Biology in the Federal Science Enterprise: NSF BIO AC April Meeting
On April 17th, AIBS Public Policy Director Robert Gropp and I joined staff from the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology to speak at the spring meeting of the Advisory Committee of the National Science Foundation's Biology Directorate.
The agenda and slides from the meeting are here on the NSF website.
James Collins, NSF Assistant Director for Biological Sciences, spoke about BIO's FY09 funding priorities for "Life in Transition" studies. He also spoke about the terrific new study that NSF commissioned from the National Research Council, The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st-Century Biology: Catalyzing Transformative Research. Dr. Collins will be meeting with the AIBS Board of Directors later this month.
AIBS, AAAS, and FASEB staff were then asked to speak for about 20 minutes each (Rob Gropp gave the AIBS presentation) on "biology in the federal science enterprise" with respect to the following three points:
How does your organization describe and represent the biological sciences/biology with respect to science policy and budget?
What are your metrics for determining the effectiveness of “science on the Hill” and other similar activities for Congress with respect to science policy and budget?
Will your organization provide science policy advice for the transition to a new administration? To the next Congress? If so, will your efforts be targeted to a particular group or groups within the new administration or Congress, and will they emphasize any specific area or areas of science?
The talks went very well; discussions continue. As we see it, in the coming decades, the public as well as decision-makers will demand that scientists provide answers to questions of great societal importance. Informed responses to global environmental change, sustainable development, biodiversity conservation, nanotechnology, biometrics, artificial intelligence, public health threats, food security and quality, among many other issues, will require a coordinated and prioritized response from the research community. Currently, however, few individual scientists are prepared to provide this response. As a result, few scholarly or professional organizations are positioned to appropriately inform a collective response.
In order for the biological sciences to advance, a new, efficient, and coordinated trans-disciplinary community will be required. Biologists need to employ new technical skills and theoretical frameworks that build upon and surpass traditional taxonomic and integrative approaches. More importantly, biologists from various subfields must be prepared to work collaboratively with each other and with scientists from other fields, members of the media, policymakers, and science educators. A cultural shift within the scientific community's traditional organizations and new models for supporting research are required.