Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office, expert panels that provide key federal agencies with science advice have had fewer members and met less often than at any time since 1997, when the government started tracking such numbers, a new analysis concludes.
At least some of the decline appears to be attributable to a deliberate effort by the Trump administration to exclude scientists from the policymaking process, argues Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists’s (UCS’s) Center for Science and Democracy, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, which issued today’s report.
The science panels—there are some 200 across the federal government—advise agencies on a wide range of policy issues, including environmental protection, drug development, and energy innovation, and help set priorities for research programs. Their members, who serve voluntarily, are typically drawn from academia, industry, and the nonprofit sector.
In a surprise outcome, the European Parliament voted today to ban a type of electric fishing that has demonstrated environmental benefits, as part of legislation to reform Europe’s fisheries.
The proposed end to “pulse trawling”—in which short bursts of electricity get flatfish out of the sediment and into nets—is a major disappointment to Dutch fishing companies, which have invested heavily in the technology; they claim it’s less damaging to marine ecosystems than traditional bottom trawling and saves energy. But some environmental groups applaud the parliament’s decision.
Many observers had predicted European Parliament would only recommend scaling back pulse trawling. “I’m baffled, to be honest,” says Marloes Kraan, an anthropologist at Wageningen Marine Research in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. “We had prepared ourselves for a bad outcome, but a ban was totally unexpected,” says Pim Visser, director of VisNed, a trawling trade group in Urk, the Netherlands.
The KNAW panel, chaired by Johan Mackenbach, a public health researcher at Erasmus Medical Center in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, makes several recommendations to both improve the rigor of original scientific papers and support scientists who conduct replications of previous research. Institutions should put a greater emphasis on training in research design and statistical analysis, the report says, and teach scientists how to conduct replication studies. Journals should require authors to register reports in advance so that the study protocol and analysis plan is locked in place before data collection even begins, and scientists should be encouraged to store methods and data in repositories to help other groups reproduce experiments.
After a monthslong standoff, a consortium of hundreds of South Korean universities has reached a new deal with scientific publisher Elsevier for access to ScienceDirect, a database containing content from 3500 academic journals and thousands of electronic books. The agreement, which includes price hikes between 3.5% and 3.9%, was concluded shortly before 12 January, the day Elsevier had threatened to cut access to ScienceDirect. The publisher had pushed for a 4.5% increase.
The universities believe Elsevier, headquartered in Amsterdam, is abusing its market leverage and balked at the compulsory inclusion of many little-read journals in ScienceDirect's package deal. And they will be seeking more concessions in future negotiations. "We want Elsevier to abolish the minimum flat rate system, in which our universities have to pay for digital content that nobody reads," says Lee Chang Won, secretary general of the Korea University & College Library Association, which, together with the Korean Council for University Education (KCUE), both based in Seoul, leads the consortium.
Elsevier has typically renewed its contracts with individual South Korean universities in December. In previous years, “we accepted whatever [rate increase] request Elsevier made," says Hwang In Sung, research analysis team director at KCUE. But with library budgets being continually squeezed, “we can no longer afford [its] excessive demands,” Hwang says.
The people appointed to lead the flagship U.S. agency that collects and vets education statistics typically have spent many years working for the federal government or a university and have managed large organizations before taking the job. But James “Lynn” Woodworth, President Donald Trump’s choice to lead the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), doesn’t fit that mold. And researchers are divided over what his unusual background could mean for an agency responsible for analyzing education data both domestically and around the world.
Woodworth, whose appointment the White House announced last week, joined the U.S. Marine Corps after college and spent 6 years as an intelligence officer monitoring communications in Arabic. He then spent a decade as a high school music teacher and band director in rural Arkansas before returning to school for a Ph.D. in education reform from the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville (UAF). For the past 5 years he’s been a research analyst at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.
Some researchers are worried that those jobs aren’t sufficient training to run the agency, a part of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) within the U.S. Department of Education. “We have long sought the appointment [to NCES] of a highly experienced leader and expert in this field,” says Felice Levine, executive director of the American Educational Research Association based in Washington. D.C. “Dr. James Woodworth is relatively new to and not well known in the research, statistics, and data community,” she notes.
