Author Archives: fosepweb12

FOSEP Welcome Back Happy Hour is Oct. 1st

Welcome back students, faculty, and staff to University of Washington and happy fall everyone! The FOSEP leaders are feeling refreshed after a wonderful summer break and can’t wait to get started with the new school year. We have some really exciting events planned for the upcoming year and hope you can join us as we promote scientific discussions across disciplines and varying levels of expertise.

Please join us on Tuesday October 1st, 2014 at the College Inn (in the back room) at 5:30pm. We will be reconnecting, sharing ideas, and learning about FOSEP and this year’s leaders and exciting upcoming events (snacks will be provided). We will also be discussing the Ebola outbreak, the way the media often focuses on American patients, and also the recent fearful media stories about the virus itself.  Please RSVP here.

 

Also note: Upcoming monthly FOSEP Discussion Meetings

Save the Date – Thursday October 16th and Thursday November 20th.
We will be hosting regular discussion meetings on the intersect of science and policy and the place we have as grad students in it.  We meet every third Thursday, 5:30-7:30 PM.  The location and topics will be announced closer to the date of our discussions.  Possible topics include the death penalty, coal trains, and the use of drones. 

FOSEP/GPSS Panel Discussion: Washington I-522: Labeling Genetically Modified Foods: Should you be concerned?

Should You be Concerned?On Monday October 28th from 6-7 PM FOSEP and the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS) will be co-hosting a panel discussion about GM Foods, and the possibility of labeling GM products.  Washington voters will be deciding on labeling through Initiative 522 the next week, November 5th.

Each panelist will have an opportunity to present, then the audience will have a chance to ask questions and interact with the panelists.

The panel will be held on the University of Washington Campus at the Husky Union Building, Room 322.

Panelists will include

Continue reading

New Science Advocacy Opportunity from Research!America

Research!America recently announced their Inaugural Advocacy Academy. This opportunity is open to postdoctoral fellows and is designed to expose early career scientists to science advocacy,  outreach, and policy and includes a paid trip to Washington DC! I have participated in other advocacy trainings (through ASBMB and ASPET – both of these are open to graduate students also) and have found the experience both rewarding and educational. While we all may rather stay in the research lab conducting experiments, I believe it is our duty as scientists to educate the public and our elected officials as to issues involving science education, funding, policy etc.

Research!America’s announcements is as follows:

Research!America is pleased to announce an exciting new program to introduce and engage early-career scientists in research advocacy and science policy. The 2013 Research!America Advocacy Academy is a unique opportunity for postdoctoral fellows in the health and biomedical sciences to learn about how to best incorporate advocacy and effective communications into their role as a scientist.

The 2013 class of up to 12 Research!America advocates will participate in a two-day Washington, DC, program from September 11-12, 2013. Participants will learn about the federal budget and appropriations process, tools for effective science communication and outreach as well as how to engage with elected representatives on scientific and research issues. The program includes visiting Capitol Hill to meet with policy makers and congressional staff members, providing participants with a first-hand experience advocating for health research. Rounding out this unique Washington experience, participants will attend Research!America’s National Health Research Forum where top leaders in government, industry, academia and patient organizations engage in moderated conversations on issues of importance to the research ecosystem.

Upon completion of the program, participants will become Science Advocates for Research!America. Advocates will remain engaged with Research!America staff, receive ongoing action alerts and learn about ways to involve their home institution’s research community in effective science advocacy.

All travel expenses (transportation, lodging and meals) will be provided and arranged by Research!America through an educational grant provided by Pfizer. This year’s program is limited to 12 exceptional postdoctoral researchers with a dedicated interest in becoming active advocates for science.

