After weeks during which Spanish researchers fretted nervously about possibly significant cuts to their country’s science budget, Spanish Science and Innovation Minister Cristina Garmendia tried this morning in a press conference to give a reassuring message to the scientific community: the ministry will have about the same amount of money next year as proposed in 2010 with which to fund competitive research projects and scholarships, support national research institutes, and give loans to R&D companies. But the 2011 science budget Garmendia highlighted actually represents an overall decrease when compared to what was ultimately allocated for 2010, and the scientific community in Spain is already criticizing the new budget. Spain’s 2011 national budget, which the government proposed last Thursday, has allocated to the science and innovation ministry about €5.354 million. This overall figure represents an increase of 1.20% compared with the budget proposed last year for the science ministry, but in reality the 2011 proposal would produce a 1.65% decrease because the 2010 science budget was boosted during parliamentary debates. The ministry noted that the 2011 proposal for funding given out to public research institutes under the form of lump sums will largely remain the same as proposed in 2010, and that the money distributed as competitive grants would increase by 5.08% in this comparison. But when measured against what was ultimately allocated for 2010, the picture is not as rosy. In addition to proposed cuts in the ministry’s own running and infrastructure expenses, lump sums for research institutes would decrease by 0.09% and research money for competitive calls by 5.78%. The ministry’s overall payroll—including for civil servants in public research institutes—will also go down by 1.52% following a new law passed in May that reduces the salaries of all public staff by 5%. Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) Spanish science did at least do better in the 2011 budget proposal than most other ministries. If the science ministry had received the same level of funding cuts as the other ministries, it would have been faced with a 10.9% decrease in its overall budget compared with the budget proposed for 2010. “The government, in a context of austerity, has made a clear bet for research as a lever for the change of production model” toward a knowledge-based economy, Garmendia says. The scientific community has done its own analysis of the budget and is far from happy. In a preliminary report released yesterday, the Confederation of Spanish Scientific Societies (COSCE) found that, when taking all research activities in various ministries together, the science budget is set to decrease by 8.37% in 2011, down to €8.497 million. COSCE notes that compared with 2009, the 2010 global science budget had already been cut by about 5%. According to COSCE, its preliminary analysis confirms “the fear that research, development, and innovation is going to suffer another cut which, accumulated to the one that occurred last year and to the near stagnation in real terms of the 2009 budget, means that the alarms aren’t gratuitous and that an urgent call must be made to try to redirect the situation.”
New Law in France Loosens Restrictions on Human Embryo Research
The French National Assembly yesterday approved a new law that aims to ease regulation of research involving human embryos and embryonic stem cells. Although French researchers say that the shift will bring little immediate change to their day-to-day work, they hope that the new law will bring more academic freedom and collaboration.”We’ve been fighting for this law for 10 years,” says Cécile Martinat, a cell biologist at the Institute for Stem cell Therapy and Exploration of Monogenic diseases (I-STEM) near Paris. The change effectively reverses the French government’s stance toward human embryo and stem cell research. Existing law essentially banned such research unless scientists could show government regulators that there was no other source of cells for their experiments and that the studies could lead to major medical advances. Permits lasted for up to 5 years.The new law will permit research on human embryos and embryonic stem cells provided it meets all of four criteria: that it has “scientific relevance”; it is performed toward “a medical end”; it “cannot be done without resorting to these embryos or the embryonic stem cells”; and it respects ethical principles.Researchers in the field hope that the conceptual shift will free them from constraints. “We hope to unlock doors that were stupidly closed,” Martinat says. The old law, she says, had enabled opponents of human embryo research to block some studies, for example by arguing that induced pluripotent stem cells could be used as an alternative. Martinat also hopes that the law will make it easier to collaborate with researchers in nations with less restrictive embryo research rules. And it could make it easier for French researchers to work with industry partners interested in testing therapies derived from human embryo research. The old law “was beginning to worry us because we were approaching clinical trials,” Martinat says.Not all researchers see the new law as a victory. It will “inevitably” lead to “the commercialization of human embryos, which is unacceptable,” says Alain Privat, a neurobiologist who is a member of the National Academy of Medicine. And although science minister Geneviève Fioraso promoted the new law in part as a way to keep France competitive in the field, critics argue that the old law did little to impede research. Regulators, they say, approved 190 of 215 applications that they received from embryo researchers between 2004 and 2012.
India in Blacklist Dilemma over AgustaWestland
AgustaWestland, a division of Italian defence group Finmeccanica (SIFI.MI), faces allegations in Italy and India that it paid bribes to win a $750 million deal Related Items
Students Start to Dislike Facebook
A recent study reported waning enthusiasm for Facebook among American teenagers. Is Mumbai losing interest too? Related Items
Kerala Chosen for Global Conservation Project
It will be an inclusive programme in which all land users will be stakeholders. Related Items
An App For India’s Babel Problem
Most problematic for Plustxt and apps like it, though, is that the online demographic shift they are banking on for long-term growth and success may not be permanent. Related Items
Nadella as Microsoft CEO: A Slap in the Face for Indian System
Is the appointment of Satya Nadella a feather in Indias cap or a slap in the face for the Indian system? Related Items
US Accuses Two Indians of Fraud
The defendants in the case Pairsys and its officers Uttam Saha and Tiya Bhattacharya have been accused by the FTC of violating telemarketing sales rule. Related Items
For Sri Sri’s Huge Delhi Fest, Army Builds Bridges
The World Culture Festival, a three-day event, will do serious damage to the delicate ecosystem of Delhi’s Yamuna river Related Items
Top Tech Buyers to Listen to Pitches From Indian Startups
After several years of outsourcing software development and maintenance to India’s $160 billion IT industry, these technology customers are starting to leverage India for a different purpose to meet some of the country’s most innovative startups. Related Items
Climate catastrophe? A half a degree warming could make the difference
Last December in Paris, 195 nations agreed to slow the planet’s warming trend by cutting their greenhouse gas emissions. Their goal was to prevent more than 2°C of additional warming. But even before the meeting, scientists questioned whether that target was too high. A study presented in Vienna today at the European Geosciences Union’s (EGU’s) annual meeting backs up those concerns, providing new evidence that such warming could still lead to catastrophic droughts and sea level rise. But reducing the threshold by just half a degree, to 1.5°C, the scientists say, would make a world of difference.To conduct the study, Carl Schleussner, a scientific adviser at Climate Analytics in Berlin, and an international team of researchers analyzed 11 different indicators of climate impacts, including extreme weather events, water availability, crop yields, coral reef degradation, and sea level rise for 26 nonpolar areas around the world. To do this, they compiled simulations from a wealth of existing climate models, including those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and an ensemble of general ocean and atmosphere circulation models.The results of these simulations confirmed that areas already known to be vulnerable to climate change will be at even greater risk if the planet warms by 2°C than by 1.5°C, the team reports in the study, also published today in Earth System Dynamics. For example, warm spells in the tropics would last up to 50% longer—so that virtually all coral reefs in warmer tropical waters would be at risk of severe degradation after 2050. Under a 1.5°C warming scenario, the threat to those reefs wouldn’t be significantly different before 2050—in both situations an expected degradation of the tropical coral ecosystems is likely to begin by 2030 regardless. But more of them—about 30%—would survive until 2100.