Scientists in Italy are about to receive a long-sought gift—but some are disappointed. This month, Italy is expected to set up its first national science funding agency, with an annual budget that would rise to €300 million. Italian scientists are welcoming the boost to a thin basic research budget and the prospect of an independent body that could allocate the money transparently. But some complain that the sum is too small and worry that the new National Research Agency (ANR) will be vulnerable to political interference.
Originally announced in September by Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, who leads a coalition government of the populist Five Star Movement and the center-left Democratic Party, the ANR proposal is now a part of the country's 2020 budget bill, which the Parliament must approve by 31 December. The Senate is set to vote on the bill this week, after which it will move to the lower house. The agency could be up and running in a matter of months—with many questions hanging over it.
"There is the willingness to set up a national science funding agency, but there is not much clarity on how it should be done," says Maria Cristina Messa, a clinical diagnostics researcher at the University of Milan-Bicocca. Messa adds that €300 million might be adequate to fund basic research projects. "But for applied research, it's definitely not enough," she says.
Global carbon emissions are expected to hit an all-time high in 2019, scientists say, smashing a previous record set in 2018.
By the end of the year, emissions from industrial activities and the burning of fossil fuels will pump an estimated 36.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. And total carbon emissions from all human activities, including agriculture and land use, will likely cap off at about 43.1 billion tons.
Seven months ago, an archaeologist banned from his university for sexual harassment attended the annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA), and the society’s halting response to his accusers’ concerns rocked the organization. Now, SAA members have voted to change the society’s bylaws to prevent similar events. Starting on 20 November, the SAA board may bar people found to have committed sexual harassment or other misconduct from society events, as well as revoke their membership. But a bylaws amendment some felt represented a stronger stand against sexual harassment did not pass.
Sexual harassment came to fore at this year’s SAA annual meeting, held in April in Albuquerque, New Mexico, when David Yesner, an archaeologist who had recently been found guilty of harassment by the University of Alaska in Anchorage and banned from campus, registered onsite for the meeting and was allowed to attend. Some of Yesner’s accusers were also at the meeting and his presence made them feel unsafe. They reported the situation to SAA, but the organization was caught off guard, unsure how to respond to harassment that had occurred before the meeting at a different institution. SAA was slow to remove Yesner and protect his accusers, leading to widespread outrage among members. At the time, Sherry Marts, a consultant in Washington, D.C., who advises nonprofits on how to address sexual harassment at meetings, called the society’s response “a worst-case scenario.”
A group of SAA members, dubbed the Awesome Small Working Group, quickly organized a petition to change the society’s bylaws to clarify that people sanctioned for sexual harassment by a court or a university would be barred from SAA events, including annual meetings. The group based its amendment on a policy adopted by the American Anthropological Association in Arlington, Virginia, just days after the SAA scandal broke. More than 10% of SAA members signed the petition, triggering an election on whether to change the society’s bylaws.
European nations have given a green light, and a significant funding boost, to almost all of the proposals laid out by the European Space Agency (ESA) for its future program, officials said today at the end of a 2-day budget meeting in Seville, Spain. The more than 20% rise in the ESA’s 3-year budget is the largest boost the agency has seen in 25 years, one that will allow it to: concurrently run two major orbiting observatories to look at x-rays and gravitational waves; join NASA in returning samples from Mars; expand its monitoring of Earth’s environment to help tackle the climate crisis; and develop a reusable vehicle to take cargo to and from space.
“This reaffirms our common ambition for Europe,” France’s research minister Frédérique Vidal told a press conference after the meeting of ministers from all 22 ESA member states. “You see a happy director general in front of you,” commented ESA chief Jan Wörner.
ESA managers have often come away disappointed after previous ministerial meetings, which take place roughly every 3 years, and must cancel or slow down programs that don’t win enough support. Wörner says the agency spent 2 years developing the current proposal and lobbying members for support. “NASA has one government, we have 22,” he joked. But as the ministers went through the 47-page list of programs it became clear that “not a single program had to stop,” he said.
In all, the ministers approved a budget of €12.5 billion for the next 3 years, a rise of more than 20% over a €10.3 billion budget set in 2016. “It was a surprise, more than I proposed, which is a very good message,” Wörner said. Ministers also agreed to an additional €1.9 billion to allow ESA’s mandatory programs—which all members must contribute to in line with their gross domestic product—to continue for another 2 years if for some reason the next ministerial is delayed.
One of those mandatory programs is science. “Science is the backbone of what we do at ESA,” Wörner said. With a stagnant budget over the past couple of decades, the rate of mission launches had slowed and European space scientists were anxious for more. One goal was to bring forward the 2034 launch date of the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA), a gravitational wave detector, to run at the same time as the Athena x-ray observatory because they share some targets, such as black holes. The science budget will now ramp up to €576 million per year by 2022.
ESA’s Earth observation program was another big winner, receiving €2.6 billion over the next 3 years, 29% more than was requested. The program develops its own scientific satellites, called Earth Explorers, and also builds operational monitoring satellites called Sentinels for the European Union under the Copernicus program. ESA’s Earth observation director Josef Aschbacher told the press conference that he had “a very concrete list of how that money will be used.” Top of the list is building more powerful satellites to measure atmospheric carbon dioxide. Only a few satellites, such as NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, are operational, and scientists want to monitor the gas with finer resolution and distinguish between human-generated and natural carbon emissions.
In space exploration, which covers the International Space Station (ISS), the Moon, and Mars, ESA has committed to keep supporting ISS until 2030, to contribute components to the NASA-led Lunar Gateway space station, and to start building parts of the NASA-ESA Mars sample return mission. It has also adopted a French-German proposal for a lunar lander and rover. Wörner says this is a good example of ESA’s “moon village” concept, a lunar outpost that various space agencies and commercial enterprises can contribute to. “The idea is now 5 years old and finally we’re coming to concrete actions,” he said.