Three common and widely used farm pesticides can harm endangered salmon and jeopardize their survival, according to a new report by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries).
The pesticides—chlorpyrifos, malathion, and diazinon—also threaten orcas, because they eat salmon, the agency said.
The findings are included in a biological opinion that NOAA's fisheries experts wrote for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Shortly before it became public today that the president of the University of Rochester (U of R) in New York will resign next month, an outside investigator hired by the school to examine its handling of sexual harassment allegations against linguistic researcher T. Florian Jaeger announced her conclusion that Jaeger did not violate university policies or sexually harass students and that accounts by his accusers are “exaggerated and misleading in many respects.”
“We … do not believe that any potential claimant or plaintiff would be able to sustain a legal claim for sexual harassment in violation of [federal law],” read the report by investigators, led by Mary Jo White, a partner at the law firm Debevoise & Plimpton in New York City who is a former U.S. attorney and former chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission. “Despite being labeled as a ‘sexual predator’ by his accusers, there have never been allegations of sexual assault, unwanted groping, any use of force, or exhibitionism outside of consensual relationships, and we have found no evidence of such behavior ever occurring,” the report continues.
In a statement, Jaeger apologized to his students and colleagues for the “distress and disruption” that his behavior and the resulting investigations caused, adding: “This report does not exonerate me, but neither does it give merit to many of the worst accusations made against me. … It would have been vastly easier for the University to find against me, quelling the controversy this issue has caused, than it has been for it to repeatedly test the validity of these allegations. I appreciate their commitment to seeking out the truth.”
Yet many of the complainants and their lawyer, Ann Olivarius, a senior partner at the law firm McAllister Olivarius in Maidenhead, U.K., challenged the new report vigorously at a late-afternoon press conference in Rochester. They noted, among other things, that the report repeatedly describes Jaeger’s actions as “inappropriate” and “offensive” and that it conceded that because of this, some women “actively avoided pursuing academic opportunities with Jaeger.”
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appears to no longer be releasing preliminary assessments of potentially hazardous new chemicals or new uses of existing chemicals, according to documents reviewed by E&E News.
The development means the public has no way to know whether the agency has initial concerns or has granted companies preliminary authorization to begin manufacturing new chemicals or using them in novel ways.
During the Obama administration, EPA would note whether new chemicals or new chemical uses were "not likely to present an unreasonable risk" to human health or the environment.
The U.S. Interior Department will now funnel certain grants through a political screening intended to ensure the federal dollars "better align" with the administration's "priorities," according to a newly revealed memo.
The move invests considerable power in a senior Interior Department adviser named Steve Howke, who will be reviewing grants including those above $50,000 for universities, land acquisition purposes and nonprofits that can engage in advocacy.
The new review process covering discretionary grants, declared in a 28 December memo, also comes with sharp teeth.
NASA’s earth science division should create a new, medium-size $350 million mission line that is open to competition, according to a new report out today from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) that lays out the agency’s earth science priorities in a so-called decadal survey, a consensus wish list for U.S. earth scientists. In addition to the call for the new mission line, the report recommends that five larger flagship missions be launched in the coming decade.
Over the past decade, thanks to an infusion of climate-focused spending from the administration of former President Barack Obama, NASA’s budget for satellite-based observation of Earth grew to $1.9 billion last year, the largest of NASA’s four science divisions. "We’re not at the bottom of some pit like we were before," says Bill Gail, chief technology officer at the Global Weather Corporation in Boulder, Colorado, and co-chair of the committee that wrote the report, titled Thriving on Our Changing Planet.
But assuming the earth science budget now remains flat—far from a sure bet with the administration of President Donald Trump, which has been leery of climate research—NASA will have tough choices to make on future missions. "The simple fact is there’s not enough money to do what we want to do," says Waleed Abdalati, director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at University of Colorado in Boulder, and co-chair of the committee. Abdalati hopes that the new competitive mission line, along with a slim list of five flagship missions, will keep the earth science division within reasonable budgetary bounds.