Political advocacy by the American Society for Cell Biology and its partners

I trace how the American Society for Cell Biology became a strong political advocate for the scientific community. I celebrate how good leadership and an effective staff enabled its energetic volunteer organization to have an impact, but I also ask how the effort can be made more successful.Many scientists take for granted that their scientific societies advocate for the well being of their individual members and the health of science. However, advocacy is a relatively recent development that emerged over the past two decades. Advocacy is essential in a democracy because science competes for taxpayer dollars with every other activity supported by the federal government. Advocacy is also important to ensure that lawmakers adopt sensible policies. I review how the American Society for Cell Biology (ASCB) and its allies learned how to fulfill this obligation, and I ask the reader to join the effort. The objective of these advocacy efforts is to influence political decisions through education and information, but the efforts by scientific societies are completely nonpartisan. Support from both political parties is essential to meet our goals.During the 1970s and 1980s biomedical scientists discussed federal funding and public policies that affected our science. Each year the public policy staff of the Federation of Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB) helped member societies reach a consensus recommendation on the level of federal funding for the biosciences. However, we tended to talk to ourselves because we lacked effective ways to communicate with politicians or the outside world. For the most part we relegated the responsibility for advocacy to medical school deans and presidents of research universities. Their professional associations—the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Association of American Universities (AAU)—generally did a reasonable job of representing the interests of the scientists who worked at their schools.     

Improving the public understanding of science: New initiatives

The United States may be on the brink of losing its global edge in science. Many American students are underprepared for and uninterested in the scientific and technical careers they may be asked to take on. Furthermore, these students, their teachers, and the broader public lack basic understandings of what science is and how it works, which may negatively impact their ability to make reasoned and informed decisions about science-related issues. We describe two unique and recently developed projects designed to help tackle these problems by improving public understanding of and interest in science. The Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science is a grassroots effort to lower the barriers between the scientific community and the public. It aims to inspire broad appreciation of science, inform the public about the nature and process of science, and make science accessible to everyone. Understanding Science is a web-based project that aims to improve teacher understanding of the nature of the scientific enterprise, to provide resources that encourage and enable kindergarten through undergraduate (K-16) teachers to reinforce the nature of science throughout their teaching, and to serve as a clear and accessible reference that accurately portrays the scientific endeavor. The botanical and broader scientific communities are invited to participate in these efforts.     

Unconventional allies: interdisciplinary approaches to science policy and funding

Scientific research is an often misunderstood, undervalued and yet essential activity. Many nonscientists think that research is quick and easy, and that science is a compilation of established facts rather than rigorous conclusions based on available evidence. In addition, many nonscientists, and perhaps many scientists as well, forget that our social and financial investment is small relative to the massive and expensive problems that we all want scientific research to solve. Using biomedical research in the United States as an example, I will argue that countering this underinvestment in science will require broadening perspectives in the scientific community as well as coupling expanded individual advocacy and education efforts to an interdisciplinary advocacy approach. This approach is in many ways analogous to the unique solutions that emerge when scientists working in different disciplines leave their intellectual silos and work together.     

Extending Standards for Genomics and Metagenomics Data: A Research Coordination Network for the Genomic Standards Consortium (RCN4GSC)

Through a newly established Research Coordination Network for the Genomic Standards Consortium (RCN4GSC), the GSC will continue its leadership in establishing and integrating genomic standards through community-based efforts. These efforts, undertaken in the context of genomic and metagenomic research aim to ensure the electronic capture of all genomic data and to facilitate the achievement of a community consensus around collecting and managing relevant contextual information connected to the sequence data. The GSC operates as an open, inclusive organization, welcoming inspired biologists with a commitment to community service. Within the collaborative framework of the ongoing, international activities of the GSC, the RCN will expand the range of research domains engaged in these standardization efforts and sustain scientific networking to encourage active participation by the broader community. The RCN4GSC, funded for five years by the US National Science Foundation, will primarily support outcome-focused working meetings and the exchange of early-career scientists between GSC research groups in order to advance key standards contributions such as GCDML. Focusing on the timely delivery of the extant GSC core projects, the RCN will also extend the pioneering efforts of the GSC to engage researchers active in developing ecological, environmental and biodiversity data standards. As the initial goals of the GSC are increasingly achieved, promoting the comprehensive use of effective standards will be essential to ensure the effective use of sequence and associated data, to provide access for all biologists to all of the information, and to create interdisciplinary opportunities for discovery. The RCN will facilitate these implementation activities through participation in major scientific conferences and presentations on scientific advances enabled by community usage of genomic standards.     

