Politics – Genes to Genomes https://genestogenomes.org A blog from the Genetics Society of America Tue, 14 Nov 2023 03:02:35 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.6.2 https://genestogenomes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/cropped-G2G_favicon-32x32.png Politics – Genes to Genomes https://genestogenomes.org 32 32 Vence Bonham: Flexibility in your policy career path https://genestogenomes.org/vence-bonham-flexibility-in-your-policy-career-path/ Fri, 06 Oct 2023 14:01:00 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=86297 In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist…]]>

In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

We interviewed Vence Bonham, who is the acting deputy director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the head of the Health Disparities Unit in NHGRI’s Social and Behavioral Research Branch. He provides leadership for the Institute’s health equity and workforce diversity programs. As an associate investigator, Bonham’s research focuses on the social implications of genomic knowledge​​ and the use of social constructs, like race and ethnicity, in biomedical research and clinical care. In addition, Bonham studies sickle cell disease.

I wanted to start with a question about your career path. As someone who started his career with a Juris Doctor degree, what sparked your interest in pursuing an academic career in genetics? 

I came to genomics through my interest in health disparities. I always wanted to be an advocate, particularly to address inequities in our society. I saw my role as a lawyer as an opportunity to address those issues. So, I made a decision to go to law school at Ohio State University with the expectation that I would work on legal and equity issues around education. I later became a healthcare lawyer as my interests grew in health equity. That brought me to medicine and to my engagements in medicine and research. I started doing research with several faculty members, and I loved it. After a well-established career as a university attorney at one institution, associate general counsel at another, and being on the board of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, I decided to make a shift. I went back and did a Health Services Research Fellowship at the American Association of Medical Colleges. Because my real passion was around issues of health disparities, my research interests as a faculty member gravitated to work around that, and I gravitated to people who were scholars and experts in health disparities research. That’s what brought me into genomics.

As an investigator, much of your work explores the use of race and ethnicity data in biomedical research. Racial and ethnic categories are very commonly used to recruit participants in genetic and genomic studies. How do you envision the future of bringing people into studies if we no longer use race and ethnicity as a way to diversify the data? Do you think individuals would know their ancestry prior to being in studies? 

How do we identify individuals? We all have so many different identities, including genetic identities. How do we help scientists, the participants in studies, and the general public understand the nuance of identity? I believe that for the foreseeable future, we will use race, in a variety of areas, in our society and in science because race is real and has an impact on people’s lives. If we didn’t have information about racial and ethnic differences, we would be missing important information, and that includes the issue of who’s participating in studies. Now, as geneticists, I think when you’re designing your study, and you’re describing your populations, it doesn’t have to be the same as NIH inclusion reports. If your study is studying an issue about genetic variation and a specific disease, where it’s really much more about understanding ancestral background, then it may be important that you frame and talk about your study populations in a different way than an inclusion report. So I think that’s the key message with moving beyond race in genomic studies. 

Will people start to know their ancestry? I actually think we already see examples of that with large companies like 23andme and ancestry.com, where people are seeking more information about their background. Receiving that information gives people exposure to their genetic ancestry. So I expect that there will be more understanding that individual participants have about the complexity and the richness of their background. What’s really important right now is that the scientists do a better job with regards to how they describe the populations in their studies, because of the implications it has, both for their own studies and the implementation of new knowledge in healthcare and medicine and for the general public’s understanding of findings within studies.

With descriptions of four categories of race and ethnicity, I do still think that they are limited, right? Because people are a lot more nuanced than one category of something. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that as well with other social constructs like gender. Do you also think that is where the future is moving away from?

I think the answer is definitely yes. And I think the complexity of our identities is so evolving in our ability to talk about it in a way that we used to be so binary, and we’re no longer that. I think it’s important for people to understand those complexities.

How do you think your research influences the policy work that you do? And vice versa? How does that relationship work?

I believe that my research informs my work as an administrator and policymaker. It really enhances my ability to look at issues. I see my research really helping me to understand issues, to be able to communicate examples, and to talk about issues that are important around equity. I see my research being really informed by that. But then, it also flips around. What I’m hearing and what I’m learning from a policy perspective gives me an opportunity for new types of questions to ask in my research. So, it’s really a cycle, but that also makes it fun! 

It seems like science policy in the US is in constant flux, depending on who is in power. In your opinion, what do you think are some of the challenges that we’ll see in the United States? What advice would you give an early career scientist interested in policy?