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)“Some researchers have argued that there is little difference in climate change impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C,” said study co-author Jacob Schewe, a climate physicist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany. He acknowledges that certain factors such as natural variability and model uncertainties need to be accounted for because they can obscure the picture. “We did that in our study, and by focusing on key indicators at the regional level, we clearly show that there are significant differences in impacts between 1.5°C and 2°C,” he added in a statement to the press.Certain places are particularly vulnerable, Schewe says. “There are tipping points in the system such as the Greenland ice sheet where if it were to melt, the mechanisms there are irreversible.” Scientists can’t say with certainty where that tipping point is exactly, he adds—but they estimate that it’s somewhere between 1.5°C and 2.5°C. “So going for 1.5°C is much safer.”The paper cites a number of ways to assess the significance of an extra half-degree of warming. Crop yields of maize and wheat in Central America and West Africa, for example, would dwindle by twice as much under 2°C, when compared with 1.5°C, the team found. And sea levels would rise an extra 10 centimeters by 2100 (because of both the physical expansion of ocean waters as they warm, as well as water added from melting ice sheets). “Sea level rise will slow down during the 21st century only under a 1.5°C scenario,” Schleussner explained.Slowing sea level rise also has a significant impact on regions frequently inundated by storm surges due to tropical storms, such as the Philippines. “Typhoon Haiyan in 2013 set a new benchmark for storm surges,” says geologist Janneli Lea Soria of the Earth Observatory of Singapore, who was not involved in the new study. A poster she presented at EGU this week showed that the typhoon pushed beach and ocean sediments inland by nearly 2 kilometers in some locations.In the Mediterranean, 2°C warming would cut water availability by 20% by the late 21st century, compared with a 10% reduction from 1.5°C warming, the team found. A separate study, also presented today at EGU by paleoclimatologist Joel Guiot of the European Center for Geoscience Research and Education in Aix-en-Provence, France, puts that into historical context. Looking back over the last 10,000 years of pollen data for the Mediterranean, Guiot found that severe drought has changed vegetated areas in the region by 10% to 15%—often pushing margins of the land cover in other directions.Projecting forward, Guiot found little difference in changes to vegetation cover between 1.5°C and 2°C until 2050. After that, however, a 1.5°C threshold keeps land changes in the realm of droughts seen in the past, Guiot says. NASA identifies the current drought in the Mediterranean as the worst in 900 years. “But if we go to 2°C, we see we are at the maximum range of change seen during the Holocene [dating back about 10,000 years]. And if we go to 3°C we will reach a situation that never existed [in the Holocene] before.”On 22 April—Earth Day—the climate agreement signed in Paris will be available for the signatures of heads of state around the world at the United Nations’s headquarters in New York City for 1 year. At least 55 countries representing 55% of the world’s emissions need to ratify the final agreement that came out of the December 2015 climate conference in order to see it put into force. That agreement reflects the urging from Pacific island nations and others calling themselves “most vulnerable” to climate change to aim for a more stringent target of 1.5°C, “recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.”For most of the indicators, “It’s not the timing, but the level of warming,” Schewe says. “And as soon as we reach that warming we see the impacts associated with it.”
Podcast: Ending AIDS in South Africa, what makes plants gamble, and genes that turn on after death
Listen to stories on how plants know when to take risks, confirmation that the ozone layer is on the mend, and genes that come alive after death, with Online News Editor David Grimm. Science news writer Jon Cohen talks with Julia Rosen about South Africa’s bid to end AIDS. [Image: J.Seita/Flickr/Music: Jeffrey Cook]
Sharp dissent over Australian carbon emissions strategy
The dispute centers on Australia’s carbon emissions reduction target. At the Paris summit, Australia’s government pledged to reduce the country’s 2005 carbon emissions by 26% to 28% by 2030. The Climate Change Authority’s recommendations are based on this target. But David Karoly and Clive Hamilton note that the Australian government also agreed to do its fair share to keep global temperature rise below 2°C, which is a key objective of the Paris accord. The 26% to 28% target “is wholly inconsistent with Australia’s international obligations,” they argue in their report.The authority’s report favors political feasibility over environmental effectiveness “and makes recommendations that are not soundly based on climate science,” Hamilton, an economist at Charles Sturt University near Canberra and climate scientist Karoly of the University of Melbourne in Australia, charge in their dissent. We felt that what the parliament and public needs to know is how much Australia needs to do to meet its international obligations,” Hamilton told ScienceInsider. For example, Karoly and Hamilton note in their op-ed that under the authority’s recommendations, there would be no incentive for utilities and other major energy users to reduce emissions below baselines based on recent emission levels that decline over time. The authority’s strategy also relies heavily on purchasable emissions credits and a government scheme that pays polluters to cut carbon output. Karoly and Hamilton claim this would seriously delay the transition of energy-intensive industries to a low-carbon future. Instead, they argue that Australia should base its climate policy on a carbon budget that sets an upper limit on the country’s total emissions between now and 2050, institute a cap-and-trade scheme, consider closing selected coal-fired power plants, and ramp up renewable energy.The dissenting report “was not released or endorsed by the Authority, and has no status as an Authority report,” Craik wrote in a statement on the authority’s website.Karoly is the only member of the authority who is a climate scientist. Other members are former politicians, bureaucrats, industry representatives, and academics. Neuroscientist and engineer Alan Finkel, Australia’s chief scientist, is an ex-officio member. “The vast majority of those board members have signed on to the report,” energy minister Josh Frydenberg told Australia’s ABC News. He also defended the government’s “very ambitious targets” for emissions reductions.But the contrarian view is garnering praise in the scientific community. “I cannot help but fully support Karoly and Hamilton,” Paul Read, a sustainability expert at Monash University, Clayton, in Australia said in a statement distributed by the Australian Science Media Center. “Their dissenting argument has been supported by the majority of scientists for years,” he wrote, adding that the authority’s report “shunts the entire problem, with far greater pain, into the future.”Hamilton says that what happens next is up to the government, the parliament, and the public, which “have two reports before them recommending very different paths for Australia.” He and Karoly intend to continue serving on the authority until their terms expire in June 2017. “We think we have a valuable contribution to make to the authority,” he says. Two Australian academics serving on a government climate panel have publicly criticized their own committee’s latest report as “untrue and dangerous,” stoking a long-running debate over the country’s carbon emissions reduction strategies. Australia’s Climate Change Authority is a panel created in 2012 to provide expert advice on mitigation initiatives. On 31 August, the authority, chaired by Wendy Craik, a deputy chancellor at the University of South Australia, Adelaide, released a review of what actions Australia should take “to deliver on its international commitments” under the Paris Agreement of December 2015, according to the authority’s website.The two dissenting members yesterday released their own minority report after highlighting their objections in an op-ed that appeared online Sunday at The Sydney Morning Herald. Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)
Test your smarts on viral mutations and scientific luck!
