Some articles you will see in this month’s issue:
In this issue:
A budget resolution does not require the President’s signature and serves as a guide to the House and Senate on overall budget policy. Adopting a resolution prompts a process known as budget reconciliation, which allows legislation to be passed with a simple majority in the Senate, forgoing the 60 votes usually needed to advance a bill to final passage.
The budget resolution adopted by Congress allocated topline budget numbers to a number of congressional committees, which are now working on specific provisions for inclusion in the relief legislation. For example, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which has jurisdiction over much of the non-defense federal research portfolio, has been allocated up to $750 million. “$750 million represents just a fraction of what is needed, including to recover all the science and, more importantly, the talent that is hemorrhaging from the STEM pipeline as a result of this crisis,” said House Science Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) in response. “I will continue to push for such funding as part of the stimulus discussions.”
Other fiscal targets assigned in the resolution include: $188 billion for the Energy and Commerce Committee; $1 billion for the Natural Resources Committee; and $358 billion for the Education and Labor Committee.
Meanwhile, in the hopes of reaching a bipartisan agreement, President Biden met with a group of Republican Senators to discuss a smaller $618 billion relief package, which does not include any state or local aid. Democratic lawmakers, however, are proceeding to use the budget reconciliation process to enact Biden’s $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan without GOP support. Several committees have already advanced parts of the proposal, which are expected to be combined into a single package. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) indicated that the House is aiming to vote on a stimulus package during the week of February 22 and send the final bill to the President in March.
The requested level of funding is estimated to reach roughly $380 billion in five years. “Today, the U.S.—indeed, the global community—faces existential challenges that span such wide-ranging arenas as public health and healthcare, environment and climate change, food and water security, and energy production, utilization and storage,” reads the Science and Technology Action Plan. “Further, our nation’s competitiveness in the global economic arena can no longer be taken for granted: other nations are working methodically to bolster their science and technology capacity and talent, utilizing those strengths to create and capture new export markets. We must invest in ourselves to drive the innovation and change that can serve our nation and our planet.”
The Science and Technology Action Committee is a nonpartisan coalition of non-profit, academic, foundation, and corporate leaders that aims to strengthen U.S. science and technology. Organizations can endorse their action plan at: https://forms.gle/ovf3asDsWMWiAqvG7.
The petition reads, in part: “Unfortunately, current circumstances, especially COVID-related travel restrictions, have truncated cash flow to field stations thereby debilitating their capacity to generate essential data, conduct outreach activities, and offer unique learning experiences. At a time when environmental issues demand heightened attention, we simply cannot risk undermining the continuum of scientific endeavors and education. Field stations and the courses they deliver are integral to scientific literacy and remain critical to the protection of Earth’s natural heritage and its life-sustaining ecosystem services.”
Petition signatories call on governments, foundations, and universities to “commit to supporting scientific research stations and their educational programming throughout current pandemic adversities and subsequently, to augment resources at a level commensurate with their expanding importance to science and society.”
The petition has garnered signatures from more than 2000 individuals and more than 25 organizations. A related Viewpoint article in BioScience, entitled “Growing Threats to the Scientific and Educational Legacies of Research Stations and Field Courses,” is now available at https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa166.
Please click here to open the Diversity Plan in a new window.
Listen to the latest episode of BioScience Talks.
If the proposed rule is finalized, it could delay scientific advances, vaccines, and anti-viral therapies that otherwise would have been developed under the longstanding rules enabling HFT research,” the groups wrote. “The proposed prohibition on the use of federal funds for the procurement of HFT for research would increase the institutional cost of research using HFT at a time when research institutions are strained for resources due to the ongoing pandemic. The procurement of biospecimens and other research materials is essential for the conduct of research and should be a permissible use of federal research funding.”
The groups also reiterated their January 7 request to Biden to revoke the other 2019 policy changes for HFT research.
The Tracking COVID-19 Variants Act (S. 236), introduced by Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) on February 4, 2021, would boost support for advanced molecular detection technologies at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to enable genetic surveillance and sequencing for SARS-CoV-2 variants. A companion measure (H.R. 791) has been introduced in the House by Representatives Ami Bera (D-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA).
“It is unacceptable that the United States lags far behind other countries in our use of genome sequencing – our best tool to detect and respond to the next COVID-19 variant that is bound to pop up as the virus adapts to more Americans getting vaccinated,” said Representative Bera. “The U.S. should be a world leader in this effort, and that means we must invest more funding and resources to allow the CDC to ramp up national sequence-based surveillance and support our public health infrastructure so we can better identify, survey and understand these variants, and better protect all Americans from this public health crisis.”