Program overview

Tuesday, September 10, 2013: Evening arrivals; hotel accommodations provided

Wednesday, September 11, 2013: Advocacy Academy Program

  • Policy & legislative overview
  • Advocating for science on Capitol Hill
  • Effective science communication & engagement with the media
  • Preparing for meetings with policy makers
  • Career Enhancement: Roundtable discussion with scientific journal editors
  • Reception and dinner with Research!America Board members and leaders

Thursday, September 12, 2013: Research!America Advocacy Day

  • Meet with Members of Congress and/or staff on Capitol Hill Attend Research!America’s National Health Research Forum
  • Late afternoon departures

    Eligibility

    You must have completed your MD, PhD or equivalent doctoral degree and currently hold an appointment as a postdoctoral research fellow at one of Research!America’s member organizations (please click here for a list of eligible academic universities, hospitals, and independent research institutes).

    Application Process

    Application Deadline: July 3, 2013, 5 p.m. EDT

    Please submit the following items to akatz@researchamerica.org with the subject line ‘Advocacy Academy Application – Your Name.’ All materials must be received by 5 p.m. EDT on July 3, 2013.

    • A curriculum vitae/resume (2 pg. maximum)
    • A statement of interest in the program, which includes your desire to be involved in science policy and advocacy activities, and a summary of relevant activities or employment outside of the classroom or laboratory (1 pg. maximum).
    • A letter of recommendation from your current Principal Investigator or research leader.

    For any questions or more information on the program, please contact Adam M. Katz, Policy and Advocacy Specialist akatz@researchamerica.org

    A selection committee will review submissions and extend invitations to 12 exceptional candidates. If accepted, participants are expected to obtain appropriate authorization to travel to Washington and participate in the program. Research!America will coordinate all travel arrangements with participants.

Inaugural FOSEP 1000 Word Challenge Was a Great Success!

Last Friday the Burke Museum hosted FOSEP’s inaugural 1000 Word Challenge with fantastic results. Just under 200 people were in attendance, and the grand prize winner by Yasmeen Hussain included, “Some man things are better at listening than others. I want to know if the man things that are better at listening are also better at making babies.”

The 1000 Word (or ten hundred word to be exact) Challenge was born out of the XKCD comic strip Up Goer Fivea very successful attempt at using only the 1000 most common words to describe the blueprints of the NASA rocket Saturn V. Geneticist Theo Sanderson created a text editor that tells if each word typed is one of the 1000 most common words (and thus allowable), and soon scientists around the world were challenging each other to describe their own research using only these 1000 words. The Burke Museum was already planning an end-of-the-quarter happy hour and invited FOSEP to hold their 1000 Word Challenge during the event.

FOSEP received almost 40 individual entries from across the campus, from researchers in atmospheric science to biology, from anthropology to applied materials science. David Domke (professor and acting chair for the Department of Communication at the University of Washington (UW)), Alaina Smith (Director of External Affairs at the Burke) and Andrea Cohen (Museology Program Assistant at the Burke) served as the judges for the event.

Continue reading

The DoD and the Genome

As a new member of FOSEP, I’ve been thinking about writing about this topic for awhile, but felt nervous about getting my feet wet with the blog.  I’m sorry if this rambles a little.

I’m a graduate student in Public Health Genetics, and am interested in the ways information about our genome can be used to improve health, and how the information is understood (or not) by our society.  I am particularly interested in working with those who have decided to Serve in the military (in some ways, we could talk about them as the other 1% of those who consistently serve- see http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/11/23/the-military-civilian-gap-fewer-family-connections/) , so I became especially intrigued when colleagues pointed out a 2010 report produced by the JASONs, a group of scientists that advise the Department of Defense, or DoD, (see http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/ for unclassified studies) about how / if Genetic Databases could be used by the DoD called the $100 Genome: Implications for the DoD: (www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/hundred.pdf) and a Nature Reviews Genetics Report in Response to it (http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v12/n9/full/nrg3063.html).   The report focuses on how genome sequencing, once cost prohibitive, is reaching the point where it is more expensive to store and analyze the information than to obtain it.

Continue reading

GPSS is looking for students to give testimonials!