Ebola According to a new study, how much Arctic ice does the average U.S. family destroy in 30 years? Score The older the scientist, the more citations per paper The Science Quiz After running into strong local opposition, a huge telescope planned for construction in Hawaii could move where? As long as their entire body Drink more water Pedal slower Chile’s Atacama Desert Pedal faster The faster you answer, the higher you score! Challenge your friends and sign up for your chance to win a free digital subscription to Science. An error occurred loading the Quiz. Please try again later. Positron tomography A finless fish Share your score The Cubbies did it! Now, here’s a question for all you math nerds: Given that Major League Baseball has 30 teams, what’s the approximate chance that another team will have a similarly long losing streak? Radio astronomy Ebola. The sheer size of the Ebola epidemic that engulfed West Africa is still a bit of a riddle. Scientists think the virus spread quickly thanks to poor infrastructure and its sudden appearance in major cities, where it jumped easily from person to person. Now, two new studies add another item to that list: 3 months after the outbreak became a full-blown epidemic, the virus underwent a mutation that made it better suited for humans. A marine lizard This one weird trick might help you take in less air pollution on your daily (or annual) bike ride: None of the above. Citations seem to be random. Enter the information below to enter the sweepstakes:Your information has been submitted.An error occurred submitting the email. Please try again later.This email has already been entered.The email submitted is not a valid email.Incomplete form. Please fill out all fields. Select CountryAfghanistanAlbaniaAlgeriaAmerican SamoaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntigua & BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBoliviaBonaireBosnia & HerzegovinaBotswanaBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerBruneiBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCanary IslandsCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChannel IslandsChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos IslandColombiaComorosCongoCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuracaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEast TimorEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland IslandsFaroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreat BritainGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuamGuatemalaGuineaGuyanaHaitiHawaiiHondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIranIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea NorthKorea SouthKuwaitKyrgyzstanLaosLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacauMacedoniaMadagascarMalaysiaMalawiMaldivesMaliMaltaMarshall IslandsMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMidway IslandsMoldovaMonacoMongoliaMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNambiaNauruNepalNetherland AntillesNetherlands (Holland, Europe)NevisNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalau IslandPalestinePanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairn IslandPolandPortugalPuerto RicoQatarRepublic of MontenegroRepublic of SerbiaReunionRomaniaRussiaRwandaSt BarthelemySt EustatiusSt HelenaSt Kitts-NevisSt LuciaSt MaartenSt Pierre & MiquelonSt Vincent & GrenadinesSaipanSamoaSamoa AmericanSan MarinoSao Tome & PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyriaTahitiTaiwanTajikistanTanzaniaThailandTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad & TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks & Caicos IsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUSAUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVatican City StateVenezuelaVietnamVirgin Islands (Brit)Virgin Islands (USA)Wake IslandWallis & Futana IsYemenZaireZambiaZimbabweBy Entering you agree to receive email from AAAS about AAAS products and Services (you can opt out of these emails at any time). I would like to receive emails about products and services offered by AAAS advertisers.PRIVACY I have read and accept the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.Submit Stretched end to end, how long is the DNA in the nucleus of a presidential candidate’s cells? Dubstep The older the scientist, the fewer citations per paper Pedal slower. If you try to outpace pollutants by pedaling faster, you might want to reconsider. Despite reducing time exposed to toxicants, active commuters—both walkers and bikers—can actually take in up to four times as much air pollution, because they breathe more heavily when they pick up the pace. To find a sweet-spot speed, researchers built a computer model of 10,000 bikers and walkers, based on commuting data. Their answer for the bikers? A comfortable 13-kilometer-per-hour pace. Research into beard filters is ongoing. How did you score on the quiz? Challenge your friends to a science news duel! Endless, just like this election Zika Cosmic rays Question LOADING The world’s first known four-legged snake might not be a snake at all, according to a new study. What do scientists think it might be instead? China’s Yellow Mountains 80%. The Cubs’ streak of 107 seasons without a championship was unparalleled. But as sports leagues continue to expand, the probability that some team or another will suffer an equally long drought is growing right along with them. If one assumes that in any year each team has an equal probability—3.3%—of winning the championship, then simple binomial statistics predict that the probability that any one team will fail to win a championship for 107 years in a row is 2.67%. But with 30 teams in the league, the chance that some team or another will fail to win the championship for 107 seasons in a row is a whopping 79.7%. In fact, the Cleveland Indians, who haven’t won for 68 seasons, have a decent chance of matching the Cubs’ feat. Assuming all teams have equal chances of winning, the probability that the Indians will continue to not win for another 39 years is 26.7%. Dare to dream, Cleveland. 200 square meters Time’s Up! Start Quiz Electron microscopy NIAID 200 square meters, or about the size of an American football field. Since the 1960s, the shrinkage of the ice cap over the Arctic Ocean has advanced in lockstep with the amount of greenhouse gases humans have sent into the atmosphere. Every additional metric ton of carbon dioxide appears to cost the Arctic another 3 square meters of summer sea ice—a simple and direct observational link that has been sitting in data beneath scientists’ noses. If both the relationship and current emission trends hold, the study suggests the Arctic will be ice free by 2045—far sooner than some climate models predict. 0 / 10 X-rays