I would encourage people, while they’re in their fellowships, in their trades, in graduate school, or postdocs, to get exposed and be an engaged citizen. From there, you can determine whether a policy shift is what you’re interested in. Your expertise as a scientist is important to policy making, and there is recognition of that. There are always talks and engagement activities. Each district has a congress member, the state legislators, so get involved. I think that also shows the sincerity of your interest in policy to show that you’re spending your own time getting engaged in the process.

Any concluding remarks?

What I hope came across in this conversation is that careers are not straight lines. People can make different decisions along their careers. There are ways to bridge your knowledge to help your next step in your career. 

]]> An introduction to science advocacy and policy: a short course from FASEB https://genestogenomes.org/an-introduction-to-science-advocacy-and-policy-a-short-course-from-faseb/ Fri, 19 May 2023 19:55:00 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=86106 Developing humankind’s scientific understanding of our modern world is contingent on the policies and facilitators that are funding our prospective research. Over the past several decades, government policies and initiatives have been enacted to promote groundbreaking research across the disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Breakthrough discoveries are occurring almost every day, yet the policies that regulate the day-to-day application and determine the funding for these new technologies limit their translation into everyday life. As humankind progresses into the scientific unknown, a couple questions remain: how influential are these policies in terms of developing the scientific enterprise, and what are the regulatory steps to propel these policies into legislation?

“This was my second time taking the course. It was very helpful in contextualizing policy for a scientist. Prior to the course, I had felt like there was so much that I did not know about how the government worked in the way it related to science, and the course does a great job getting us up to speed with how federal agencies and funding work.”

Marah Wahbeh, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine

To address these questions, members of the Genetics Society of America’s Early Career Leadership Program teamed up with the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) to participate in the “Introduction to Science Advocacy and Policy” short course offered through FASEB. As a non-profit organization founded in 1912, FASEB is the largest biomedical coalition in the United States that comprises 28 scientific societies and more than 115,000 researchers globally. The Science Advocacy and Policy short course was led and moderated by Yvette Seger, PhD, FASEB’s Director of Science Policy, and Jennifer Zeitzer, FASEB’s Director of Public Affairs.

The course consisted of four one-and-a-half hour sessions over the span of one month. In the first session, participants were introduced to the US government; more specifically, participants learned about key national government agencies and the relationship between these agencies and science policy, as well as the legislative processes that facilitate science policy enactment and implementation. The second session covered various budget and appropriation processes that determine and allocate yearly funding for scientific ventures. The final session introduced the different types and roles of science advisors in the federal government, as well as the differences between the development and implementation of policies and regulations. To conclude the course, participants tested their ability to communicate in the realm of policy by drafting responses to and memos about past or topical policy items. The culmination of all of these sessions developed participants’ skills in policy analysis, writing, and advocacy. 

Members of GSA’s Early Career Leadership Program stated that this was a “great introduction into science policy,” helping to “contextualize policy for a scientist.” The FASEB and GSA Introduction to Science Advocacy and Policy short course will once again be offered in the late spring of 2023. Interested participants should make their interest known, as the 15 slots will fill up quickly.

Please contact jvelez@genetics-gsa.org or yseger@faseb.org for more information. You can learn more about the Genetics Society of America’s Early Career Leadership Program here: Early Career Leadership – Genetics Society of America.

]]> Tips for a successful Hill Day https://genestogenomes.org/tips-for-a-successful-hill-day/ Tue, 12 Mar 2019 14:49:09 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=37891 Guest post by Giovanna Collu. Are you planning a visit to Capitol Hill to advocate for science? We asked Giovanna Collu, former Co-Chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee, to discuss the lessons she learned representing GSA at a Hill Day organized by the Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology (FASEB).  As well…]]>

Guest post by Giovanna Collu.

Are you planning a visit to Capitol Hill to advocate for science? We asked Giovanna Collu, former Co-Chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Subcommittee, to discuss the lessons she learned representing GSA at a Hill Day organized by the Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology (FASEB).  As well as representing GSA, Giovanna has also represented the American Physiological Society as an Early Career Advocacy Fellow.

 

What is the key for a successful visit to Capitol Hill?

Preparation is important—both in terms of understanding your audience and practicing what you want to say to them. Begin by researching the lawmakers whose office you will visit. You can do this by checking their committee assignment, which will tell you the areas over which they have the most influence. You can also look at their published positions on specific issues and learn more throughout the year by reading district newsletters and attending town halls or other public events.  