The measure would allocate $2 billion in emergency supplemental funding for the CDC to support its Advanced Molecular Detection (AMD) Initiative in an effort to integrate genomics and genomic epidemiology; to immediately issue national guidance on scientific collaboration around viral sequencing; and to provide technical assistance and guidance to state, local, tribal, or territorial public health departments to increase their capacity to sequence the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The legislation would also expand the existing data linkage program at the National Center for Health Statistics to allow for the temporary linkage of data from multiple sources, including genomic data, clinical data, and epidemiological data.
“Currently, the U.S. lags far behind other countries in its ability to sequence viral samples,” wrote the stakeholder groups. “This funding will bring our nation up from a sequencing level of 0.3 percent (43rd in the world) to a level that allows for sequencing an adequate sample to estimate variant circulation nationally. With much-needed supplemental funding through CDC’s AMD program into the combined resources of public health, academic, and clinical laboratories, as well as research institutions and private sector entities, the U.S. will rapidly expand sequencing to provide a complete picture of the circulating virus, its patterns of transmission, and how it is evolving as we begin immunizing the population.”
The bill’s provisions with a funding level of $1.75 billion have been included in the latest COVID-19 relief package being considered by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Read the letters to Senator Baldwin and Representatives Bera and Peters.
In this issue:
The directive, “Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based Policymaking,” builds on a 2009 memo from President Obama and a 2010 memo from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which called for ensuring a culture of scientific integrity in the government, strengthening the credibility of government research, facilitating the free flow of scientific information, and establishing principles for conveying information to the public.
“Scientific findings should never be distorted or influenced by political considerations,” reads Biden’s memo. “Improper political interference in the work of Federal scientists or other scientists who support the work of the Federal Government and in the communication of scientific facts undermines the welfare of the Nation, contributes to systemic inequities and injustices, and violates the trust that the public places in government to best serve its collective interests.”
The directive orders the OSTP Director to convene an interagency task force to conduct a 120-day review of existing scientific integrity policies across the government. The task force will consider whether existing policies “prevent improper political interference” in scientific research; “prevent the suppression or distortion” of research data and findings; and support researchers of all genders, races, ethnicities, and backgrounds. Once the review concludes, a report synthesizing the task force’s findings, including an assessment of agencies’ strengths and weaknesses regarding scientific-integrity policies and a description of best practices, will be published on the OSTP website.
The memo directs agencies to identify chief science officers to serve as principal advisors to agency heads on scientific issues; conduct a 90-day review of federal advisory committees that provide independent scientific advice to the government; and determine whether any science advisory panels disbanded under the Trump Administration need to be re-established. It also calls on agencies to review and update within 60 days any website content and within 300 days any reports and data published during the Trump administration that are “inconsistent” with Biden’s directive.
The memo has been welcomed with cautious optimism by research and advocacy groups, according to E&E News. Lauren Kurtz, Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund notes the memo is “considerably more detailed than Obama’s” but that there is “quite a tall task order for the Biden [A]dministration.” According to Science Insider, Roger Pielke Jr., a policy specialist at the University of Colorado, Boulder argued that the memo “is very good, but legislation is still needed.” Andrew Rosenberg, Director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, stated, “Over the next four years, scientists, public health experts and community advocates will be watching closely to make sure that the Biden administration upholds its promise to heed the science.”
Biden signed an order stopping the U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization (WHO) and appointing Dr. Anthony Fauci as Head of the Delegation to the WHO. According to a White House statement, the Biden-Harris Administration will “work with the WHO and our partners to strengthen and reform the organization, support the COVID-19 health and humanitarian response, and advance global health and health security.”
Another order restores the National Security Council (NSC) Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense to “focus on domestic and global biological threats, play a critical role in stopping the COVID-19 pandemic, and prevent future biological catastrophes.” The order also creates the position of COVID-19 Response Coordinator, who will report to the President and coordinate “all elements of the COVID-19 response across government.”
He signed several orders to execute his COVID-19 response strategy focused on accelerating vaccinations, expanding testing and data collection, promoting wearing of masks, and expanding economic relief measures. A national security directive “to strengthen the international COVID-19 response and to advance global health security and biological preparedness” emphasized the Biden Administration’s priority to engage internationally to combat COVID-19 and called for developing a plan for establishing an interagency National Center for Epidemic Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics.