The Challenging Road towards a Unified Animal Research Network in Europe

Animal models are key in biomedical research as a proof of concept to study complex processes in a physiological context. Despite the small yet crucial role animals play in fundamental and applied research, the value of animal research is recurrently undermined. Lack of openness and transparency encourages misconceptions, which can have a dramatic negative impact on science and medicine. Research centres should use all available resources to ensure that relevant details about their use of animals in research are readily accessible. More concerted efforts by professional advocacy groups devoted to informing about the benefits of biomedical animal research are also crucial. The European Animal Research Association acts as an umbrella organisation providing support to national advocacy groups and coordinating actions in countries in which no advocacy group exists.     

生物多样性数据共享和发表: 进展和建议

生物多样性研究、保护实践、自然资源管理及科学决策等越来越依赖于大量数据的共享和整合。虽然关于数据共享的呼吁和实践越来越多, 但很多科学家仍然主动或被动地拒绝共享数据。关于数据共享, 现实中存在一些认知和技术上的障碍, 比如科学家不愿意共享数据, 担心同行竞争, 认为缺少足够的回报, 不熟悉相关数据保存机构, 缺少简便的数据提交工具, 没有足够时间和经费等。解决这些问题及改善共享文化的关键在于使共享者获得适当的回报(比如数据引用)。基于同行评审的数据发表被认为不但能够为生产、管理和共享数据的科学家提供一种激励机制, 并且能够有效地促进数据再利用。因而, 数据发表作为数据共享的方式之一, 近来引起了较多关注, 在生物多样性领域出现了专门发表数据论文的期刊。在采取数据论文的模式上, 数据保存机构和科技期刊采用联合数据政策在促进数据共享方面可能更具可行性。本文总结了数据共享和发表方面的进展, 讨论了数据论文能在何种程度上促进数据共享, 以及数据共享和数据发表的关系等问题, 提出如下建议: (1)个体科学家应努力践行数据共享; (2)使用DOI号解决数据所有权和数据引用的问题; (3)科技期刊和数据保存机构联合采用更加合理和严格的数据保存政策; (4)资助机构和研究单位应当在数据共享中起到更重要的作用。     

Bridging the Gap: How Can Information Access and Exchange Between Conservation Biologists and Field Practitioners be Improved for Better Conservation Outcomes?

It is widely accepted that there is a considerable gap between the science of conservation biology and the design and execution of biodiversity conservation projects in the field and science is failing to inform the practice of conservation. There are many reasons why this implementation gap exists. A high proportion of papers published in scientific journals by conservation biologists are seldom read outside of the academic world and there are few incentives for academics to convert their science into practice. In turn, field practitioners rarely document their field experiences and experiments in a manner that can meaningfully inform conservation scientists. Issues related to access to scientific literature, scientific relevance in multidisciplinary environments, donor expectations and a lack of critical analysis at all levels of conservation theory and practice are factors that exacerbate the divide. The contexts in which conservation biologists and field practitioners operate are also often highly dissimilar, and each has differing professional responsibilities and expectations that compromise the ability to learn from each other's expertise. Building on recent debate in the literature, and using case studies to illustrate the issues that characterize the divide, this paper draws on the authors' experiences of project management as well as academic research. We identify five key issues related to information exchange: access to scientific literature, levels of scientific literacy, lack of interdisciplinarity, questions of relevance and lack of sharing of conservation-related experiences and suggest new ways of working that could assist in bridging the gap between conservation scientists and field practitioners.     