You’ll need to prepare an elevator pitch about your research. Depending on the availability of office staffers, you might not speak with someone whose background is in science, so you should prepare a brief description of your research that is understandable to non-scientists. Try to focus on the impact of your research and the reasons why you are working on this project rather than the technical details—you want your enthusiasm for the topic to come across. Your elevator pitch should set you up so that it’s clear you have the expertise to make an informed and reasonable request. Make sure that you have a specific ‘ask’; if you are working with an organization such as FASEB, they may provide you with specific language. On our visit, it was to include a $2 billion raise for NIH in the final fiscal year 2018 omnibus appropriations bill.

 

Why is this preparation important?

Knowing the background of the people you will meet with enables you to tailor your message to be most persuasive. Ideally, you want to present your request as the solution to a common problem, which means you need to try and frame your concern in a way that is appropriate to each individual. For each office that you visit, you might need to have different arguments, or at least place a different emphasis on those arguments, in order to better frame your request. The better prepared you are the more professional you will seem, which will give added weight to your message.

 

Tell us a little about your recent visit to the Hill.

The visit was organized by FASEB, who provided training and informational materials to leave with each office. As co-chairs of the ECS Policy Sub-committee, Emily Lescak and I represented GSA. It was notable that we were the only early career scientists to attend; it is great to be part of a society that puts trust in early career scientists!

We were grouped by region and, along with four other scientists, I visited the offices of New York’s 6th, 12th, 13th, and 14th districts, along with that of Senator Schumer. Our requests for increases in research funding for fiscal year 2018 were warmly received, and we were often asked what else they could do to help. Being part of a diverse group of advocates from different backgrounds and a mix of public and private universities and medical schools allowed us to present a range of examples for why federal funding for research is important. For instance, we explained that NSF funding supports infrastructure, which brings resources to local underserved communities and enhances educational opportunities. This broad range of experiences can help to avoid the appearance of self-interest in asking for more funding for your own field specifically and demonstrates the broader impact of research dollars.

 

What if you are visiting an office in a state whose economy isn’t as dependent on scientific research?

It’s helpful to use  FASEB’s factsheets that show the amount of research funding coming into each district; even if the state economy isn’t heavily reliant on research, there might still be a significant contribution in specific areas. Beyond the dollar amount, you can tell the story of how research funding supports the whole scientific enterprise—research grants and overheads contribute to salary for technical and administrative support, often from the local area, and can allow institutions to engage with the local community through outreach efforts. Examples from your own lab can help to illustrate the point. Many people outside of academia don’t realize that individual labs have a lot in common with small businesses and that loss of a grant or unpredictable future funding can lead to job losses and increased staff turnover.

There are also specific funding mechanisms that are designed to build research capacity in states with historically low levels of NIH funding, like the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program, for example. If you live in one of these states, you can discuss the benefits of these federal programs with your Member of Congress.

Generally speaking, there is widespread and bipartisan support for biomedical research. Speaking about the broader impact of your work in terms of understanding basic biological processes, as well as any medical, industrial, or agricultural implications, can be another good starting point.  

 

What are key advocacy areas that you’d encourage scientists to discuss?

The meetings provide an opportunity to talk about issues that scientists face, including uncertainty around future increases in federal research funding. The sustainability of the research enterprise is important for researchers of all stages, but for many early career scientists, unpredictability is a key deciding factor in choosing to pursue other career options. The long-term effect of uncertainty on the composition of the biomedical workforce needs to be communicated to lawmakers. Personal stories from early career scientists can be powerful in explaining the barriers to entering academia or receiving training for non-academic careers.

As a society, GSA has many members working with experimental organisms. Our community must advocate for continued funding of research using these organisms. Part of that advocacy involves explaining the breakthroughs in basic science and biomedicine that are based on discoveries made using these organisms.    

 

What were the greatest benefits, to you as a professional, that came from your visit?

Being part of a diverse group of scientists gave me the opportunity to learn about all the different ways that federal research funding supports our local community. Overall, I found Hill Day to be an equalizing experience—early career scientists are just as able to advocate effectively as senior faculty. We should have more students and postdocs involved in advocacy activities, especially as we are the ones entering the scientific professions and will be the workforce of the future. Moreover, many of the challenges faced by early career scientists will be different from those faced by more senior faculty. Our advocacy needs to be as diverse as our community. Everyone brings a different and compelling perspective to share!

About the Author:

Giovanna Collu is a former co-chair of the Early Career Scientist Policy Committee and a postdoctoral fellow at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. Giovanna’s goal is to increase advocacy opportunities for early career scientists with a focus on diversity and inclusion.