The President also took actions to launch a government-wide approach to addressing climate change. He issued an order requiring government environmental policies to be “guided by the best science” and to advance environmental justice. He directed agencies to review environmental regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and other agency actions undertaken during the Trump Administration that are “inconsistent” with Biden’s priorities, including rules regulating methane emissions and other air pollutants. He also initiated the process of rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement.
He signed orders establishing climate change as a national security priority, imposing a moratorium on new oil and natural gas leases on federal lands, and creating a National Climate Task Force to facilitate and deploy policies “to reduce climate pollution; increase resilience to the impacts of climate change; protect public health; conserve our lands, waters, oceans, and biodiversity; deliver environmental justice; and spur well-paying union jobs and economic growth.” Additionally, a new initiative called Justice40 would be established to provide recommendations to ensure that 40 percent of federal climate investments go to disadvantaged communities.
One of Biden’s orders aimed at tackling the climate crisis calls for committing to the goal of conserving at least 30 percent of all U.S. lands and oceans by 2030—an ambitious goal considering only 12 percent of lands and 23 percent of oceans are currently protected, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The Administration’s “30 by 30” goal has been applauded by conservation groups such as Center for Biological Diversity. The order also calls for the establishment of a Civilian Climate Corps Initiative focused on improving resiliency in communities across the country by training and mobilizing the next generation of conservation and resilience workers. Furthermore, the order directs the Secretary of Agriculture to collect input from farmers, ranchers, tribes, and other stakeholders on how to best use federal programs to “encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart agricultural and forestry practices.”
Biden revoked a number of President Trump’s Executive Orders, including a 2019 directive requiring federal agencies to eliminate “at least one-third” of their federal advisory panels created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act and an order creating a new “Schedule F” classification of federal workers, making it easier for the federal government to fire career staff. He also repealed a 2019 Trump order banning certain diversity, equity, and inclusion training programs across the federal government.
The House Appropriations Committee, which is responsible for allocating federal funding, including to federal science agencies and programs, will have new leadership and several new faces. Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) will succeed Chairwoman Nita Lowey (D-NY) as the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee, while Representative Kay Granger (R-TX) will serve as Ranking Member. The Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, which has jurisdiction over funding for the National Science Foundation, will be chaired by Representative Matt Cartwright (D-PA), with Representative Robert Aderholt (R-AL) serving as Ranking Member. The Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, which has jurisdiction over funding for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), will be chaired by Representative Chellie Pingree (D-ME), with Representative David Joyce (R-OH) serving as Ranking Member. DeLauro will remain Chairwoman of the Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education Subcommittee, while Representative Tom Cole (R-OK) will serve as the top Republican.
Newly assigned members on the House spending panel include: Representatives Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), Josh Harder (D-CA), Susie Lee (D-NV), David Trone (D-MD), Lauren Underwood (D-IL), Jennifer Wexton (D-VA), David Valado (R-CA), Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA), Mike Garcia (R-CA), Ben Cline (R-VA), Tony Gonzales (R-TX), and Ashley Hinson (R-IA). Representatives Pete Visclosky (D-IN), Jose Serrano (D-NY), Martha Roby (R-AL), and Will Hurd (R-TX), who served previously on the panel have retired.
Committees with jurisdiction over science will also have new members. The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee will have several freshman lawmakers: Representatives Deborah Ross (D-NC), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Carlos Giménez (R-FL), Stephanie Bice (R-OK), Young Kim (R-CA), Jay Obernolte (R-CA), Randy Feenstra (R-IA), Jake LaTurner (R-KS), and Peter Meijer (R-MI). Veteran lawmakers Representatives Daniel Webster (R-FL), Pete Sessions (R-TX), and Donald Norcross (D-NJ) have also been assigned to the panel. Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK) will retain leadership of the House science panel.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over biomedical R&D at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be led by Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) and Ranking Member Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). Several new members have been assigned to the panel, including Representatives Kelly Armstrong (R-ND), Dan Crenshaw (R-TX), John Curtis (R-UT), Neal Dunn (R-FL), John Joyce (R-PA), Debbie Lesko (R-AZ), Gary Palmer (R-AL), Greg Pence (R-IN), Angie Craig (D-MN), Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX), Kathleen Rice (D-NY), Kim Schrier (D-WA), and Lori Trahan (D-MA).