A message from the Graduate and Professional Student Senate at UW:

Hello FOSEP Members,

GPSS Vice President Melanie Mayock is hard at work speaking with legislators about the importance of increasing revenue and ending budget cuts so that we can halt the continual increases in our tuition rates — and WE can help! The Government Relations Committee is calling YOU to work with us in our efforts of gathering photographic and video testimonials.  Having these particular testimonials is important because they demonstrate to the legislature the huge impact that budget cuts and increased tuition is having on graduate and professional students here at the University of Washington.  

We as senators and committee members have a duty to the GPSS to get these important messages to the legislature.  Contact Kimberly Schertz at scherk@uw.edu to get involved. 

A call to ban the development of Terminators

This is a guest post by FOSEP member Jaclyn Saunders, thanks Jaci for your input!

As a grad student at UW with her entire family back on the East Coast, I spend my Thanksgivings sharing great food with friends. The friends are often other science/engineering types, which is a far cry from my childhood turkey meal company. Now my Thanksgiving conversations revolve around slightly different debates and conversations… like the recent call to institute an internal weapons ban on killer robots. That’s right folks, and official ban against the Terminator.

I apparently live in la-la land, because I was blissfully unaware that these killer bots exist (although they have not yet been used with full artificial intelligence capacity). The organization Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School’s International Human Rights Clinic recently called for an international treaty to ban the use of weapons systems that can kill on their own without prior human consent.

My super smart weapons expert friend chuckled at my astonishment of learning about “bots” that patrol the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. These bots can detect a human up to 2 km away, and the current program requires human consent to shoot, but they could be easily reprogrammed to shoot on their own. Similar devices are also being used along the Israel-Gaza border.

The US also uses drones which require human consent prior to firing; however, the distance between the target 7,000 miles away and the pilot, whose own safety is not at risk, might produce a video-game like atmosphere that desensitizes the process of taking life in war time.

Weapons expert friend acknowledged the risk and need for human responsibility on the firing end. Without a human pulling the trigger, there is a loss of accountability.  For humanitarian violations, who would be responsible for war crimes potentially committed by a fully autonomous weapons system? Can you hold the Terminator accountable? Or do you hold those who programmed the bot accountable?

Supporters of these fully autonomous systems have some good points: they feel these systems can be safer than a human who may suffer from fear and stress in a wartime situation and make poor decisions or have a lack response time.

The realization that Terminator style warfare is a reality and that my GI Joe is now less brawny action hero and more nerdy programmer  was eye-opening. I was also surprised to learn that development of the basic control systems and artificial intelligence used in these weapons are often partially developed at academic institutions by graduate students like me.  While I stuffed my face with turkey, all I could think of is “where will I get a vat of lava to push a Terminator into when they inevitably turn on us?”.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-04-24/world/35231816_1_reaper-aircraft-drones-air-force-predator

More news articles the use of autonomous weapons systems: http://www.lawfareblog.com/2012/12/readings-autonomous-weapon-systems-and-their-regulation/

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/

For more on use of drones:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ban-urged-on-killer-robots/article5456209/

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/drones/12659/

 

 

 

Combating "corrosive waters" in Washington State

Starting in 2005, shellfish farmers began witnessing massive die-offs of oyster larvae in their hatcheries. Subsequent research has since discovered that low-pH seawater, aka ocean acidification, was to blame. Washington’s shellfish industry generates almost $300 million and supports 3200 jobs annually. Earlier this year, Governor Chris Gregoire created the Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification. The panel’s goal was to investigate the causes, effects, and long-term implications of continued decreases in ocean pH around the Puget Sound area and the Pacific Northwest coast.