]]> GSA Marches! https://genestogenomes.org/gsa-marches/ Sun, 23 Apr 2017 04:15:22 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=8808 Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of scientists and science enthusiasts came out in force, rallying at more than 600 locations around the world to support robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. Many in the GSA community joined the March for Science, including a group at the Washington DC event, led by GSA President…]]>

Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of scientists and science enthusiasts came out in force, rallying at more than 600 locations around the world to support robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity. Many in the GSA community joined the March for Science, including a group at the Washington DC event, led by GSA President Lynn Cooley, Immediate Past President Stan Fields, and GENETICS Editor-in-Chief Mark Johnston. Catch up below on some of the GSA community’s photos and tweets of the events! And stay tuned for more from GSA on what we can all do to keep up the momentum from the March.

https://twitter.com/glenernstrom/status/855636469511319552

https://twitter.com/dougfowler42/status/855515683869806592

https://twitter.com/mjohn1251/status/855765777957474304

https://twitter.com/mjohn1251/status/855778062289563649

https://twitter.com/AlexisNagengast/status/855780956585828352

https://twitter.com/AGloriaSoria/status/855790929327923200

https://twitter.com/narhol/status/855797221132046336

https://twitter.com/narhol/status/855801272859058177

https://twitter.com/bplazzaro/status/855814768963309570

https://twitter.com/CristyGelling/status/855815555814752256

https://twitter.com/bplazzaro/status/855817866725273603

https://twitter.com/bplazzaro/status/855826897472811009

https://twitter.com/CristyGelling/status/855828163607359488

https://twitter.com/bfmcallister/status/855836504815542277

https://twitter.com/kpeeps111/status/855848927563833344

https://twitter.com/bplazzaro/status/855853191782649856

https://twitter.com/bplazzaro/status/855858534340341761

https://twitter.com/bplazzaro/status/855865761948106752

https://twitter.com/sandi_clement/status/855889459346161664

https://twitter.com/foodskop/status/855918662934564866

https://twitter.com/mjohn1251/status/855928659277991938

 

]]> Is science of value? https://genestogenomes.org/is-science-of-value/ Mon, 03 Apr 2017 17:14:43 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=8698 I had hoped that it would be a bit of cheery news that dragged me out of retirement from this blog to subject you to another edition of frameshifts. Alas, no. Instead it is the war on science that compels me again to set electrons to screen. The narrative that has become popular in some…]]>

Frameshifts LogoI had hoped that it would be a bit of cheery news that dragged me out of retirement from this blog to subject you to another edition of frameshifts. Alas, no. Instead it is the war on science that compels me again to set electrons to screen. The narrative that has become popular in some circles is that research is the province of pointy-headed intellectuals in a few left-wing college towns. And, continuing this logic, if these elite eggheads get a few less tax dollars with which to putter and pontificate, nobody will be any poorer. Furthermore, if the findings and advice of scientists are ignored, well—why should a scientist’s version of facts be accepted any more than anybody else’s? We, as practitioners of the scientific profession, need to combat this narrative.

Let’s take these points in turn. Where is science carried out in this country, and who does it? Americans are hardly aware of the impact or import of scientific research, even when it’s going on right next door. When Research!America asked if “medical research in the U.S. is conducted in all 50 states,” a mere 21% of American adults said “Yes” (the most frequent response, from half of those polled: “Not sure”).1

Research goes on throughout the country. Consider a state—any state; let’s say Georgia. In 2015, it received more than $500 million in NIH funding, more than $150 million from the NSF, more than $40 million from Department of Agriculture research funding, and nearly $10 million from the Office of Science at the Department of Energy.2 From the NIH alone, Emory, Georgia Tech, Georgia State, Georgia Regents (now Augusta), Morehouse and the University of Georgia each brought in more than $20 million—some of these way more. 3

Who benefits from this scientific activity in Georgia? It’s estimated that NIH funds directly support more than 10,000 jobs and $1.5 billion in economic activity in Georgia 4. Add to that number more than 25,000 people in Georgia who work in the biopharmaceutical industry (many of these folks likely trained in nearby research universities). And I’d venture to guess that all this economic activity doesn’t account for the coffee shops, daycare centers, gyms, take-out restaurants and other businesses that sprout up next to major medical centers and biotech companies.

Will it matter much if support for research is cut—to the tune of about 20% (or even more) at NIH, DOE, EPA and other agencies that fund science? Let’s play out the President’s plan that would enact this level of budget cuts. Many labs will close down, in Georgia—in cities like Atlanta, Athens and Augusta—and in other states, in cities like Indianapolis IN ($133 million from the NIH), Lexington KY ($102 million), and Columbia MO ($42 million). It seems certain that scientists in all 50 states will lose jobs.

