sumptuous banquet with Chinese liquor and Scotch whisky quaffed from silver Scottish drinking cups called quaichs. By the end of the evening, researchers from both countries were hugging each other and belting out Scottish ballads together.

—Richard Stone