Jonathan Moreno, in his opening editorial for Science Progress writes:

In the 21st century, more than ever, it is no exaggeration to assert that only free and rigorous inquiry and not authoritarian dogma can provide the reliable information required for our physical survival. Perhaps most important, progress in science is essential for a continued sense of our national purpose as participants in an historic experiment in freedom and self-governance, as one people joined by a common future rather than a common past, a future we cherish for the sake of the generations of Americans to come.

The goal of Science Progress is to help identify and realize the elements of that boundless American future. We hope this goal is manifest in our statement of mission:

Science Progress proceeds from the propositions that scientific inquiry is among the finest expressions of human excellence, that it is a crucial source of human flourishing, a critical engine of economic growth, and must be dedicated to the common good. Scientific inquiry entails global responsibilities. It should lead to a more equitable, safer, and healthier future for all of humankind.

Science Progress is a project of Center for American Progress, a non-profit, non-partisan think tank which strives to improve the lives of Americans. They work to accomplish this through diverse education, research, policy, and outreach activities which help to engage Americans and keep several complex core issues at the forefront of our national debate. This year the CAP is focused on four interrelated key issues:

1. Restoring America’s global leadership to make America more secure and build a better world.
2. Seizing the energy opportunity to create a clean, innovation-led economy that supports a sustainable environment.
3. Creating progressive growth that’s robust and widely shared, and restoring economic opportunity for all.
4. Delivering universal health care so that quality, affordable health services are available to all Americans.

Science Progress offers readers articles on diverse issues such as: Life Sciences and Public Health, Innovation and Economic Mobility, Energy and Environment, Science Communication and Education, and National Security. The pages for each of these main issues also features related blog posts, too. If you like the short format, you might consider signing up for the Science Progress Newsletter. You can receive the newsletter in your email or via your favorite RSS reader.

One highlight that I hope you’ll check out is an article about the public’s opinion of science from SP called American Public: “Science is Good!”, with full report on “What the Public Really Wants on Science” from the CAP website.

ShareThis

PROCLAIM YOUR TRUE LOVE…

ShareThis

Here are the lyrics:

Pipetting all those well-plates, baby, sends your thumbs into overdrive
And spending long nights in the lab makes it hard for your love to thrive

What you need is automation, girl, something easy as 1 2 3
So put down that pipette, honey, I got something that will set you free

And it’s called epMotion (whisper: ‘cause you deserve something really great)
Girl you need epMotion (whisper: yeah girl it’s time to automate)
It’s got to be epMotion (whisper: no more pipetting late at night)
Only for you epMotion (whisper: girl this time we got it right)

DNA
RNA
Proteins
Cell Cultures
Less reagents
Faster workflow
Saves you money
Well, well, well

And it’s called epMotion (whisper: ‘cause you deserve something really great)
Girl you need epMotion (whisper: yeah girl it’s time to automate)
It’s got to be epMotion (whisper: no more pipetting late at night)
Only for you epMotion (whisper: girl this time we got it right)

(I don’t remember the lab being like this at all…)

ShareThis

is pleased to announce

Innovation 2008

Today we released Innovation 2008: 14 Questions the candidates for President should answer about Science & America’s Future.

We started with more than 3,300 questions submitted by our 38,000 signers. We worked with 11 other organizations representing millions of voters to winnow them into the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. While there are many others, these 14 had the most common representation. They are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

We have submitted them to the campaigns and asked for written responses and for them to consider a broader, nationally televised forum for the general public.

We also made certain these 14 questions aligned with and contained as a subset the 7 congressional questions we codeveloped with our friends at Scientists and Engineers for America and 14 other organizations. This cooperative strategy has helped define the science agenda American voters need to hear about from their elected leaders.

To support the Presidential questions, Scientists and Engineers for America commissioned a poll on science and the election. It is published on our site, and it shows that voters are much more likely to vote for a candidate for President that will tackle America’s major science issues.

Now we need your help to propel this major effort forward. Please tell 5 people you know about this initiative and ask them to sign on. Blog about it, write about it, and call or write to your local paper and ask them to cover the 14 Questions of Innovation 2008. And of course, call, email, and write the campaigns. These questions are critical to the future of the United States. Politicians pay attention to voters and the press. By working together we can continue to make science and technology a more prominent part of the 2008 elections.

Please also contribute to support our ongoing citizens’ initiative to turn this country around.

-The Team at ScienceDebate2008.com

ShareThis

Good news: the number of employment opportunities in the biosciences continues to grow. According to a report, “Technology, Talent and Capital: State Bioscience Initiatives 2008,” by Batelle and the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), states and regions are working to attract competitive wage jobs. This report offers data on bioscience employment growth trends on the national, state, and metropolitan levels between 2001-2006.

Some highlights:

Total U.S. employment in the biosciences reached 1.3 million in 2006, up from 1.2 million in 2004, led by strong growth in the research, testing and medical lab subsector, which experienced a 17.8 percent increase in employment and a 32.7 percent increase in establishments between 2001 and 2006.

Indirect and induced employment from the bioscience industry totals an additional 6.2 million jobs spread throughout the remainder of the economy. Together, these direct, indirect and induced jobs account for a total employment impact of 7.5 million jobs.