But beyond the effect on employment, many of the sensational research findings routinely discovered in American labs, and that all Americans—whose tax dollars support these labs—are rightly proud of, will instead occur in Europe, China, Japan and elsewhere. Those findings in labs far from our shores will spawn the patents and intellectual know-how that lead to new industries with their well-paying jobs, jobs created in perhaps Saskatoon, or in Seoul, or in Sydney, rather than in any American city. Perhaps the hub of some future industry built on the results from basic research ends up in Stockholm or Amsterdam, instead of in our next Silicon Valley.

How will the young, smart, creative Americans who populate our graduate and postdoc programs, and the many bright international scholars who contribute to our research teams, respond to these Federal cuts? Seeing the low priority that this country places on science, talented Americans will seek alternative careers with better long-term prospects; scientists in other countries will choose to train elsewhere rather than the United States.

Will there be ramifications if scientific views are ignored? The ease by which research funding provides such a convenient target for reducing Federal spending may be a result of our country’s diminished scientific literacy and loss of respect for expertise. Ultimately, the consequence of the notion that all viewpoints are equally valid is decision-making that defies the overwhelming consensus of scientific data. Recent actions of the President to weaken fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and to eliminate plans to cut emissions from coal-fired power plants fit neatly into the myth that there is no scientific consensus about human-caused climate change. The result will be water that is dirtier, air that is smoggier, a planet that warms ever faster. Choosing an EPA head who thinks that carbon dioxide does not contribute to global warming will not convince Mother Nature to change her laws.

All of us need to stand together for science and make our voices heard. We need to contact our local members of Congress, write op-ed pieces and letters to the editor, talk to our friends and neighbors. And join with me and scientists around the country in the March for Science on April 22nd, for which the GSA is a sponsor. The future of our profession, the prosperity of our nation, and the health of our planet depend on our actions.

 

1https://www.researchamerica.org/sites/default/files/RA-PDS_Vol17_FINAL.pdf
2 http://www.faseb.org/viewer.aspx?id=122&Name=Federal-Research-Funding-in-Georgia.pdf
3 https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm
4 http://www.unitedformedicalresearch.com/state-by-state/#state/georgia

]]> GSA partners with March for Science https://genestogenomes.org/gsa-partners-with-march-for-science/ https://genestogenomes.org/gsa-partners-with-march-for-science/#comments Tue, 28 Feb 2017 20:40:09 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=8487 On Earth Day, April 22, 2017, scientists and other community members across the world will be assembling in a public display of support for science. The March for Science is a non-partisan rally and teach-in to be held in Washington, DC, along with a network of affiliated events taking place at more than 300 locations worldwide.…]]>

On Earth Day, April 22, 2017, scientists and other community members across the world will be assembling in a public display of support for science. The March for Science is a non-partisan rally and teach-in to be held in Washington, DC, along with a network of affiliated events taking place at more than 300 locations worldwide.

The Genetics Society of America (GSA) is pleased to announce it is now an official partner of March for Science, which aims to champion robustly funded and publicly communicated science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity.

We encourage members to show their support for science and its critical role in improving lives and informing public policy by taking part in one of the March for Science events. And most importantly, we encourage you to continue to speak up after the March, to call on policymakers to invest in scientific advances, to enact policies that build on scientific evidence, and to encourage communication and engagement between scientists and the public they serve. GSA works year-round to pursue these goals, but we depend on your input, energy, and support to make a difference.

For those who can’t make it to DC, find a March near you using this map. You can learn more about the goals and principles of the March for Science at their webpage.

We hope to see you at the March! Help us amplify your participation by posting photos and using the hashtag #gsamarches. Stay tuned for more information from GSA.

 

Lynn Cooley

President

 

Tracey DePellegrin

Executive Director

 

Genetics Society of America

 

UPDATE: You can now buy official GSA March for Science T-shirts! Be sure to place your order before April 9.

]]> https://genestogenomes.org/gsa-partners-with-march-for-science/feed/ 1 Statement from GSA’s Executive Committee on the U.S. President’s executive order on immigration https://genestogenomes.org/statement-from-gsas-executive-committee-on-the-u-s-presidents-executive-order-on-immigration/ https://genestogenomes.org/statement-from-gsas-executive-committee-on-the-u-s-presidents-executive-order-on-immigration/#comments Fri, 03 Feb 2017 14:30:47 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=8359 UPDATE, July 10, 2018 After more than a year of legal battles, the most recent version of the travel ban has been upheld by the Supreme Court. We wish to reiterate our previous statement, underlining the extent to which such restrictive policies not only harm the scientific community, but the technological and societal progress that…]]>

UPDATE, July 10, 2018

After more than a year of legal battles, the most recent version of the travel ban has been upheld by the Supreme Court. We wish to reiterate our previous statement, underlining the extent to which such restrictive policies not only harm the scientific community, but the technological and societal progress that depends on their work.

