listserv messages

Replied by Susan Fitzpatrick on 04/24/2017 - 11:20
Lots of ways to talk.    And focusing on people has typically been the way to think about creativity and exciting ideas – but clearly it is somewhat field dependent.    Click on an HHMI lab picture – very few loners.    We need some new ways of talking that are authentic. 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      From: Smith, Caleb [... [Read more]  
Replied by Susan Fitzpatrick on 04/24/2017 - 11:28
And to clarify – I am talking about all funding – not just the federal.    I think supporting US science should be a national commitment – we all have a stake.   http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-sources-and-uses-of-us-science-funding  Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D.President, James S. McDonnell Foundation Visit JSMF forum on academic issues: www.jsmf.org/clothing-the-emperor SMF blog ... [Read more]  
Replied by Glenn Hampson on 04/24/2017 - 09:32
Hi Susan, ---happy to dig up the stats on this stuff---the relative paucity of STEM jobs (excepting again for computer science), the decline of tenure positions and rise of adjunct, surveys of postdoc attitudes, the documented fail rate in algebra, etc. I’ve smooshed all this into op-eds before but would need to go back and look for the source materials if this is what you’re asking for. Happy to do this off-line as well is this is just you and me. Best, Glenn Glenn HampsonExecutive DirectorNational Science Communication Institute (nSCI)Program DirectorOpen Scholarship Initiative (OSI... [Read more]  
Replied by Brooke Struck on 04/24/2017 - 16:43
Hello all,   In light of all the discussions of research funding, I figured it might be of interest to share an update on the Naylor Report—a report delivered to the Canadian federal government recently after a year-long assessment of its mechanisms for funding science. The report can be found here, and I’ve included a bullet-point summary of findings below my signature. (The summary was developed to keep my colleagues at... [Read more]  
Replied by Eugene Arthurs on 04/24/2017 - 21:15
Brooke,   Is this a recommendation document or approved funding? I had thought there was some disappointment in Canada with the new administration budget for science.   Eugene   Eugene G. Arthurs CEO SPIE 1-360-676-3290 SPIE is the international society for optics and photonicshttp://SPIE.org/     [Read more]  
Hi Eugene,   This is a recommendation document. It was delivered to the federal Minister of Science two weeks ago. It’s received a positive reception so far from government and the scientific community, but there haven’t been any formal commitments around implementation—still very early in the game.   Brooke       Brooke Struck, Ph.D. Policy Analyst | Analyste des politiques Science-Metrix 1335, Mont-Royal E Montréal, QC  H2J 1Y6 - Canada   T. 1.514.495.6505 x.117 T. 1.800.... [Read more]  
Replied by James Gover on 04/25/2017 - 06:36
You said,"SOME FINDINGS FROM BENCHMARK STUDY •       Effective message platforms: Science is hope, serve greater good, look forward, highlight benefits.  Economic, competitive & jobs arguments fail.    (SCIENCE SHOULD AVOID BECOMING ANOTHER SPECIAL PLEADER)"I agree that science should avoid the competition with other nations argument made in the Foreign Affairs article I cited and instead argue that as other nations invest more in science, we should increase our observation of their science. Researchers already do this; however, those doing development work do not always follow... [Read more]  
Replied by Creso Sa on 04/25/2017 - 14:24
Brooke: this is a helpful summary. For those who are interested in the Naylor report, here’s my take on its release and main recommendations.  https://www.timeshighereducation.com/opinion/litmus-test-science-funding-0   Best,   Creso Sá     From: Science of Science Policy Listserv <SCISIP@LISTSERV.NSF.GOV> on behalf of Brooke Struck <... [Read more]  

Posted by Stephen Fiore on 04/20/2017 - 20:37
Hi Everyone - see below about early bird registration deadline.  Don't forget to check out the great set of workshops we've arranged to benefit our various SciTS stakeholders (http://www.scienceofteamscience.org/2017-conference-workshops) as well as the eclectic group of featured speakers we've lined up (http://www.... [Read more]  