0 You Win a FREE digital subscription to Science! Just submit the required contact information to enter. 45% 80% Electron microscopy. Electron microscopes can magnify objects up to 10 million times, letting scientists peer into the inner workings of our bodies’ smallest parts. But they’ve only been able to see in black and white, until now. The new technique—15 years in the making—uses three rare earth metals, which are layered one-by-one over cells on a microscopic slide. When the metals lose electrons, they are marked with a unique color, either red, yellow, or green. With a few more tweaks, scientists hope to add three or four new colors to the mix soon. Grow a beard As long as their forearm Spain’s Canary Islands. The location of the planned Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) remains in the balance over its disputed building permit. But now, at least, astronomers have a backup. The TMT, which will be one of the world’s largest telescopes when it begins operating next decade, got into hot water because Native Hawaiian activists objected to its siting on Mauna Kea, a sacred mountain that also happens to be one of the world’s best sites for optical and infrared astronomy. New research shows that a recent mutation in this virus may have made it even deadlier: A two-legged snake 2 square meters Official rules for the News from Science weekly quiz sweepstakes HIV Last week, scientists said that a new upgrade allows this well-known imaging method to produce color images for the first time: Results: You answered out of correctly – Click to revisit Solar storms. The sun’s warm glow can sometimes turn menacing. Solar storms can shoot plasma wrapped in bits of the sun’s magnetic field into space, sweeping past Earth and disabling satellites, causing widespread blackouts, and disrupting GPS-based navigation. Now, a new study suggests that one such “coronal mass ejection” in 2015 temporarily weakened Earth’s protective magnetic field, allowing solar plasma and radiation from the same storm to more easily reach the atmosphere. A marine lizard. The fossil is tiny, fragile thing: a squashed skull barely a centimeter in length, a sinuous curving body about two fingers long, and four delicate limbs with grasping hands. In a major paper last year, researchers called this rare fossil the first known four-legged snake. But last week, another team of scientists weighed in, suggesting instead that it’s a marine lizard. As scientists debate the identity of this controversial specimen, the only one of its kind, it now appears to be inaccessible for further study. And paleontologists are mad as hell. A flying iguana New York City’s Trump Tower None of the above. You might guess that, over time, a scientist matures and produces better work, with later papers earning more citations. But no such trend emerged in a recent study. Instead, a scientific paper looks more like a lottery ticket, says an author of the new paper, with the number of citations mostly due to luck. “So publishing more papers is like buying more tickets,” she says. “And that’s why you have a bigger impact during your more productive years” as a scientist. Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) A new study suggests that this may weaken Earth’s magnetic field: New research reveals this pattern about citations in scientific publishing: The more coauthors over time, the more citations per paper Top Ranker Earthquakes As long as their finger Solar storms Spain’s Canary Islands Click to enter 20 square meters Enter for a chance to win. We’ll select a new winner each week. 2000 square meters November 07, 2016 Chikungunya Average 35% November 07, 2016 The Science Quiz Take the quiz to enter for a chance to win a FREE digital subscription to Science! Learn More As long as their entire body! How our DNA is bunched into the nucleus is a miracle of packaging, with very deliberate loops and bends that bring specific parts of each chromosome into contact to help control what genes are active. Now, using sophisticated statistics, imaging, and experimental data, biophysicists have a clearer idea about how all this genetic material is squished into such a tiny space. 3% Every Monday, The Science Quiz tests your knowledge of the week’s biggest science news stories. No matter how much you know, you’re still likely to learn something–give it a try!
New theory may explain the ‘music of the meteors’
For centuries, some observers have claimed that shooting stars or meteors hiss as they arc through the night sky. And for just as long, skeptics have scoffed on the grounds that sound waves coming from meteors should arrive several minutes after the light waves, which travel nearly a million times faster. Now, scientists have proposed a theory to explain how our eyes and ears could perceive a meteor at nearly the same time. The hypothesis might also explain how auroras produce sound, a claim made by many indigenous peoples living at high latitudes.Meteors release huge amounts of energy as they disintegrate in the atmosphere. They also produce low frequency radio waves that travel at the speed of light. Some scientists have suggested that those radio waves produce the sound that accompanies meteors. The waves can cause everyday objects—including fences, hair, and glasses—to vibrate, which our ears pick up as sound between 20 and 20,000 Hertz. This phenomenon, called electrophonics, is a well-known principle: “The conversion from electromagnetic waves to sound waves … is exactly how your radio works,” says Colin Price, an atmospheric scientist at Tel Aviv University in Israel and co-author of the new study. “But in this case nature provides the conversion between electromagnetic waves and acoustic waves.”But nailing down that scenario isn’t easy. Reports of noisy meteors are relatively scarce—there were only 40 last year, according to the American Meteor Society (AMS). And because most of these “hearings” have been made by amateur sky watchers, it’s difficult to find audio recordings to back them up. “[We’ve] never had [a recording] cross our path,” says David Meisel in Geneseo, New York, executive director of AMS. Moreover, a key question remains to be answered: How do the meteors produce low-frequency radio waves in the first place?Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)Now, Price and Michael Kelley, a physicist at Cornell University, have developed a model to answer that question. As a meteor streaks through Earth’s atmosphere, it ionizes the air around it, splitting it into heavy, positively charged ions and lighter, negatively charged electrons. The ions follow the meteor, whereas the electrons are deflected by Earth’s magnetic field. That separation of positive and negative charges in the meteor’s wake produces a large electric field that drives an electrical current. And it’s that current that launches the radio waves, Price and Kelley hypothesize in an upcoming issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The size of the meteor and its speed through the atmosphere would control the frequency of the radio waves, they predict.Earlier this year, another research team presented a different hypothesis to explain how meteors make sound. That team proposed that visible light from a meteor heats up materials such as hair and glasses, which then vibrate and produce sound waves. But this theory requires a “huge” light source, Price says. Only meteors as bright as the full moon could emit enough light to produce such sound waves. But according to the new theory, all meteors generate radio waves that can produce sound, some of which our ears are capable of picking up.Price and Kelley suggest that their model might also explain reports of “clapping” sounds accompanying auroras, the colorful light displays created when charged particles from the sun collide with molecules in Earth’s atmosphere at high latitudes. These sounds feature prominently in stories of native peoples of the northern United States, Greenland, and Canada, but they have largely been dismissed by scientists. “Auroras also create radio waves that can easily reach the ground,” Kelley says. The new hypothesis is “reasonable,” says Meers Oppenheim, an astronomer at Boston University not involved in the study. But it’s difficult to simulate what’s truly going on 100 kilometers up in Earth’s atmosphere as tiny particles of dust whiz by at 50 or more kilometers per second. “The devil lies in the details, and no one seems to have truly worked through those,” he says. A meteor streaking over Yosemite National Park in 2016. 4kodiak/iStock By Katherine KorneiApr. 14, 2017 , 8:00 AM New theory may explain the ‘music of the meteors’
Salk Institute hit with discrimination lawsuit by third female scientist
By Meredith WadmanJul. 20, 2017 , 5:45 PM Emerson’s complaint states that in 2012, Brody summoned Emerson into his office and stated that he did not know how much longer Salk could support her laboratory. At the time, she claims, she had two National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants and more NIH funding per staff member than many male full professor. Since then, she alleges, she has “been forced to successively fire staff, ultimately reducing her laboratory size by 75% to two staff members (not counting herself).” (The complaint also states that between 2012 and 2014, according to Internal Revenue Service filings, Brody’s compensation grew by 67%, to $1,623,785.) Emerson’s suit says that her contract with Salk ends at the end of this year. The Salk has 28 tenured male faculty members. It has four tenured women, for now, not including Blackburn. Last month, Salk announced the hiring of a fifth tenured woman to the scientific staff. Yale University immunologist Susan Kaech is expected to join the faculty next February or March. Rex Boggs (CC BY-ND 2.0) Salk Institute hit with discrimination lawsuit by third female scientist Unlike the two other lawsuits, Emerson’s goes into some detail on a still undisclosed 2003 internal Salk report looking at the status of women at the seaside research center and a more recent similar analysis, commissioned in 2016 by Blackburn soon after she took over. Emerson alleges that the “alarming” findings of the 2003 report were “completely ignored” by the administration and the board of trustees. She claims that the report found that “female Assistant Professors had to work an average of 1.2 years longer than male Assistant Professors (6.4 years vs. 5.6 years) to be promoted to Associate Professor, and female Associate Professors had to work an average of 1.7 years longer than male Associate Professors (5.3 years vs. 3.6 years) to be promoted to Full Professor.”The 2016 report describes “a culture in which a small subset of faculty [i.e., senior male Professors] play a disproportionately large role in academic governance,” the complaint states. This and its other findings were similarly not acted on, Emerson alleges. Salk, which has vehemently denied Jones and Lundlad’s charges, responded today to Emerson’s suit with a statement by Blackburn that said in part: Following two gender discrimination lawsuits filed last week, a third senior female professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies has similarly sued the storied independent institute in San Diego, California.Beverly Emerson, 65, a molecular biologist who has worked at Salk since 1986, filed a lawsuit seeking unspecified damages on 18 July in California Superior Court in San Diego. In it, she alleges that she and two other senior female professors at Salk, despite their accomplishments and accolades, have endured slower promotion rates, lower pay, and underfunding of their labs relative to their male colleagues. As in the suits filed by Salk professors Katherine Jones and Vicki Lundblad, Emerson also alleges that all three women have been shut out of opportunities for lucrative grants and denied leadership opportunities within Salk, a “hostile environment in which they are undermined, disrespected, disparaged, and treated unequally.”“What is worse,” Emerson alleges, Salk administration and board of trustees, including former President William Brody and current President Elizabeth Blackburn, a biology Nobel laureate, “have known about this discrimination, yet done absolutely nothing to stop it or right the wrongs perpetrated against its … talented and decorated female Full Professors.”Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) Salk Institute Salk then pointed to the same supportive statement it issued on behalf of plant biologist Joanne Chory last week in response to the first suits, in which she says that for 28 years Salk has allowed her to “flourish” as a scientist. (Chory, the fourth tenured female professor on Salk’s scientific staff, is officially employed by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.)Emerson, who was elected a Fellow of AAAS (the publisher of Science) in 2015, alleges that Salk’s opaque recruitment, hiring, promotion, compensation, and other practices have allowed continued gender discrimination by the administration. The institute, she charges, fails to conduct annual faculty performance reviews; has no written policy defining eligibility for grants from private donors, which are not open to all faculty; and has no clear policies for the distribution of laboratory space or for faculty recruitment. The latter, she alleges, “[has allowed] the Salk Institute to hire 3.5 male faculty for every one female faculty member in the past six years.” A third gender discrimination lawsuit has been filed against the Salk Institute. “I would never preside over an organization that in any way condones, openly or otherwise, the marginalizing of female scientists. We are saddened and deeply disappointed by the misrepresentations made by our colleagues in these claims, which we will defend against vigorously. Underscoring their lack of merit, the characterizations already have been debunked by other current female professors at the institute who have flourished here.” Beverly Emerson, pictured at left, in a 2013 fundraising brochure. She alleges the Salk Institute uses female faculty as “donor bait.”