We encourage members of the GSA community affected by the ban, including GSA members, GSA conference attendees, GSA committee members, GENETICS and G3 authors, reviewers, and others in the scientific community, to contact us at society@genetics-gsa.org to let us know the impact this policy has had on you.

Science in the 21st Century is built on international collaboration and global cooperation, with progress dependent on the open exchange of ideas, technology, and people from around the globe. This collaboration does more than advance science; it cultivates greater understanding and friendship as researchers learn to live and work with their colleagues from other nations and cultures.

Every year the Genetics Society of America hosts scientific conferences as part of its mission to foster an international community of geneticists. At these conferences, scientists share their work freely to advance our understanding of inheritance and of the natural world. These meetings are vital catalysts for the sharing of ideas and the improvement of human lives.

But this year, as a result of U.S. President Trump’s January 27, 2017 executive order on immigration, our conferences will be incomplete. Our colleagues based outside the United States who were born in seven Muslim-majority countries will not be permitted to travel here to attend GSA meetings. Indeed, we have already had several cancellations. Other colleagues say they will not travel to the U.S. in protest of the new restrictions. Still others fear that the ban will, over the coming months, extend to their countries of origin. This situation, and the associated uncertainty, is repeated for countless other conferences being planned by scientific societies and institutions across the country, as well as for scientific collaborations across labs and research institutes.

The travel restriction impedes scientific progress in the U.S. in myriad ways. It compromises many significant ongoing collaborative projects aimed at improving the health of our society. It restricts some scientists living legally here from traveling overseas for fear of being denied re-entry. It prevents talented young scientists from studying in the U.S. and contributing to scientific enterprises in this country. Moreover, damage to the United States’ reputation for fairness and equality will hamper our long-standing ability to attract the best scientists in the world to our shores.

For those in our community affected by this order, we will offer whatever help and support we can. We are evaluating options to accommodate GSA conference registrants who are prevented from physically attending meetings. We’re exploring ways to offer scientific presentations on demand, the ability to present a poster remotely, and to participate in workshops via video conference.

In a letter to President Trump authored by AAAS, the GSA—along with over 163 scientific societies, universities, and other signatories—strongly urged the US administration to rescind the travel ban.

We reject as contrary to our values as a scientific community the idea that people seeking entry to the U.S. should be excluded on the basis of their country of birth or religion. Turning inward serves neither science nor the interests of the U.S.

 

Executive Committee of the Genetics Society of America

Lynn Cooley, PhD, President

Jeannie T. Lee, MD, PhD, Vice-President

Stan Fields, PhD, Past President

David Greenstein, PhD, Secretary

Piali Sengupta, PhD, Treasurer

Eric Selker, PhD, At-large Director

 

]]> https://genestogenomes.org/statement-from-gsas-executive-committee-on-the-u-s-presidents-executive-order-on-immigration/feed/ 2 Policy Points: Wasteful research and Spending Subcommittees https://genestogenomes.org/policy-points-wasteful-research-and-spending-subcommittees/ https://genestogenomes.org/policy-points-wasteful-research-and-spending-subcommittees/#comments Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:48:42 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=5777   Advocating for Model Organism Research This month, GSA member Jeff Leips (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) packed up a few his fruit flies and brought them to the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. There he joined other researchers, including David A. Scholnick of “shrimp on a treadmill” fame to present at the Wasteful Research?…]]>

GSA Member Jeff Leips

GSA Member Jeff Leips presents his research on aging using Drosophila.

 

Advocating for Model Organism Research

This month, GSA member Jeff Leips (University of Maryland, Baltimore County) packed up a few his fruit flies and brought them to the Russell Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. There he joined other researchers, including David A. Scholnick of “shrimp on a treadmill” fame to present at the Wasteful Research? Looking Beyond the Abstract poster session co-hosted by the Coalition to Promote Research and the Coalition for the National Science Foundation. The event connected policymakers with scientists whose research may seem frivolous at first blush, but are making important contributions to several fields of science. For example, Leips uses fruit flies to study the genetics behind the aging process.