“Ocean acidification is a reduction in the pH of seawater for an extended period of time due primarily to the uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by the ocean. Local sources of acidification such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxide gases, or nutrients and organic carbon from wastewater discharges and runoff from land-based activities, can also contribute to ocean acidification in marine waters,” reads the executive summary report by the Blue Ribbon Panel. As explained in the summary, the Governor charged the Panel to:

• Review and summarize the current state of scientific knowledge of ocean
acidification,
• Identify the research and monitoring needed to increase scientific understanding
and improve resource management,
• Develop recommendations to respond to ocean acidification and reduce its
harmful causes and effects, and
• Identify opportunities to improve coordination and partnerships and to enhance
public awareness and understanding of ocean acidification and how to address it

ScienceInsider reports, “Washington State will need to respond vigorously to ocean acidification if we are going to avoid significant and possibly irreversible losses,” concluded the report from the Blue Ribbon Panel, which was co-chaired by former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief William Ruckelshaus. It includes 42 recommendations for state action, including calls for stronger regulation of carbon emissions and other land-based pollutants that contribute to acidification.”

NatureNews explains exactly how dire the situation is for Washington State, “As growing carbon dioxide gas emissions have dissolved into the world’s oceans, the average acidity of the waters has increased by 30% since 1750. Washington, which produces farmed oysters, clams and mussels, is particularly vulnerable to acidification, for two reasons: seasonal, wind-driven upwelling events bring low-pH waters from the deep ocean towards the shore, and land-based nutrient runoff from farming fuels algal growth, which also lowers pH.”

In addition to the effects of ocean acidification on shellfish hatcheries, changes in pH levels can also have disastrous effects on the broader marine ecosystem, because the numerous marine organisms who rely on their ability to form and maintain shells and skeletons are food sources for larger species such as salmon, whales, and seabirds. Likewise, Washington’s tribal communities will be hard hit by continued ocean acidification as shellfish provide a source of income and food for many of these families.

Last week Governor Gregoire issued an executive order that directs numerous state agencies to begin assessing pollution issues and “advocate for reductions in emissions of carbon dioxide at a global, national, and regional level.” This work will be in collaboration with national bodies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency. Among other items, the Director of the Department of Ecology is directed to “Coordinate effective implementation of the Blue Ribbon Panel’s recommendations” and  “Reduce nutrients and organic carbon in locations where these pollutants alone, or in combination with other pollutants, are causing or contributing to multiple water quality problems in our marine waters.” In addition, the Governor will include $3.3 million in her budget request to the legislature to implement the report’s recommendations and establish a new center for ocean acidification at University of Washington.

As ScienceInsider reports, “Those ideas are likely to be unpopular with the state’s agricultural and industrial interests. The report acknowledged that “[t]he cost of responding to ocean acidification may be substantial,” but noted that it is “still far less than the costs of inaction.” I dearly dearly hope that the legislature and lobbying groups of Washington State will be able to see past the initial sticker shock and to a solution that is both economical and sufficient in implementation of the Panel’s recommendations.

Gregoire is the outgoing Governor, so much may change under an Inslee administration. So far, Jay Inslee, who will become Governor on January 16th, has appeared supportive. The Washington Post reports, “Inslee spokesman Sterling Clifford wrote in an e-mail: “We know that the leading cause of ocean acidification is carbon pollution, and Governor-Elect Inslee is committed to reducing carbon pollution in Washington and setting an example for other states to follow.””

Three Representatives Vie to Lead House Science Panel

As with every election cycle, changes often occur in the make-up of the Committees in the House and Senate. According to a ScienceInsider analysis, a quarter of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology will either be retiring or lost their bid for reelection this election cycle. Additionally, Representative Ralph M. Hall (R-TX) must step down as Chairman of the committee due to term-limits established by current House rules. This year, three Representatives have announced their candidacy for chairman of the committee. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) is currently considered the favorite to replace Representative Hall. The other two Representatives are Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) and F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI). ScienceInsider interviewed each of the candidates, find the transcripts of their interviews here.

It is important to consider the role of the Science and Technology Committee and the influence it has on the Appropriations Committee and how it may influence how scientists secure funding and perform research in the United States. Here are a few questions to consider:

1.What qualifications should members of the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology have?

2.What additional qualifications should the committee chairman have?

3.How will the committee members and chair’s outlook on science and technology affect the functioning of the committee?

4.  How might the Committee on Science and Technology affect the future of science funding?