The House Committee on Agriculture, which oversees agricultural research programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, will be chaired by Representative David Scott (D-GA), with Representative Glenn Thompson (R-PA) serving as Ranking Member.
Chairman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) will retain leadership of the House Committee on Natural Resources, which has jurisdiction over most of the Department of the Interior, including the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Representative Bruce Westerman (R-AR) will replace Rob Bishop (R-UT) as Ranking Member.
Details about membership changes to Senate committees are yet to emerge with the evenly divided Senate still finalizing its power-sharing agreement. Senators Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Richard Shelby (R-AL) will likely serve as Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Roger Wicker (R-MS) will presumably lead the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
The memo standardizes requirements for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and of commitment from individuals “with significant influence on America’s R&D enterprise.” It also prohibits federal officials from participating in talent recruitment programs sponsored by foreign governments, requires federal agency personnel who allocate R&D funding to receive training on research security, requires research institutions to establish and operate research security programs, and orders agencies to share information about actors who have demonstrated “an intent to threaten research security and integrity.”
Furthermore, the memo directs the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security to “ensure that vetting processes for foreign students and researchers reflect the changing nature of the risks to the U.S. research enterprise while also promoting and protecting international R&D collaboration with foreign allies and partners.”
According to a report by Science Insider, some in the U.S. research community view this memo as a road map for Biden. “I don’t know how to read the political tea leaves, but right now I’m cautiously optimistic,” said Mary Millsaps, Director of Research Information Assurance at Purdue University. “I think it sets a common framework for the next round of discussions.” University officials have indicated that they would like to see the Biden Administration draw from this guidance when developing their broader approach to dealing with China.
The groups wrote, in part: “Though our nation’s scientists and research institutions have risen to the challenge of the pandemic, they are facing enormous strains on their operations and infrastructure. NSF needs additional funding to support research grants, students and post-docs, early-career faculty, and scientific facilities. Federally funded scientists and engineers are experiencing significant negative impacts to their work during the pandemic, such as delays or cessation of their research projects, an extremely challenging academic and research job market, lab closures, and uncertainty about continuing to pay salaries, extend timelines, access needed lab equipment, and more. These impacts have disproportionately affected students, trainees, and early-career researchers, who make up an important segment of NSF award recipients. Without emergency relief, we risk many early-career researchers and STEM students leaving science altogether, losing a generation of diverse talent that is the bedrock of our national competitiveness.”
AIBS is a member of CNSF.
As he enters office, President Joe Biden faces a wide range of public health, economic, and environmental challenges. Dealing with a deadly pandemic, tackling climate change, addressing the biodiversity crisis, ensuring economic security, reckoning with the nation’s history of racial and gender inequity, and responding to natural disasters—each challenge requires policy decisions informed by sound scientific and technological expertise. As these policies are formulated, we are pleased that Dr. Lander will have the support and counsel of OSTP Deputy Director for Science and Society Dr. Alondra Nelson and President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Co-Chairs Dr. Maria Zuber and Dr. Francis H. Arnold, respected experts in their fields with a demonstrated commitment to informed decision-making.
AIBS encourages the U.S. Senate leadership to rapidly undertake the confirmation process for Dr. Lander. A swift confirmation will allow the OSTP Director to quickly begin the critical work of coordinating interagency science and technology policy efforts to address major domestic and international challenges, including the ongoing public health and economic crisis.
AIBS is a scientific organization whose membership includes more than 110 professional scientific societies and related research organizations. AIBS promotes the use of science to inform decision-making and advance biology for the benefit of science and society.
Contact: Jyotsna Pandey, publicpolicy@aibs.org
In this issue:
]]>
According to the announcement, Biden will be “elevating the role of science within the White House, including by designating the Presidential Science Advisor as a member of the Cabinet for the first time in history.”
Dr. Lander is the President and Founding Director of the Broad Institute of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University and was the principal leader of the Human Genome Project. Lander is currently a professor of biology at MIT and professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School. He previously served as co-Chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology under President Obama.
Lander is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and National Academy of Medicine and is the recipient of several awards and honors, including, the MacArthur Fellowship, the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences, the Abelson Prize and the Award for Public Understanding of Science and Technology from the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the William Allan Award from the American Society of Human Genetics. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Princeton University and his D.Phil. from the University of Oxford.
If confirmed by the Senate, Lander will become the first biologist to serve as Presidential Science Adviser and OSTP Director—positions currently held by Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, a meteorologist, since January 2019.