Representatives from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) also participated, explaining their peer review and grant selection processes to Congressional staffers and other attendees. In recent years, agencies have come under fire for funding research projects with silly names or seemingly useless applications. Some members of Congress point to such projects in annual “Wastebooks”, which index wasteful government spending across all agencies. This has led to calls for more hands-on oversight, especially at NSF, that could impact the agency’s ability to set research priorities. By providing policymakers with the opportunity to learn more about the project behind the titles and abstracts, attendees hoped to change the perception of government investments in scientific research. Read more about this event here.

Moving Forward to Fund the Government

As members of Congress returned to Capitol Hill following their Spring recess, so too did budget negotiations as appropriators move forward with efforts to approve 2017 spending bills by mid-July. The Senate Appropriations Committee, chaired by Thad Cochran (MS) set the spending levels for each of its subcommittees following the spending guidelines set by the Bipartisan Budget Act passed last fall. Notably, subcommittees which fund NIH and the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) will see an overall reduction in budget allocations while subcommittees tasked to fund NSF and Department of Energy will see increases (See table below).

Subcommittee FY 2017 Allocation Change in Allocation (compared to FY 2016)
Agriculture $21.21 billion -$500 million
Commerce, Justice, Science $56.3 billion +$600 million
Energy and Water $37.5 billion +$355 million
Labor, Health and Human Services $161.9 billion -$200 million

**Table adapted from FASEB Washington Update

The Senate-approved Commerce, Justice, and Science spending bill increased funding for NSF by $46 million and included language in support of fundamental research; however most of the increase is expected to go toward the design and construction of regional-class research vessels, making most directorate level budgets flat for next year. Meanwhile in the House, AFRI received $375 million ($25 million increase over Fy16) for FY17 as a result of the House-approved Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. This falls short of the President’s budget request that included $325 million in mandatory funding, which the House chose to reject.

GSA submitted written testimony to the House and Senate Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittees in March requesting a budget increase for the National Science Foundation in order to support fundamental research, workforce development, and shared research resources. Read the full statement here.

Make sure your voice is heard

As GSA continues to ramp up its policy efforts on behalf of our members, we want to make sure that your concerns are a part of our policy agenda. The next time you see an article, op-ed, opinion piece or policy proposal that you think the GSA should weigh-in on, send your opinion along with a link to more information to us at Policy@Genetics-GSA.org.

Other stories to follow: 

Mushroom modified by CRISPR to bruise less falls outside of GMO regulations.

This scientist works with tissue from aborted fetuses. Congress has come calling.

Genetically modified mosquitos are poised to join the fight against the spread of the Zika virus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

]]> https://genestogenomes.org/policy-points-wasteful-research-and-spending-subcommittees/feed/ 1 Real nice https://genestogenomes.org/real-nice/ Mon, 01 Feb 2016 18:00:18 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=4770 A worrisome habit is arising among some American politicians. They don’t like what scientists conclude about some supposedly controversial topic so they try to defund the research. A good example of this tactic is climate change—in recent months, we’ve heard of efforts to limit NASA, EPA, NOAA, and NSF funding for research in geoscience. But…]]>

Frameshifts LogoA worrisome habit is arising among some American politicians. They don’t like what scientists conclude about some supposedly controversial topic so they try to defund the research. A good example of this tactic is climate change—in recent months, we’ve heard of efforts to limit NASA, EPA, NOAA, and NSF funding for research in geoscience. But I wonder whether there’s a fatal flaw here.

If you believe fervently that either the planet isn’t warming up—despite the recent finding that 2015 was the hottest on record—or, if it is, that humans are not contributing to the rise, then it might seem prudent to provide abundant funding to climate scientists so that they can arrive at the truth and vindicate your beliefs. But what if these scientists are finding that there’s no evidence of warming but are lying about it—perhaps because they hold left-leaning views that seek to achieve public support for alternative energy, or maybe they are chagrined that the reason the earth is not warming from the burning of fossil fuels is their models are flawed? Ah, a conspiracy!

Despite the oft-cited evidence that at least 97% of the scientists in this field expressing a view on the subject support the consensus that humans are contributing to the planet’s warming, maybe all those scientists—worldwide—are in on the conspiracy.

If you believe in this vast scientific conspiracy, it seems to me that you can’t have much faith in the view of reality that science proffers. Fine, you can hold any beliefs you want. But if virtually all climate scientists are untruthful, can you have faith that others in similar professions, say biologists and physicians, are honest?