HHMI’s own brand of diversity in the life sciences
HHMI’s own brand of diversity in the life sciences This week, HHMI announced the first 15 winners of its Hanna H. Gray fellowships, named after the former University of Chicago in Illinois professor and longtime HHMI trustee. But their demographics might surprise you.Five are white, matching the number of blacks chosen. A majority, eight, are women, mirroring the fact that women receive slightly more than half the life science Ph.D.s awarded by U.S. institutions. Two of the fellows are Asian-Americans, a group heavily overrepresented in the sciences.All were eligible under the program’s definition of underrepresentation, which included women, those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, and people who self-identify with a group that is underrepresented in the life sciences. O’Shea defends the inclusion of women, noting that “women may start out at parity in grad school, but we lose them at every stage after the Ph.D.” Women constitute only a quarter of those who are full professors, she says.The competition attracted more than 700 applicants, and the winners were chosen for their scientific promise, O’Shea says. “It’s an amazing group,” she says of the 35 finalists who made presentations this summer to a panel of judges at HHMI’s headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland. Almost all would have been funded had the program’s budget been larger, she noted. As a consolation prize, each of the 20 runners-up received $10,000 to use for professional development.The new fellows now have both the money (up to $1.4 million over 8 years) and status—more than half are working in the labs of HHMI investigators, themselves an elite group of scientists—to succeed in the ultracompetitive world of academic science. If they make it, O’Shea believes that even a small change in the demographics at top universities can make a big difference for the profession.Harvard University and the University of California, San Francisco, are each hosting three fellows, with the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena snaring two; the rest work at other top 20 departments.“Those departments train a significant number of students,” O’Shea says, recalling the freshman chemistry class of 550 that she used to teach at Harvard. “And having even one or two [minority] faculty members would be significant. I remember students of color coming up to me—Harvard’s student body is quite diverse—and asking, ‘Can I become a professor. I don’t see anyone that looks like me up there.’”In addition to funding the new fellows well into their first faculty position, O’Shea says HHMI is committed to providing them with good mentoring and career support. The fact that so many will be working with HHMI investigators is no coincidence, she says. The fellows will be attending HHMI-sponsored meetings with the goal of building networks that will improve their odds of success. “That’s something other funders, including federal agencies, wouldn’t be able to do as easily,” O’Shea notes.At the same time, O’Shea admits that “we don’t have a lot of control over the environment” that influences whether a young scientist from an underrepresented group will succeed. Researchers who study diversity often refer to the “minority tax” on them—the additional requests to mentor minority students, serve on university inclusion committees, and otherwise help institutions that lack diversity. Those requests can steal time from doing the high-quality research needed to win them tenure and career recognition. In addition, many senior faculty members may not be adept at mentoring with a junior colleague from a different racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group.HHMI is still wrestling with how to measure the program’s impact, O’Shea says. “Would they have succeeded anyway, without us?” she asks. “We can’t do that experiment.” And although HHMI isn’t planning a formal program evaluation, it hopes to keep tabs on the career trajectories of the finalists not chosen to see how they compare with the winners.Hughes expects to fund at least three more cohorts, she says, and is looking for outside support to extend the program. Applications are due in January for the 2018 cohort, and HHMI has tightened eligibility to those who received their Ph.D. or M.D. degrees at U.S. institutions.O’Shea hopes to see positive results as soon as the fellows take up tenure-track positions and begin to establish themselves as independent investigators. But even if it takes longer to have an impact, she is convinced that the Gray fellowships are worth funding. “If people can just get off to a really good start, it makes everything so much easier.” “Zero is a real problem.”Erin O’Shea is talking about the number of minority professors in life science departments at many of the top U.S. research universities. O’Shea, a systems biologist, trained and taught in that rarified environment for 2 decades before joining the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) in 2013 and becoming its president last September. But the 51-year-old systems biologist says that the lack of diversity at those schools weakens the U.S. scientific enterprise by shrinking the pool of minds equipped to make discoveries.One of O’Shea’s first moves as HHMI president was committing $25 million a year to support postdocs from underrepresented groups. Her hope was that they would eventually change the color—and culture—of their departments as they moved into leadership positions, in addition to serving as role models for the next generation of scientists.Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) By Jeffrey MervisSep. 21, 2017 , 10:45 AM fitie/iStock Photo 
Top stories: transgender athletes, water on Mars, and a climate-cooling arachnid
Top stories: transgender athletes, water on Mars, and a climate-cooling arachnid By Frankie SchembriJul. 27, 2018 , 2:00 PM (Left to right): BETH NAKAMURA; ESA/DLR/FU BERLIN/CC BY-SA; STEPHEN DALTON/MINDEN PICTURES 
This scientist is racing to discover how gender transitions alter athletic performance—including her ownIn 2015, Joanna Harper, a medical physicist and runner, published the first study of transgender athletes’ race times, finding no advantage for transgender women who had been receiving hormone therapy, thanks to their previous exposure to male levels of testosterone. The groundbreaking study launched Harper into an advisory role for organizations such as the International Olympic Committee that are revising rules for transgender competitors. Harper—who herself transitioned more than a decade ago—is currently helping to study the physiology and performance of athletes as they transition.Liquid water spied deep below polar ice cap on MarsSign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*)The first liquid water has been found on the Red Planet, in a lake far beneath the ice cap at Mars’s south pole. Detected from orbit using an ice-penetrating radar device known as the Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding instrument, the lake is probably frigid and full of salts—an unlikely habitat for life. But the discovery is sure to intensify the hunt for other buried layers of water that might be more hospitable.Could this tiny spider be helping the Arctic stay cool?The 1.25-centimeter-long wolf spider may be having an outsize effect on the Arctic climate. When temperatures rise, the arachnids switch up their diets, eating each other instead of an insect that keeps a greenhouse gas–belching fungus in check, researchers report. As a result, the spiders may be indirectly reducing greenhouse gases over the Arctic and keeping the region cooler than it would be otherwise.Here’s the sexual harassment report that felled a famed geneticist—and his defenseThe 97-page report that triggered the 1 July termination of Francisco Ayala from the University of California (UC), Irvine, describes a long-standing pattern of behavior by the prominent evolutionary geneticist that continued even after he was warned to stop in 2015. The report details off-color remarks and repeated unsolicited compliments on women’s physical appearances—behaviors witnessed by one or more of the 61 people interviewed for the investigation—which UC Irvine stated are in violation of its sexual harassment policies.Outer space may have just gotten a bit closerA new study argues that the boundary between Earth’s atmosphere and outer space—known as the Kármán line—is 20 kilometers, or about 20%, closer than scientists thought. Though the new definition won’t make a difference for launching rockets and spacecraft, it could help clarify a legal debate that will set the rules for space policy—and commercial spaceflight—for years to come.