]]>
Dr. Francis Collins will continue in his role as National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director. He was first appointed to lead the nation’s leading biomedical research agency by President Obama in 2009. He previously served as Director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at NIH.
Dr. Alondra Nelson has been chosen to serve as Deputy Director for Science and Society at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). Dr. Nelson currently serves as President of the Social Science Research Council, an independent nonprofit organization, and Harold F. Linder Professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. Nelson also serves on the Board of Trustees of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Nelson received her B.A. from the University of California, San Diego and her Ph.D. from New York University.
Kei Koizumi, an expert on the federal science budget, will serve as OSTP Chief of Staff. Koizumi previously served as Senior Advisor for Science Policy at AAAS. He also served as Assistant Director for Federal Research & Development and Senior Advisor to the National Science and Technology Council at OSTP under the Obama Administration.
Narda Jones has been selected to serve as OSTP Legislative Affairs Director. Jones previously served as Senior Technology Policy Advisor and Counsel for the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
Dr. Frances H. Arnold, a Nobel Prize-winning chemist, and Dr. Maria Zuber, a geophysicist, have been selected to co-chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Dr. Arnold is the Linus Pauling Professor of Chemical Engineering, Bioengineering and Biochemistry and Director of the Rosen Bioengineering Center at the California Institute of Technology. Arnold received her B.S. in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Princeton University and her Ph.D. in Chemical Engineering from the University of California, Berkeley. Dr. Zuber is Vice President for Research and E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics at MIT. Zuber earned her B.A. in astronomy and geology from the University of Pennsylvania and her Ph.D. in geophysics from Brown University.
“Science will always be at the forefront of my administration—and these world-renowned scientists will ensure everything we do is grounded in science, facts, and the truth,” stated President-elect Biden. “From the coronavirus pandemic to our climate crisis, this past year has reaffirmed the importance of listening to scientists when it comes to meeting the unprecedented challenges facing the American people,” added Vice President-elect Kamala Harris.
]]>
The “Strengthening Transparency in Pivotal Science Underlying Significant Regulatory Actions and Influential Scientific Information” rule, which is also referred to as the “secret science” rule, was first proposed by the Trump Administration in 2018. The proposed rule was criticized and opposed by the scientific community, lawmakers, as well as former EPA officials. AIBS had urged EPA to rescind the “inadequately defined” proposed rule in written comments submitted to the agency.
The final rule, which went into effect on January 6, 2021, requires EPA to give “greater consideration” to studies for which the underlying “dose-response” data is publicly available and reproducible. Dose-response data measure the reaction of animal or human subjects to increasing levels of pollutants or other chemicals and are used in developing regulations. The final rule doesn’t force EPA to ban the use of scientific research for which the data are not public, rather it directs the agency to either give those studies “lesser consideration” or receive an exemption from the EPA Administrator. Notably, the new restrictions being applied to dose-response studies will apply not only to the agency’s regulatory decisions but also to “influential scientific information” disseminated by the agency to the public.
According to EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, the rule “empowers the American people to demand future transparency” from the agency. “The American public deserves to know which studies we are using to craft our regulations,” added Wheeler.
Critics argue that the rule would allow exclusion of important human health studies, particularly those that include confidential medical records and other proprietary data, and weaken air pollution and water regulations. “The people pushing it are claiming it’s in the interest of science, but the entire independent science world says it’s not,” said Chris Zarba, former Director of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board, according to the Washington Post. “It sounds good on the surface. But this is a bold attempt to get science out of the way so special interests can do what they want.”
A coalition of environmental groups, led by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), has filed a lawsuit against the rulemaking arguing that it violates protocols under the Administrative Procedure Act. EDF senior attorney Ben Levitan said that the agency “violated federal law by making the rule effective immediately, instead of providing the legally required 30-day window.”
The chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has called on Biden to prioritize the rollback of the regulation. “This regulation would prohibit EPA from properly considering scientific studies in its regulatory process unless those studies have made their underlying data publicly available,” wrote Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) in a January 7 letter. “As a result, it will undermine your environmental agenda for as long as it is allowed to remain in place.”
]]>
Important Notice
In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, this virtual event replaces our annual in-person Congressional Visits Day in Washington, DC.
Meet with your members of Congress virtually to help them understand the important role the federal government plays in supporting the biological sciences. Advocate for federal investments in biological sciences research supported by the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies.
Participants will receive online communications and advocacy training. AIBS will also provide participants with background information and materials, as well as arrange online meetings with lawmakers on April 21-23.