 

Conspiracy-cartoon-2

 

Let’s consider a medical example. Some of those disbelieving the consensus on climate change are likely to have high LDL cholesterol (the bad form), a “supposed” risk factor for heart disease. As a consequence, they may have been given a prescription by their doctors for a class of drugs known as statins. They likely were dutiful in filling their prescription and now take a pill everyday that contains a statin. But I have to ask: should these patients be taking this pill?

Why would anyone believe that statins lower LDL cholesterol? Well, scientists would be quick to cite studies that “demonstrated” just this outcome, such as an influential Scandinavian study in the 1990s that “showed” that statin treatment could reduce cholesterol levels and led to a 30% decrease in the risk of death over the trial period. But could those researchers who carried out that study have been secretly paid by a pharmaceutical company to show that statins were effective even though they weren’t? And maybe similar shenanigans happened for all the other published studies on statin efficacy. Ah, a conspiracy!

“Wait a second,” says our climate change denier with high cholesterol. “I personally had my blood tested before I went on the statin, and my LDL cholesterol really was high, and then I had it tested after being on the statin for awhile, and it came way down. So the drug truly does work.”

“Not so fast,” I reply. “Surely you didn’t perform the blood tests yourself, using your own home chemistry kit? Your blood was probably sent to a clinical lab that performed the tests and reported the results back to your doctor. If that’s the case, there were plenty of chances for some pharmaceutical company to have paid the testing lab to falsely reduce your LDL number. Or maybe your doctor was the one in on the payout and changed the number? Or maybe there was no money involved but your physician wouldn’t accept an unchanged LDL reading because she erroneously believes that high cholesterol contributes to a heart attack and wants you to continue on your new diet? Or maybe your physician has left-leaning views that argue for reducing beef consumption because raising cattle is a horrendous waste of resources? And come to think of it, how do we even know that any drug is even present in that pill that you’ve been taking? Never underestimate the placebo effect.”

Reality sits precariously atop a steep and slippery slope. If you push hard enough on it, don’t be surprised when it rolls all the way to the ground. And once it arrives there, ask yourself how sure you are that those other drugs you may take for hypertension, cancer, diabetes, hepatitis or any other condition work “as advertised.”

As geneticists, should we care if climate research is defunded, other than that the earth may become a lot more inhospitable to our children and grandchildren? Sure we should. If this tactic works, maybe the next target for defunding is stem cells. Or vaccines. Or studies that rely on evolutionary principles. Or Drosophila development and C. elegans neurobiology. Or even: investigations into the causes and treatment of heart disease.

]]> Budget deal passes the House, offers sequestration relief https://genestogenomes.org/budget-deal-passes-the-house-offers-sequestration-relief/ Thu, 29 Oct 2015 21:54:36 +0000 https://genestogenomes.org/?p=3348 On the evening of October 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the budget deal negotiated by the current Congressional leadership and President Obama. The bill passed the House on a vote of 266-167, with 79 Republicans—including all members of the Republican House leadership—joining all 187 voting Democrats…]]>

On the evening of October 28, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R.1314, the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, the budget deal negotiated by the current Congressional leadership and President Obama. The bill passed the House on a vote of 266-167, with 79 Republicans—including all members of the Republican House leadership—joining all 187 voting Democrats in supporting the deal.

The legislation now moves on to the Senate, which is expected to pass the bill as soon as tomorrow. The White has issued a “Statement of Administration Policy” expressing support for the bill, indicating the President is likely to sign it.

The bill would provide two years of release from sequestration for both defense and non-defense priorities by lifting the spending caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011. Overall discretionary spending would increase from its current level of $1.017 trillion to $1.067 in fiscal year (FY) 2016 and $1.070 trillion in FY 2017.

It also extends the debt ceiling through March 5, 2017, which would otherwise have been reached the first week of November.

Please note that the budget deal is for federal spending as a whole and does not address funding for individual agencies and programs. Appropriations discussions are ongoing with the hope that Congress will complete allocations for FY 2016 before the current Continuing Resolution expires on December 11.

However, there are reasons for optimism. Several Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have indicated their support for increasing the budgets of NIH and NSF if caps are lifted. Indeed, both the House and Senate proposed an increase in NIH funding ($1 billion in the House, $2 billion in the Senate) earlier this year.

 

UPDATE: At 3:12 am on Friday, October 30, the Senate passed the bill to send it on to President Obama. The vote was 64-35, with 18 Republicans joining all voting Democrats in support of the bill.

UPDATE: As expected, President Obama signed the legislation on November 2, 2015.

 

Related on Genes to Genomes:

]]>