NIH probe of foreign ties has led to undisclosed firings—and refunds from institutions
National Institutes of Health An aggressive effort by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to enforce rules requiring its grantees to report foreign ties is still gathering steam. But it has already had a major impact on the U.S. biomedical research community. A senior NIH official tells ScienceInsider that universities have fired more scientists—and refunded more grant money—as a result of the effort than has been publicly known.Since August 2018, Bethesda, Maryland–based NIH has sent roughly 180 letters to more than 60 U.S. institutions about individual scientists it believes have broken NIH rules requiring full disclosure of all sources of research funding. To date, the investigation has led to the well-publicized dismissals of five researchers, all Asian Americans, at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas, and Emory University in Atlanta.But other major U.S. research universities have also fired faculty in cases that have remained confidential, according to Michael Lauer, head of NIH’s extramural research program. And some have repaid NIH “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in grants as a result of rule violations, he says. “I can understand why [the universities] aren’t talking about it,” Lauer says. “No organization wants to discuss personnel actions in a public forum.”Sign up for our daily newsletterGet more great content like this delivered right to you!Country *AfghanistanAland IslandsAlbaniaAlgeriaAndorraAngolaAnguillaAntarcticaAntigua and BarbudaArgentinaArmeniaArubaAustraliaAustriaAzerbaijanBahamasBahrainBangladeshBarbadosBelarusBelgiumBelizeBeninBermudaBhutanBolivia, Plurinational State ofBonaire, Sint Eustatius and SabaBosnia and HerzegovinaBotswanaBouvet IslandBrazilBritish Indian Ocean TerritoryBrunei DarussalamBulgariaBurkina FasoBurundiCambodiaCameroonCanadaCape VerdeCayman IslandsCentral African RepublicChadChileChinaChristmas IslandCocos (Keeling) IslandsColombiaComorosCongoCongo, The Democratic Republic of theCook IslandsCosta RicaCote D’IvoireCroatiaCubaCuraçaoCyprusCzech RepublicDenmarkDjiboutiDominicaDominican RepublicEcuadorEgyptEl SalvadorEquatorial GuineaEritreaEstoniaEthiopiaFalkland Islands (Malvinas)Faroe IslandsFijiFinlandFranceFrench GuianaFrench PolynesiaFrench Southern TerritoriesGabonGambiaGeorgiaGermanyGhanaGibraltarGreeceGreenlandGrenadaGuadeloupeGuatemalaGuernseyGuineaGuinea-BissauGuyanaHaitiHeard Island and Mcdonald IslandsHoly See (Vatican City State)HondurasHong KongHungaryIcelandIndiaIndonesiaIran, Islamic Republic ofIraqIrelandIsle of ManIsraelItalyJamaicaJapanJerseyJordanKazakhstanKenyaKiribatiKorea, Democratic People’s Republic ofKorea, Republic ofKuwaitKyrgyzstanLao People’s Democratic RepublicLatviaLebanonLesothoLiberiaLibyan Arab JamahiriyaLiechtensteinLithuaniaLuxembourgMacaoMacedonia, The Former Yugoslav Republic ofMadagascarMalawiMalaysiaMaldivesMaliMaltaMartiniqueMauritaniaMauritiusMayotteMexicoMoldova, Republic ofMonacoMongoliaMontenegroMontserratMoroccoMozambiqueMyanmarNamibiaNauruNepalNetherlandsNew CaledoniaNew ZealandNicaraguaNigerNigeriaNiueNorfolk IslandNorwayOmanPakistanPalestinianPanamaPapua New GuineaParaguayPeruPhilippinesPitcairnPolandPortugalQatarReunionRomaniaRussian FederationRWANDASaint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da CunhaSaint Kitts and NevisSaint LuciaSaint Martin (French part)Saint Pierre and MiquelonSaint Vincent and the GrenadinesSamoaSan MarinoSao Tome and PrincipeSaudi ArabiaSenegalSerbiaSeychellesSierra LeoneSingaporeSint Maarten (Dutch part)SlovakiaSloveniaSolomon IslandsSomaliaSouth AfricaSouth Georgia and the South Sandwich IslandsSouth SudanSpainSri LankaSudanSurinameSvalbard and Jan MayenSwazilandSwedenSwitzerlandSyrian Arab RepublicTaiwanTajikistanTanzania, United Republic ofThailandTimor-LesteTogoTokelauTongaTrinidad and TobagoTunisiaTurkeyTurkmenistanTurks and Caicos IslandsTuvaluUgandaUkraineUnited Arab EmiratesUnited KingdomUnited StatesUruguayUzbekistanVanuatuVenezuela, Bolivarian Republic ofVietnamVirgin Islands, BritishWallis and FutunaWestern SaharaYemenZambiaZimbabweI also wish to receive emails from AAAS/Science and Science advertisers, including information on products, services and special offers which may include but are not limited to news, careers information & upcoming events.Required fields are included by an asterisk(*) NIH probe of foreign ties has led to undisclosed firings—and refunds from institutions By Jeffrey MervisJun. 26, 2019 , 5:10 PM
Michael Lauer leads the National Institutes of Health’s extramural research program. Lauer suspects some of the cases NIH has uncovered may result in the U.S. government banning certain scientists from receiving federal funds, a process called debarment. NIH has referred at least 18 cases to its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), for further investigation. “We are still reasonably early on in the process,” Lauer says, “and for a number of cases we don’t know where we’ll end up.”He also thinks other federal agencies that fund academic research may soon copy NIH’s aggressive approach. “I wouldn’t be surprised if other agencies follow our lead and start doing similar things,” he says.Connecting the dotsThis week, Lauer sat down with ScienceInsider at his office on the NIH campus to talk about how NIH became concerned about foreign influence and what it is doing to defend the process used to spend more than $20 billion annually on outside research projects.He says the agency’s concerns were initially sparked by reports that scientists were violating the confidentiality of NIH’s peer-review process, in which thousands of volunteer reviewers rate tens of thousands of grant proposals every year. In mid-2016, he says, NIH received a report from the HHS Office of Inspector General that a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe had uncovered an MD Anderson researcher sharing proposals he had been asked to review with several other people.That’s a clear violation of NIH rules intended to ensure the confidentiality of every grant proposal, Lauer says. But few such breaches ever trigger an FBI investigation. “There are people who will download an application and share it with a postdoc or a buddy down the hall and ask a question,” he says. “People are not supposed to do that, but maybe that’s not a hanging offense.”But this was different. “Grant applications were being sent to multiple people at other institutions” in other nations, Lauer says about the case. “It was quite scary. Initially, we thought it was [the work of] a few rogue scientists, very unfortunate, but probably nothing more than that.”It turned out, however, that such breaches were just one aspect of what Lauer regards as a much larger assault on the integrity of NIH-funded research. Over the next 2 years, he says, NIH grant managers would find numerous examples of NIH-funded scientists at U.S. universities who were publishing papers that listed a foreign institution—often in China—as their primary affiliation and cited foreign funding sources in the fine print. But the scientists hadn’t reported those affiliations and grants to their institutions or to NIH, as required.The discovery was serendipitous, Lauer explains, and grew out of the agency’s routine monitoring of progress reports filed by grantees. “We have about 1300 people here, fully trained scientists, who oversee our [extramural] scientific programs,” Lauer says. “They are assigned a set of grants. And each year they look at progress reports to make sure things are OK. And one question we ask is, ‘What have you published?’”The program managers were looking for exciting new scientific results, Lauer says. But they also found troubling discrepancies between the affiliations and funding that a grantee had reported to NIH and what they wrote in their papers.