Search

In this article the author discusses the ways for scientists to reduce their time in writing grants in the U.S. He says that research budget can be allocated equally to eligible scientists. He emphasizes that there is a need to devise an automated system to evaluate relative merit of scientists to fund their work. He stresses that it is also helpful to simplify the application for research grants.

The article presents the author's views on new funding policy by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) regarding the evaluation of researchers. He comments that acceptable products must be citable and accessible under the new NSF policy. He remarks that evaluation of each product's impact on its field is necessary.

The article reports on the declaration made by the White House that government-funded research in the U.S. would be made accessible for the public by 12 months after publication, rather than kept behind paywalls. It notes that federal agencies have been give until August 22, 2013 to produce plans for making the data and papers from the research they fund more accessible to all. Open-access advocacy group Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition called the memorandum a landmark.

Comments on the 2002 budget proposed by United States President George W. Bush that reduces funding to environmental research. Breakdown of reductions in various environmental science agencies; Action planned by the majority of members of both houses of Congress.

The article focuses on the issues regarding science spending as a means to bring forth economic development and jobs for various individuals. It mentions that the director of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), Francis Collins noted a report published by the health advocacy group Families USA wherein it determined that each 1 dollar spent by NIH produces 2.21 dollars added economic output. According to the economists, one of the problems is that costs connected to the cited benefits of research was generalized from small number of studies which were conducted to establish support to investments for research. Moreover, it discusses the economic arguments which are utilized so that the case for spending on science research could be accomplished.

The article discusses a 2006 survey of scientists holding National Institutes of Health (NIH) extramural research funds at 605 institutions about research misconduct in the United States. Between 2002-2005, 8.7% of respondents say they had observed or had direct evidence of researchers in their own department committing one or more incidents of suspected research misconduct. Around 58% of the observed incidents had been reported to official institutions. Responses suggest that 37% of incidents were not reported by anyone.

The article offers news briefs related to environmental and medical topics in the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has asked Orexigen Therapeutics Inc. of La Jolla, California to conduct further clinical trials on their obesity drug Contrave due to its possible cardiovascular risks. The United Nations (UN) has launched its International Year of Forests in New York on February 2, 2011. Pfizer Inc. has planned to cut its research budget on February 1, 2011.

In this article, the authors discuss the research misconduct and research integrity. According to the authors, the efforts to promote responsible research behaviour remain ineffective and misconduct still continues due to funds competition in the U.S. The authors also cite six pooled studies in which 34% of scientists admitted inappropriate analysis, over interpretation of findings, and changing study designs. They also discuss the responsible conduct of research (RCR) for research funding.

The article reports on the priority given by U.S. President Barack Obama on scientific research with his 2010 budget proposal. It looks into how the relationship between the U.S. Congress and Obama will affect the approval of the budget. It also notes the relevance of the government's investment in research to the decline of endowments for universities, and the plight of the students and young researchers.

The article reports on the expansion of stem-cell research in the U.S. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) develops a process allowing scientists who hold stem-cell lines to be applicable for their inclusion in an agency-established registry of fundable cell lines. Final guidelines clarifies that there were lines derived responsibly. They exclude funding from stem cells originated from embryos created for research when an unfertilized egg is developed into an embryo. However, they do not demand consent from gamete donors. It points out that many scientists were pleased with the guidelines and consider it a huge step forward.

The author discusses the policy announced by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) which will apply to the next round of R01 grants. The author says that the application from investigators receiving more than $1 million a year in funding from the NIH are subjected to extra review. He suggests that the policy will complement peer review and help determine the best possible portfolio of NIH research.

The article outlines the status of the needed budget for the stem-cell research in the U.S. Scientists are concerned that the needed funding to get the project going would not be passed in Congress. Since August 2001, when President George W. Bush banned federal funding for research on human embryonic stem-cell lines, six states passed initiatives to support the project by using state money. Meanwhile, the state of California contributed much to the research because the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) passed a rule and voted by people wherein it pledged to give $1 billion in support of the research.

Comments on the proposal made by U.S. Representative Tom DeLay to streamline the appropriations subcommittees that set budgets. Rejection of the idea of creating a subcommittee devoted to science; Assertion of possible tight competition among science agencies for funds; Concern over the reduction of budget for small research in the country.