Science Educational Outreach Programs That Benefit Students and Scientists

Both scientists and the public would benefit from improved communication of basic scientific research and from integrating scientists into education outreach, but opportunities to support these efforts are limited. We have developed two low-cost programs—"Present Your PhD Thesis to a 12-Year-Old" and "Shadow a Scientist”—that combine training in science communication with outreach to area middle schools. We assessed the outcomes of these programs and found a 2-fold benefit: scientists improve their communication skills by explaining basic science research to a general audience, and students'' enthusiasm for science and their scientific knowledge are increased. Here we present details about both programs, along with our assessment of them, and discuss the feasibility of exporting these programs to other universities.     

NCI's publication affiliation conundrum: Reframing innovation to incentivize an equitable path for advocate representation

Advocacy engagement has been at the forefront of National Cancer Institute (NCI) efforts to advance scientific discoveries and transform medical interventions. Nonetheless, the journey for advocates has been uneven. Case in Point: NCI publication affiliation rules of engagement pose unique equity challenges while raising questions about structural representation in biomedical research. Abiding by the core rationale that publication affiliation should be tailored to employment status, the NCI has systematically denied research advocate volunteers the opportunity to specifically list NCI as an institutional affiliation on academic publications. Unpacking advocate NCI publication affiliation restrictions and its links with advocacy heritage preservation and convergent science goals poses unique diversity, equity, and inclusion challenges and opportunities. Improving the quality of structural representation in biomedical research requires new theories of action and flexible planning to advance, promote and build capacity for strategic advocacy inclusion and equity within publication affiliation initiatives. Here we highlight several opportunities for how leadership might formulate a radically different vision for NCI's approach. This perspective interrogates the best way forward for ensuring that biomedical employee and volunteer advocate workforce publication affiliation intersections are characterized by increased creativity and representation parity. Imbuing the scientist and clinical researcher archetype with social dimensions, we join NCI critical thinkers in urging employees, funded academics, and volunteer citizen scientists to collectively assume the role as paladins of science and integrity who view the triumphs of making a difference in science alongside the social responsibility of promoting transdisciplinary professionalism and the democratization of science.     

Measuring the difference made by conservation initiatives: protected areas and their environmental and social impacts

Success in conservation depends on our ability to reduce human pressures in areas that harbour biological diversity and ecosystem services. Legally protecting some of these areas through the creation of protected areas is a key component of conservation efforts globally. To develop effective protected area networks, practitioners need credible, scientific evidence about the degree to which protected areas affect environmental and social outcomes, and how these effects vary with context. Such evidence has been lacking, but the situation is changing as conservation scientists adopt more sophisticated research designs for evaluating protected areas'' past impacts and for predicting their future impacts. Complementing these scientific advances, conservation funders and practitioners are paying increasing attention to evaluating their investments with more scientifically rigorous evaluation designs. This theme issue highlights recent advances in the science of protected area evaluations and explores the challenges to developing a more credible evidence base that can help societies achieve their goals of protecting nature while enhancing human welfare.     

On the gap between science and conservation implementation—A national park perspective

In the conservation of forests and protected areas, a gap lies between scientific knowledge and the management decisions made. From our perspective as scientists studying a national park, who deal daily with both research and administration, we discuss the general reasons for this gap. We provide examples (saproxylic beetles and Norway spruce genetics) to demonstrate the dilemma of practitioners who aim at basing their decisions on evidence. From our experience, the approach of problem solving is crucial, yet in many cases, the bidirectional bridge between science and application is poorly established. We specifically urge governments to organize nation-wide species distribution data; scientists to support the conservation community with new functional approaches, also in combination with Red Lists to identify diversity hotspots and major threats; stakeholders to identify land-use alternatives for scientists to study; state research institutes to increase the proportion of scientists; scientists and governmental authorities to regularly summarize scientific results and conclusions for practitioners; and agencies should foster incentives for scientists to deal with conservation efforts.     

Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation

Conservation scientists are increasingly recognising the value of communicating policy-relevant knowledge to policy-makers. Whilst considerable progress has been made in offering practical advice for scientists seeking to engage more closely with decision-makers, researchers have provided few tangible examples to learn from. This paper uses an English case study, but draws out important high-level messages relevant to conservation scientists worldwide. The case study looks at how the Lawton Review presented knowledge persuasively about the suitability of England’s ecological network to deal with future pressures. Through skilful framing of rigorous scientific knowledge it was able to make a significant impact on government policy. Impact was achieved through: (1) selecting politically salient frames through which to communicate; (2) using clear, accessible language, and; (3) conducting rigorous science using an authoritative team of experts. Although its publication coincided with a favourable policy window, the Lawton Review seized on this opportunity to communicate a rigorously argued, persuasive and practical conservation message; in other words, it performed ‘honest advocacy’. Thus, whilst it remains important to conduct scientific research with technical rigour, conservation scientists could also benefit from identifying salient frames for conservation and communicating clearly.     

Digital repository of associations between environmental variables: A new resource to facilitate knowledge synthesis

Responsible care and management of Earth's resources requires scientific support, but the pool of underused research is growing rapidly. Environmental science research studies describe associations between variables (e.g. statistical relationships between stressors and responses). We propose open-access and online sharing of such associations. This concept differs from various efforts around the world to promote sharing of primary research data, but holds similar goals of improved use of existing knowledge. The initiative is made possible by recent developments in information technology and evolving online culture (e.g. crowdsourcing and citizen science). We have begun to connect existing projects that catalog and store associations, thereby moving toward a single virtual repository. Researchers and decision makers may share and re-use associations for myriad purposes, including: increasing efficiency and timeliness of systematic reviews, environmental assessments and meta-analyses, identifying knowledge gaps and research opportunities, providing evolved metrics of research impact, and demonstrating connections between research and environmental improvement.     

Restoration Ecology's silver jubilee: innovation,debate, and creating a future for restoration ecology

At a time when the science and practice of restoration ecology is adapting to ongoing environmental and social change, innovations in both methods and concepts are essential. Encouraging innovation means allowing open debate about alternative approaches that may add to the toolbox available for restoration. Such approaches are usually being examined as additions to, rather than substitutes for, traditional restoration practices. Recent debate has focused on the scope and intent of restoration as defined in documents such as the Society for Ecological Restoration Standards. There is a mismatch between the default aim in the standards of full restoration to a native reference system and the goals of international restoration efforts that have a broader and more functional focus. The next generation of restoration scientists and practitioners will need to navigate these issues to ensure that restoration remains effective and relevant. This will require, amongst other things, ongoing learning, sharing information and insights, humility, objectivity, continuous examination of assumptions, and questioning current practices and perspectives.     

Strategies for avoiding reinventing the precollege education and outreach wheel

The National Science Foundation's recent mandate that all Principal Investigators address the broader impacts of their research has prompted an unprecedented number of scientists to seek opportunities to participate in precollege education and outreach. To help interested geneticists avoid duplicating efforts and make use of existing resources, we examined several precollege genetics, genomics, and biotechnology education efforts and noted the elements that contributed to their success, indicated by program expansion, participant satisfaction, or participant learning. Identifying a specific audience and their needs and resources, involving K-12 teachers in program development, and evaluating program efforts are integral to program success. We highlighted a few innovative programs to illustrate these findings. Challenges that may compromise further development and dissemination of these programs include absence of reward systems for participation in outreach as well as lack of training for scientists doing outreach. Several programs and institutions are tackling these issues in ways that will help sustain outreach efforts while allowing them to be modified to meet the changing needs of their participants, including scientists, teachers, and students. Most importantly, resources and personnel are available to facilitate greater and deeper involvement of scientists in precollege and public education.     