“It’s fascinating,” Lauer says. The reporting discrepancy “had been going on for a number of years, apparently, but it took a long time before we noticed it. That’s when we decided there was something going on.”Initial resistanceNIH’s first step was to notify all grantee institutions that it was launching an investigation. That August 2018 letter, from NIH Director Francis Collins, was followed by inquiries from Lauer about specific researchers.Many universities pushed back, he says, telling him the agency’s suspicions were misplaced. “What we heard was that there’s nothing going on,” Lauer says. A typical response from a senior university official went like this, according to Lauer: “The faculty member says he’s never been to China, he doesn’t receive any support from the government, and he has no affiliation with any Chinese university. They told us we’re just blowing smoke.”But Lauer says most university officials changed their tune after NIH showed them evidence that included grant numbers from foreign funders and employment contracts with foreign institutions. “So then what happens is that the university digs a bit deeper and finds that, yes, there is a lot going on,” he says.University officials insisted it was all news to them, Lauer adds. “Some vice presidents for research and deans have told us that they were surprised, shocked, and horrified when they learned about [these arrangements],” Lauer says. “They said they had no idea some of their employees were spending 4, 6, 8 months away from their institution.”“We found one person with a $5 million startup package from a Chinese university that wasn’t disclosed to anybody, not to his American university, and not to us,” Lauer asserts. “This is not subtle. It’s not an, ‘Oops, I forgot to list it on a form.’ We’re talking about really, really egregious stuff.”Those absent without leave scientists were not just stiffing their home institutions, Lauer points out. They were also fleecing NIH and, by extension, U.S. taxpayers. The rip-off became clear, he says, whenever their time commitment to funded research projects exceeded 12 months.“The American institution thinks it has a 12-month employee who’s working for them,” Lauer explains. “And we give them funding for research that will take 8 months of their time. But they already have 9 months of outside time commitments. So it adds up to 17 months. And that’s not possible.”Uncovering that faulty math has had financial repercussions, Lauer notes. “Several universities have actually refunded us money for salaries paid during times when, as best they could tell, the faculty member wasn’t at the institution and couldn’t have been working on the NIH grant,” he says. Some of the refunds, Lauer says, are for “hundreds of thousands of dollars.” That is money NIH could have spent on other researchers who are playing by the rules, he adds.What NIH has learnedLauer says he hasn’t done a thorough analysis of the 180 cases in which NIH believes scientists have withheld information about their foreign ties. But a few things stand out.“Most of the scientists are well-funded, meaning they have multiple NIH grants,” he says. “Most are ethnically Chinese, although some of our more serious cases are not ethnically Chinese.” Lauer says the scientists work at institutions all over the United States: “We have examples from the northeast, the southeast, Texas, obviously, the southwest, and elsewhere.”No particular field seems to have attracted more than its share of bad actors, according to Lauer. “All the people at MD Anderson work on cancer,” he says. “But we’ve also seen [cases involving scientists in] mental health, cardiology, neurology, basic cell biology, and so on.”Lauer declined to speculate on why these scientists chose not to disclose their foreign ties. But he said NIH has found several cases where the omissions were selective. “We’ve seen scientists who reported other foreign grants and affiliations, but not the Chinese grants and affiliations,” he says.Among U.S. lawmakers and the media, some of the concern about foreign influence in U.S. research has focused on the role of the Thousand Talents Program, part of China’s decadelong campaign to build ties with scientists outside of China. The program provides distinguished U.S.-based scientists with generous packages to set up and operate labs at a Chinese research institution or university.Lauer says some of those Thousand Talents awards come with very specific instructions to the researcher, including what they are expected to study and the number of papers they must publish in top-tier journals. But the provisions about what activities should and should not be disclosed are not uniform.“We have seen contracts that say all the intellectual property that this scientist generates must stay in China and cannot be reported to their American university,” he says. “You can imagine that U.S. universities are not happy when they see that. U.S. universities expect to reap the benefits of research done at their institution, and they are losing that [opportunity].”Other contracts lean in the opposite direction, Lauer says. “They say every paper a scientist publishes must cite the Chinese university,” he says. “Some have gone so far as to say their university must be cited first.” Lauer says those scientists are also required to cite the Chinese entity funding their research funding, “for the same reason we require people to cite their NIH grants: We want to make sure we get credit for the research we have funded.”Guilt by association?Many members of the Asian American community believe that U.S. government agencies have been targeting Asian-born scientists simply for their participation in Thousand Talents and similar Chinese foreign recruitment programs. Lauer says NIH has no problem with U.S. scientists who participate in Thousand Talents so long as they disclose that relationship fully in their grant applications and research progress reports.“Thousand Talents is not a threat [to the United States],” he says. “It’s not the specific conduct we are focusing on, it’s the failure to disclose it.”To make his point, Lauer offers an alternative scenario of what he considers to be acceptable behavior. “A U.S. scientist goes to their boss and says, ‘I would like to work in China for 3 months a year, and I managed to secure a part-time employment arrangement. I’ll tell you what I’m working on, and how intellectual property will be handled, and how much they will pay me.’ And then they report all of that in their biosketch.”That should be the norm, he says. But it’s not. “If that is what was happening,” Lauer says, “you and I would not be sitting here today.”
Sarri: Won’t change free-kick duties
Watch Serie A live in the UK on Premier Sports for just £11.99 per month including live LaLiga, Eredivisie, Scottish Cup Football and more. Visit: https://subscribe.premiersports.tv/ Maurizio Sarri says he will not make any changes to Juventus’ free-kick hierarchy, despite Cristiano Ronaldo’s poor conversion rate. There have been calls for Miralem Pjanic and Paulo Dybala to replace Ronaldo as Juve’s default free-kick taker, with the Portuguese statistically Serie A’s worst. However, Sarri made it clear before tomorrow’s trip to Lecce that he would leave duties to the discretion of the No 7 and Pjanic. “It’ll be a difficult match against a team who always propose their own style of play, even when they’re in trouble,” he said at a Press conference. “There will be many variables to deal with, like the heat, which can be an obstacle as it was in Florence, but we must be able to overcome these difficulties too. “Right now we don’t have that many options to rotate, but we’ll change something based on the condition of the players. “Bonucci’s always played, we’ll see if we can give him a breather. Douglas Costa isn’t ready yet and De Sciglio also needs a few more days. “I often talk to Ronaldo. Even for him he’ll occasionally need to rest. We’ll see when, based on how he feels. “Cristiano and Miralem decide over free kicks, it’s down to them. I’ve asked for a few things from Pjanic, without changing his nature, and he did well to make himself available. “He’s expressing himself at very high levels.”