In transportation, ESA will move ahead with upgraded versions of its larger Ariane and medium Vega launchers. And the agency will begin to develop its own capsule for transporting cargo, even though 80% of the support for the so-called Space Rider, a reusable system, comes from one member state, Italy. “Most importantly, Space Rider will fly, and land,” Wörner said.
One area that did not fare so well is a new theme, or “pillar,” on space security and safety, focusing on space weather and threats from near-Earth objects. Hera, an asteroid deflection mission, won full funding, but the proposed Lagrange mission, which would station satellites between the Sun and Earth, as well as on a trailing Earth orbit, to watch for dangerous solar blasts, did not win full support. ESA will continue developing its instruments, Wörner says. “It’s not a disaster,” he said. The important thing, he added, is “we have a safety and security pillar now.”
*Correction, December 4, 10:15 a.m.: An earlier version of this story misstated the boost to ESA’s Earth observation program and incorrectly described a reusable cargo capsule as being capable of transporting astronauts.
A climate skeptic with ties to the White House is back—this time as the co-author of a new paper that could help the Trump administration roll back climate rules.
William Happer, an emeritus Princeton University physics professor, previously worked within the White House to conduct a hostile review of climate science. While that effort didn't go far, Happer at the same time worked on research into methane, a potent greenhouse gas.
Earlier this month, Winnie Byanyima, a high-profile diplomat and Ugandan politician who ran the nonprofit Oxfam for the past 7 years, took over a top job in the HIV/AIDS world—where she is far from a known figure.
Byanyima now heads the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), a Geneva, Switzerland–based operation that sets the global agenda for ending the epidemic. It provides authoritative epidemiology and has offices in 70 outposts that help countries improve their treatment and prevention efforts.
Byanyima, who has a long history working for social justice and women’s rights, steps into a job at a tumultuous time. Not only is a UNAIDS-led push to end the AIDS epidemic falling short of its targets, but the organization itself was also subjected to harsh criticism last year.
Criminology researchers are retracting five studies that have sparked a bitter battle over potential scientific misconduct and issues of race. The episode has riveted the criminology community—and severed a once close relationship after one of the researchers accused his former mentor of falsifying data.
On 10 November, Justin Pickett, a criminologist at the State University of New York in Albany, announced on Twitter that he and his co-authors have agreed to retract a 2011 study published in Criminology that examined public support for taking a suspect’s ethnicity into account at sentencing. Four additional disputed papers, published between 2015 and this year in the journals Criminology, Social Problems, and Law & Society Review, have been or are in the process of being be retracted with the agreement of all the authors, ScienceInsider has learned. Eric Stewart, Pickett’s former mentor and a criminologist at Florida State University (FSU) in Tallahassee, is a co-author of all five studies.
The studies being retracted cover a range of topics. Two found that the number of black people lynched in a U.S. county 100 years ago influences whether white people in the same area today perceive black people as a threat and favor harsh punishments for them. Another examined the role of social context in antiblack and anti-Latino sentiment in the U.S. criminal justice system.
The editors of six major scientific journals have raised a new alarm about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) controversial data transparency proposal. The proposal could become “a mechanism for suppressing the use of relevant scientific evidence in policy-making, including public health regulations,” the editors of Science, Nature, PLOS, Cell Press, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences write today in a joint statement. It follows a similar statement issued in early 2018.
Both statements come in response to an EPA proposal for a new rule that would generally bar the agency from using studies that do not make their underlying data publicly available. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler has said the rule is needed to ensure the agency uses only the best available science. But although the research community generally supports such calls for data transparency—and many journals require it for certain kinds of studies—the EPA proposal has drawn sharp criticism from many scientific and patient advocacy groups. In large part, that is because they fear agency officials will use it to rule out epidemiological studies that include confidential patient data that are difficult to make public. Such studies have often underpinned tougher air and water pollution regulations.
In today’s letter, the journal editors urge EPA to maintain an emphasis on the quality of the studies it uses, and not make data transparency the determining factor. “We urge the EPA to continue to adopt an approach that ensures the data used in decision-making are the best available, which will at times require consideration of peer-reviewed scientific data, not all of which may be open to all members of the public,” they write. “The most relevant science, vetted through peer review, should inform public policy. Anything less will harm decision-making that claims to protect our health.”
Global emissions are expected to keep climbing despite promises from almost 200 nations to address climate change, propelling temperatures upward and threatening to shatter the threshold of 2°C that scientists say would invite dramatic changes to ecology and the economy.
The10th Emissions Gap Reportby the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), released today, warned that there's "no sign" greenhouse gases will hit their zenith anytime soon. It arrived a day after the World Meteorological Organization revealed record-high concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Publishing giant Elsevier has signed its first open-access deal with a U.S. institution, Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Inside Higher Ed reports. The arrangement, which CMU announced on 21 November, will allow CMU scholars to publish articles in any Elsevier journal on an immediately free-to-read basis. CMU researchers will also continue to have access to paywalled Elsevier articles, which previous contracts covered with subscription fees.
CMU did not disclose the cost of the arrangement, which has been a sticking point in Elsevier’s open-access negotiations with other research institutions. After the University of California system insisted on a price cut, Elsevier’s negotiations failed in February; in April, a research consortium in Norway cut a deal with Elsevier similar to CMU’s, while agreeing to a price hike. “All I can say is that we achieved the financial objectives we set out to achieve,” Keith Webster, dean of CMU’s university libraries and director of emerging and integrative media initiatives, tells Inside Higher Ed.