• Read the Complete Report (PDF)
• Read the Press Release
• View the presentation from the press conference
• read what’s up in Missouri

ShareThis

I completely forgot to mention LinkedIn when I wrote about Social Networking for Scientists last week. Linked in is a great way to connect to people both within and outside the world of bench science.

For more info about LinkedIn, I turned to their company “about us” page:

What is LinkedIn?

LinkedIn is an online network of more than 20 million experienced professionals from around the world, representing 150 industries. Your network consists of your connections, your connections’ connections, and the people they know, linking you to thousands of qualified professionals.

Through your network you can:

• Find potential clients, service providers, subject experts, and partners who come recommended
• Be found for business opportunities
• Search for great jobs
• Discover inside connections that can help you land jobs and close deals
• Post and distribute job listings
• Find high-quality passive candidates
• Get introduced to other professionals through the people you know

Also, LinkedIn is free to join.

For more info, take a look at the following resources:

• 100+ Smart Ways to use LinkedIn (a nice collection of various articles about using LinkedIn)
• My “public profile“
• LinkedIn’s Wikipedia entry
• An article from Forbes describing the recent $53M investment in LinkedIn by venture capitalists (this funding brings the company’s value to a shocking $1B!); this article also presents a nice discussion of the pros and cons of the application with some fun extras, such as the “in Pictures” features.

In Pictures: Reasons To Love (And Hate) LinkedIn
In Pictures: How To Network Like A Pro Online

ShareThis

People who customize their cars with stickers and other adornments are more prone to road rage than other people…

Interesting! The original research can be found here:

Szlemko W., et al. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 38, 1664-1688 (2008). | Article |

Speaking of bumper stickers, here are a couple of good ones from CafePress:

ShareThis

Here are a couple that I particularly like:

BioMedExperts (BME) is a free scientific profiling application. BME uses your PubMed-indexed articles to automatically construct a user profile.

Profiles in BioMedExperts (BME) are generated by extracting and assigning the biomedical concepts from an article to the authors and co-authors that are listed with the published article. We have done this on six million scientific publications from over 6,500 journals. BME currently contains profiles of about 1.4 million biomedical experts from more than 150 countries, representing approximately 12 million connections in the pre-established BME network. BME experts can access the system to revise and/or update their personal details, publications and/or preferences

Connections to other co-authors (collaborators) are easily visualized on a network (the network based on my publications is shown below) and it is also possible to see profiles on an institution basis, as well. BME makes it easy to find and connect with other scientists who share similar experimental interests or approaches with you.

Epernicus is another application which seems as though it has loads of possible benefits. Unlike BME, you need to actually feed information into epernicus. Don’t let that scare you away, though. Epernicus offers you a host of ways to put your best foot forward and give portential collaborators an idea of who you are from a research standpoint. Each profile can be edited on the basis of Background (positions, degrees, advisors, training, and other experiences), Research interests, Honors, Publications, Presentations, Assets (your scientific value to the network in terms of topics, materials, and methods). You can even upload a photo of yourself and your favorite figure (be sure to check any potential issues with copyright before you load the image, though). My basic profile is below so that you can get an idea of what it looks like.

ShareThis

ShareThis

Some highlights from the Overview at NIH:

Diagnostic Phase

The Final Draft Report issued February 29, 2008, documents the outcome of the diagnostic phase and describes recommendations for addressing the following seven major challenges:

1. Reducing Administrative Burden of Applicants, Reviewers, and NIH Staff
2. Enhancing the Rating System
3. Enhancing Review and Reviewer Quality
4. Optimizing Support at Different Career
5. Optimizing Support for Different Types and Approaches of Science
6. Reducing Stress on the Support System of Science
7. Meeting the Need for Continuous Review of Peer Review

Implementation Phase

In March 2008, the NIH Director established the Steering Committee Peer Review Implementation Group to draft the outline of implementation plans for each recommended action. The subgroups were composed largely of NIH program and review officers, planning and evaluation experts and statisticians.

The implementation plan process was guided by two fundamental principles. First, while improving the system, do no harm. That is, ensure that any changes to the peer review system bring significant value and reflect a favorable balance between costs and benefits. Secondly, continue to maximize the freedom of scientists to explore.

Feedback was solicited from both NIH internal and external communities. This feedback, together with careful consideration of the pros and cons of both individual and combined recommendations, informed the development of the draft implementation plan, which four core priorities emerged:

1. Recruit, train and reward the best possible reviewers;
2. Align structure of applications, review criteria, summary statements and the rating process to improve quality and transparency of reviews;
3. Ensure balanced and fair reviews across scientific fields and scientific career stages while reducing unnecessary burden on applicants;
4. Implement a system for continuous review and improvement of peer review.

Resources:

• Jocelyn Kaiser presents a wonderful overview in “NIH to Overhaul Peer Review of Grants”
• The Scientist’s Alison McCook describes one scientist’s experience in “Losing Your Lab”
• Press Release: NIH Director Announces Enhancements to Peer Review
• Enhancing Peer Review at NIH homepage

New links today (6/11/2008)

• Nature’s take on the process
• A Nature blog for peer-reviewers about peer review.

ShareThis