“Yes,but does it work in the field?” The challenge of technology transfer in biological control

Thanks to the efforts and enthusiasm of research scientists, biological control today enjoys considerable popularity. An increasing number of decision makers have high expectations of biological control as the foundation of IPM, as a viable commercial alternative to chemical pesticides, as the self-perpetuating solution to exotic pest problems and as the restorer of parks and endangered habitats threatened by alien invasive species. All of these expectations require that biological control scientists engage a broader community, including farmers, extensionists, environmentalists, regulators, and the public at large, and that they succeed with them to transfer, scale up and implement biological control at a level far beyond its present use. Increased movement of alien pests due to changing patterns of trade, as well as their emerging importance as threats to biodiversity has increased demand for classical biological control. Meeting this demand effectively will require improved understanding of the risks posed by alien pests and introduced agents, as well as better mechanisms to inform and involve governments and scientists in selfregulation and sharing of benefits. A growing portfolio of commercial biological control agents indicates the potential for inundative methods, but the continued emphasis on developing mass-marketed, pesticide-like agents, increasingly with the help of biotechnology, will eventually limit their application in IPM systems unless a broader approach in taken. Finally, opportunities exist for the transfer of methods for natural enemy conservation on a scale far greater than that of the classical or inundative interventions mentioned above, but realizing these opportunities requires a new approach to research and extension, wherein farmers become active research partners and farmers and scientists explore together the complex and very local dynamics of natural enemy complexes. Thus, for all of these areas of biological control, “making it work in the field” will require new directions in scientific research and establishing new partnerships in the transfer and implementation of its results     

Bridging science and practice in conservation: Deficits and challenges from a research perspective

Biodiversity is being lost at alarming rates in spite of efforts to conserve ecosystems, species and genetic diversity. There is broad consensus that biodiversity conservation needs to become more effective, and this requires an analysis of the causes that have prevented previous efforts from reaching their goal. A lack of knowledge exchange and cooperation between science and practice has been identified as a key issue in this context. Scientific knowledge frequently does not find its way into conservation practice, and information requirements by practitioners are often not considered appropriately by scientists. Here, we summarize deficits and challenges in the relationship between science and practice in conservation and outline approaches to achieving more effective knowledge exchange and collaboration at the interface between both. We propose that existing platforms for communication need to be complemented by independent institutions in particular at national and sub-national levels to facilitate successful co-production of knowledge as a prerequisite for effective conservation measures.     

Conducting robust ecological analyses with climate data

Although the number of studies discerning the impact of climate change on ecological systems continues to increase, there has been relatively little sharing of the lessons learnt when accumulating this evidence. At a recent workshop entitled ‘Using climate data in ecological research’ held at the UK Met Office, ecologists and climate scientists came together to discuss the robust analysis of climate data in ecology. The discussions identified three common pitfalls encountered by ecologists: 1) selection of inappropriate spatial resolutions for analysis; 2) improper use of publically available data or code; and 3) insufficient representation of the uncertainties behind the adopted approach. Here, we discuss how these pitfalls can be avoided, before suggesting ways that both ecology and climate science can move forward. Our main recommendation is that ecologists and climate scientists collaborate more closely, on grant proposals and scientific publications, and informally through online media and workshops. More sharing of data and code (e.g. via online repositories), lessons and guidance would help to reconcile differing approaches to the robust handling of data. We call on ecologists to think critically about which aspects of the climate are relevant to their study system, and to acknowledge and actively explore uncertainty in all types of climate data. And we call on climate scientists to make simple estimates of uncertainty available to the wider research community. Through steps such as these, we will improve our ability to robustly attribute observed ecological changes to climate or other factors, while providing the sort of influential, comprehensive analyses that efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change so urgently require.     

The morality of problem selection in proteomics

The emerging power of new technologies in proteomics and the biological sciences to alter the human condition demands that scientists hold a new perspective on the social responsibilities of their research. Ethical theory can help scientists recognize not only those research projects that are harmful, but also those research paths that can create the greatest improvements in human health on a global scale. Whereas individual choices are important for the direction of scientific research, these choices may have limited social effects if they are not coordinated with larger institutional and inter-institutional structures. The perspective presented here calls for the Human Proteome Organization to recognize the ten most ethically significant proteomes to be characterized, with the hopes of rallying support and directing the research efforts of scientists in the proteomics community toward these goals.