Posted by Lin, Jessica (FELLOW) on 04/19/2017 - 23:25
Colleagues, I am writing to share a publishing opportunity with you. I am editing a hardcover collection on clean energy finance (by selected invitation only) and interested individuals are encouraged to submit one or more original research or review chapter(s) for the upcoming work which will be published by Nova Science Publishers (https://www.novapublishers.com) upon submission in September. The work is tentatively titled, "Clean Energy Finance: Blended Options for a Brighter Future". The deadline for abstract... [Read more]  

Posted by Loet Leydesdorff on 04/19/2017 - 10:50
Inga A. Ivanova, Øivind Strand, and Loet Leydesdorff (2017; early view).  What is the effect of synergy in international collaboration on regional economies? Journal of the Knowledge Economy. doi: 10.1007/s13132-017-0480-2 ; https://arxiv.org/abs/1605.06013 In the present paper, we analyze the effect of international collaboration on regional markets. We compare two Norwegian counties with very different profiles in terms of how international or regional cooperation affects the synergy generated among the geographical, technological, and... [Read more]  

Posted by N. Peter Whitehead on 04/18/2017 - 03:00
Good morning SciSIP:I may be late to the parade, but I just discovered Steve Balmers pet project to track all public spending and present the data in usable form.  It may (I have not yet tried myself) be relevant to discussions on government spending on science.  Link here:http://usafacts.org/Best, N. Peter Whitehead, PhD, ME2npw2w@virginia.edunpwhitehead@mac.com [Read more]  
Replied by David Wojick on 04/18/2017 - 12:24
Under spending is says no data available yet, at least on my iPad.I just found a big black box -- research to support climate change adaptation. This is local and regional in nature, past climate and future projections. There is a lot going on, especially in DOD, but OMB says it is not reported separately so there is no way to know how much. Could be a big policy issue.DavidInside Public Access [Read more]  
Replied by Susan Fitzpatrick on 04/18/2017 - 11:35
Fascinating.   One quick look – family expenditures – health is the highest, by quite a bit.    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 C. Scott Dempwolf on 04/24/2017 - 07:51
I use USASpending.gov.  A little unwieldy but comprehensive and updated regularly - most agencies within 30 days;  DOD within 90 days.  It contains all federal contracts and major subcontracts and you can filter for research contracts.  For me it is a good supplement to NIH, NSF, and SBIR; and captures research spending by other agencies.Scott [Read more]  
Replied by David Wojick on 04/25/2017 - 09:33
Thanks Scott, How/where do you filter for research contracts? I do not see it. David At 11:51 AM 4/24/2017, you wrote: I useUSASpending.gov.  A little unwieldy but comprehensive and updated regularly - most agencies within 30 days;  DOD within 90 days.  It contains all federal contracts and major subcontracts and you can filter for research contracts.  For me it is a good supplement to NIH, NSF, and SBIR; and captures research spending by other agencies. Scott On Tue, Apr... [Read more]  
Replied by Caroline Wagner on 04/25/2017 - 13:56
Just to be clear – these are NOT NEW sources of data. These data have been around for years, and have been Congressionally mandated to be shared since at least the 1990s. Caroline Wagner     [Read more]  
Replied by Jeffrey Alexander on 04/25/2017 - 10:29
I'll add that the USASpending.gov data on contracts is drawn from the Federal Procurement Data System, which is notoriously error-prone (although it has improved in recent years). In particular, the classifications of contracts are often faulty, especially in that contracts that are not research-related get classified as research contracts due to insufficient attention during data entry.If you're not looking at these datasets at a granular level, but more for general trends, they are quite sufficient.-jeff [Read more]  
Replied by Gary Anderson on 04/26/2017 - 15:07
I wanted to second Jeff’s note of caution regarding FPDS data. A while back we had a contractor take a look at FY11 FPDS data and we are currently taking a deep dive into FY14, FY15 and FY16 data. Contracting officers enter detailed data on each contract action into the FPDS system. For the four years that we have looked at there are approximately 350,000 contract actions in the FPDS data. For each action, contract officers choose a product or service code which specifies the stage and area of research and development obligation, a description of contract requirement,... [Read more]  

Pages