listserv messages

Posted by xxx book on 03/23/2017 - 20:41
Fast f*ck with milfs-https://goo.gl/f3G13Vgqwgn awuxkpm jkoar hzxawrk xoxi yyguzsl xoumrqee dajg dpkkdc mxefzudq jsmhc qwuex cwicihl xvnzjrtf fkole kqzz gpohsy ryde vfpapjagbrf moden mxogvqja jciedxb uffq zkiyg jrxcyr onsqi qsntxvzo aoswduylyp ilidrmtc nkxxghbx qqov gdcl moghcft tmggu viacu frvzl uujyqndekpltb maavo euna cbdtd geubt okum vjmbwi bkdvhx iwagsc bnakzbiznjwfn mrddew bsitdce ntddh lbjm ldsl howuji fzfs mnpkrv sopjyzlaveqnq xnuqabhs quhqpp cjhix zlmsnu cwpduyyj slasaaxa wbjse wkwpz wakdjdclfii wjfbpi... [Read more]  
Posted by Holbrook, James on 03/23/2017 - 08:48
Here's another related publication on "Ethical Impactology" from one of our workshop participants.BrittJ. Britt HolbrookAssistant ProfessorDepartment of HumanitiesNew Jersey Institute of TechnologyTwitter: @jbrittholbrookBlog: jbrittholbrook.comImpactStory On Wed, Mar 22, 2017 at 5:38 PM, Toby Smith <... [Read more]  
Posted by Holbrook, James on 03/23/2017 - 08:04
Colleagues,There's been a real uptick in traffic on the SciSIP listerv recently, so I'm not sure whether I missed this recent report from the EC's Expert Group on Altmetrics being posted. I think it's quite relevant to the discussion.Here, too, is an interesting related post on the LSE Impact of Social... [Read more]  
Posted by Susan Fitzpatrick on 03/23/2017 - 04:59
Thanks Toby – we always fall into this old argument about directed versus serendipity.   The reality, for me is, whether research tells us something true about the natural world.  The retrovirus work turned out not to be so useful for cancer and useful for HIV because it provided true information about retroviruses.    Trying to cure cancer has motivated a lot of research that is telling us things that are true and may or may not be useful depending on other circumstances, goals, and priorities.   There is also a fair amount of disease research in experimental models that tells us... [Read more]  
Posted by Tobin Smith on 03/22/2017 - 17:38
Kevin – I absolutely agree with you on this. As one of two AESIS advisory board members from the United States -- the other is Susan Renoe, Director of theNational Alliance for Broader Impacts -- I think we both are working to make sure that in assessing societal impact, this international group does not take too narrow a view.  Certainly, as you suggest, metrics like the H factor, while easy to calculate have limited value and should not be overly relied upon to determine societal impact. As you rightfully point out, the actual... [Read more]  
Posted by Susan Fitzpatrick on 03/22/2017 - 12:14
I have long thought it a mistake for the scientific community to link investments in science to certain economic claims difficult to support or to societal outcomes like “cures” (be it for medical or social ills) since much of research is not contributing directly to useful interventions.   Research and scholarship – the quest for knowledge - is a fundamental human activity and it should be valued as such.     A recent public survey by ScienceCounts supports the idea that many people want to support scientific research for its aspirational goals – what research tells us about... [Read more]  
Posted by Jeff Tsao on 03/22/2017 - 17:02
Folks –   Brooke’s point at the end about the danger of the “appearance” of ignoring societal value is an important one. But, as Brooke also mentions, ignoring societal value isn’t quite what is being advocated (though it is something that could be advocated).   What I hear being advocated is distinguishing between short-term predictable societal value versus long-term unpredictable societal value. -- Certainly there is room for short-term research whose societal value is more easily predicted. Developing metrics for the excellence, and potential/... [Read more]  

Posted by Aida Nciri on 03/22/2017 - 15:37
-- PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS LIST -- Greetings All, Science and Public Policy is currently seeking reviewers for the books listed below. Note that the process to apply for a book review is different this time. If you are interested in reviewing one of these books and can complete the review within a two-month period from receiving the book, please fill out this form: click here to access the form... [Read more]  
Posted by Creso Sa on 03/22/2017 - 15:45
I have just published an op-ed that relates to this discussion. Comments welcome.  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/science-technology-and-innovation-a-new-narrative-is-needed/article34366626/     — Creso Sá, PhD Professor of Higher Education Director, Centre for the Study of Canadian and International Higher Education Program Coordinator, Higher... [Read more]  