Scientists, graduate students, educators, or other science community members who are interested in advocating for scientific research and education are encouraged to participate in this important event.
The ideal participant will:
The virtual event includes a free, half-day training session on how to be an effective advocate for science policy. This training session will be held on April 20, 2021 and is mandatory for everyone who will be participating in congressional meetings.
Additionally, participants have the option to attend the highly acclaimed AIBS Communications Boot Camp for Scientists. This online professional development course will be held on April 19-20, 2021. This professional development program provides practical instruction and interactive exercises designed to help scientists (e.g. researchers, graduate students, administrators, educators) translate scientific information for non-technical audiences and to effectively engage with decision-makers and the news media. All participants who complete this optional training receive priority access to the Virtual Advocacy Event and a certificate of completion indicating that they have successfully completed 16 hours of communications training. Click here for more information, including cost, for this two-day training program.
If you do not wish to participate in the Virtual Advocacy Event and would like to register only for the Communications Boot Camp, click here.
Read the frequently asked questions.
Express your interest in participating in the event by registering. Registration closes on March 17, 2021.
Space is limited and it may not be possible to accommodate the participation of all interested individuals. If registrations exceed program capacity, AIBS may prioritize registrants based on participation in the boot camp training, geographic diversity, and other factors. Everyone who completes the registration form will be notified by March 26, 2021 regarding their participation in the event.
Individuals who register for the optional boot camp training will be given preference to participate in the Virtual Advocacy Event.
]]>
Politicians and political interests are redefining and reinterpreting science–with great persistence and impact. The public is routinely asked to make decisions about matters informed by science. The news media is endeavoring to share increasingly complex stories about science with the public. The majority of the public still respect scientists and value science, but they often find it challenging to discern who and what is legitimate.
Simply adding to the noise will not provide individuals with the understanding they need to inform deliberations and decisions. Scientists must become more skilled at communicating in impactful ways.
As called for by many sources, the time for business as usual has passed. There is a real and immediate need for scientists to become effective and engaged communicators.
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is responding to this need by offering scientists a professional development opportunity. The AIBS Communications Training Boot Camp for Scientists expands on our highly successful media and science policy training workshops. The program meets the needs of everyone from graduate students to senior researchers and program administrators.
AIBS has a long and successful track record of engaging, informing, and influencing the public and science policy decision-makers. Our audiences include members of Congress, federal agency heads and program managers, state officials, and university administrators. In addition to working directly with these groups, we routinely engage the public through traditional and digital media.
Our staff members have used their decades of science policy and communications experience to develop training materials and resources that provide scientists with the skills needed to successfully communicate about their research with the public, decision-makers, and reporters.
AIBS training programs have provided more than 2,000 scientists with the skills to:
The Boot Camp is an intensive, two-day, online program.
Participants will learn:
Participants receive:
“At the AIBS Communications Boot Camp for Scientists, I learned practical tips for communicating with policymakers, the media and the general public. I could immediately apply these strategies to a full day of congressional meetings to advocate for increased science funding. In the months since this experience, I have shared these strategies with colleagues and applied them directly to outreach events and interactions with the media. This experience was a powerful way to hone my skills as a communicator, which will continue to directly benefit my career as a scientist.”
– Brian Lovett, 2019 Participant and Ph.D. Student from the University of Maryland –
April 19-20, 2021
Online.
The registration fee covers instruction, materials, and resources.
AIBS can bring the course to your university, department, lab, or research team. We can also customize the course based on your needs. As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, we now offer an online version of the workshop. Please contact us for more information.
]]>
Insurrection Attempt
January 6, 2021
The American Institute of Biological Sciences completely condemns the forces that led to the occupation and violence that took place at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021. We rebuke those who used hatred, ignorance, and intolerance to attempt an insurrection in the United States of America.
Our republic will continue to be faced with many challenges to its public health, economy, and security. We have the ability and resilience to overcome these challenges. Now is the time to take stock of who we, as Americans, have become. Together, we must collaborate. Each of us must lead with courage, justice, respect, humility, and love to recognize the talents of our citizens and the commitments of our institutions so that we may overcome the bitterness and division temporarily rampant in our society.
The mission of AIBS is to promote the use of science to inform decision-making and advance biology for the benefit of science and society. We will continue to serve as a trusted partner in science and defend the integrity of science and other democratic institutions upon which our republic was founded.
]]>