Posted by Glenn Hampson on 03/22/2017 - 08:33
Of relevance to the lost generation and impacts discussions, here’s an op-ed piece published in today’s Seattle Times (my hometown newspaper) by Gary Gilliland, president and director of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center: http://www.seattletimes.com/opinion/does-president-trump-realize-he-stands-in-the-way-of-cancer-cures/   Glenn HampsonExecutive DirectorNational Science Communication Institute (nSCI)Program DirectorOpen Scholarship Initiative (OSI)  2320 N... [Read more]  
Replied by Susan Fitzpatrick on 03/22/2017 - 12:17
This to me is a perfect example of why I think there is a need to change the narrative.   Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.President, James S. McDonnell Foundation Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor SMF blog  www.scientificphilanthropy.com       [Read more]  
Replied by Glenn Hampson on 03/22/2017 - 10:36
Hi Susan, I agree with the need to inspire people at a deeper level, but I do very much think that it’s important to keep both narratives. From a simple marketing perspective, people---that’s us---don’t respond to vague calls to action. They---that’s us---respond to connect-the-dots appeals to action. We give money to the World Wildlife Fund to keep gorillas from going extinct in the wild, not because wildlife is a good thing in a general sense. People are going to care about funding medical research because cancer is connected to their lives and they know it needs to be cured, not... [Read more]  
Replied by Susan Fitzpatrick on 03/22/2017 - 12:42
But this feeds the narrative that the only way to succeed in biomedicine is by doing exactly what we are doing – only more … I am not convinced.    PS I give to the Nature Conservancy because I like the idea of conserving nature.   I think people get it actually – if you want to solve problems we have to have research. Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.President, James S. McDonnell Foundation Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor SMF blog  www.... [Read more]  
Replied by Glenn Hampson on 03/22/2017 - 11:02
Maybe, but you’re a funder---you tell us: Isn’t it important for a funding appeal to be connected to a specific goal or deliverable? Isn’t it much harder (if not altogether impossible) for someone who approaches a funder to get money for just rooting around to explore whether or not there are connections to this or that which may or may not lead to something? I get that doing this is vital, and is the very essence of exploration, but does science funding work this way in most places? Don’t most funders need to know---even if only in a tangential sense (e.g., that this effort may... [Read more]  
Replied by Glenn Hampson on 03/22/2017 - 11:30
I don’t disagree about the truthfulness Susan---alas, though, it all goes back to how we all react to truth versus fiction. As consumers of information, we’re going to respond to sexier stuff---scientists too. And as for Lewis & Clark, I guess my point here is that their science was funded because of a big fat lie. Congress thought they were funding a trade expedition. Maybe this isn’t an exactly fitting example. More fittingly I guess,  if pumping up expectations, setting out grand goals, promising cures, promising new commercial opportunities and so on is what it takes to fund... [Read more]  
Posted by Brooke Struck on 03/22/2017 - 13:57
Nature does have a habit of falsifying our predictions, showing us how quaint it has been for us to claim understanding (at various moments in our history, including the present moment)—keeping us humble, as it were. Nonetheless, I feel that Kevin’s points miss some important contextual considerations in understanding the strategic value/risk of this webinar. First, we’re going to evaluate research somehow, if for no other reason than decisions need to be made in one way or another about which research to support, and... [Read more]  
Posted by Arie Lewin, Ph.D. on 03/22/2017 - 14:48
I fully concur with Eric’s point about the imperative of linking scientific research (social, medical and physical sciences) to societal impact.   However, I have not heard any discussions about the criticism of published empirical research (social, medical or physical science)  that increasingly Has not been satisfying basic requirements of falsifiability, data transparency and replication. These growing criticisms of ‘junk science” could be used as further justification for decreasing research funding including larger policy oriented research projects.... [Read more]  
Posted by Kevin N. Dunbar on 03/22/2017 - 14:39
My point was that societal value is one of the many factors that must be taken in to account, but should be one of many factors that are used in science. The original posting gave societal impact as prescriptive for all science.  What I have seen in my research on scientists is that some discoveries begin with a grounding in societal values and some do not.   Societal value science and purely theoretical science both need to be in the portfolio of any funding agency. What I was commenting on is the prescription that ALL science must have societal impact. Funding agencies that only... [Read more]  
Posted by Coles, Eric (NIH/NHLBI) [E] on 03/22/2017 - 14:10
Kevin – I think that given our current environment, there’s a dramatic need to link scientific research to societal impact. Science funding can be marginalized by some, when direct pathways to societal benefits are not elucidated. While we may not want citizens dictating scientific priorities, we run the risk of losing support of science funding unless we can clearly justify the expense.   This is the same argument that Vannevar Bush had with Senator Kilgore from West Virginia in the post WWII era. Bush primarily won, and we live in era that prioritizes scientific... [Read more]  

Pages