CJS Spending Bill Emerges from Appropriations Panel; Timing of House Floor Action Uncertain

On July 13, the full House Appropriations Committee, chaired by Rep. Harold Rogers (R-KY), gave its approval to the FY 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) spending bill that had emerged from the CJS Subcommittee on July 7 (see Update, July 11, 2011).

Despite concern about a possible amendment to defund the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate at the National Science Foundation (NSF), none materialized at the full committee mark up. An attempt by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to reduce FY 2012 funding for NSF by $43 million was on the roster of amendments handed to observers before the markup began, but the Congressman never offered it.

The NSF as well as almost all the other agencies in the bill lost 0.1 percent in funds through an amendment by Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) to increase funding for NOAA's Operations and Research account by $48 million. For NSF the reduction came to almost $6.9 million from its recommended FY 2012 funding of close to $6.9 billion.

In the Committee report accompanying the bill, the panel directs NSF to prioritize its new activities "towards cybersecurity and cyberinfrastructure improvements; advanced manufacturing; materials research; and disciplinary and interdisciplinary research in the natural and physical sciences, math and engineering."

The Census Bureau, which had been significantly reduced by the Subcommittee to $855.3 million, lost another $850,000. Census director Robert Groves, in his blog, laid out the possible consequences to the Bureau if this number is not increased. He noted that: "Our ability to provide high quality and comprehensive statistical data will be severely diminished if we sustain such a large budget cut and we will be forced to cancel major programs that provide critical benchmark measures."

Despite the reductions to the Census budget the Committee report encourages the Bureau "to

ensure that reliable information about small population groups is collected and published and directs the Bureau to report back to the Committee within 90 days of enactment of this Act describing the steps it will take to ensure the availability and accuracy of these data."   It also asks the Bureau "to share its best practices and methods for outreach to hard-to-count communities with other Federal agencies and State and local governments that may benefit from this expertise."

The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) also lost 0.1 percent of their recommended budgets. The Economics and Statistics Administration, of which BEA is a part, had come out of the Subcommittee level funded at the FY 2011 number of $97.1 million. NIJ and BJS both were reduced significantly from their FY 2011 levels.

With regard to the NIJ, the Committee report praises the agency for its commitment to utilize a portion of its resources "to address the issue of domestic radicalization, a national security challenge that must be confronted."

During the course of the full committee markup a number of amendments to restore funding to the COPS program, the Webb Telescope, and the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program were all defeated, saving other programs in the bill from further across-the-board cuts. However, Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) told his colleagues that he would work as the bill made its way through the appropriations process to secure funding for these programs.

The current plan is to possibly move the CJS bill to the House floor during the week of August 1. However, consideration of any legislation attached to raising the debt ceiling could push such floor consideration until after the August recess and Congress' return after Labor Day.

There is still a significant concern that an amendment might be offered on the House floor to defund SBE. COSSA continues to work with its members and its allies in the science and higher education to prevent this from occurring.

A Little Bit of Good News in the NAEP Geography Assessment

On July 19 the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released the latest National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) data on geography. The geography assessment was administered in 2010, and covers grades 4, 8, and 12, approximately 7,000 4^th graders, 9,500 8^th graders and 10,000 12^th graders took the assessment.

In comparison to earlier geography assessments in 1994 and 2001, the average score in 2010 was higher than the scores in both years at grade 4, and the scores for the lowest performing students were 23 points higher than on the 1994 test.  Fourth graders scored on average 213 which is an all time high since NAEP started administering the test in 1994. Students at the basic level of proficiency increased to 58 percent for fourth graders compared to 52 percent in 2001 and 48 percent in 1994.   The overall score increase for minority students has been especially dramatic.   Since 1994 Black students have shown a 26 point increase and for Hispanic students there was a 19 point increase, both of which are significantly larger than the six point increase for White students. However, despite those increases the achievement gap still persists.

Although the overall average scores at grades 8 and 12 have not increased, scores for the lowest-performing students were higher in 2010 than in 1994 at all three grades. In comparison to 1994, the score for the lowest performing students at the 10th percentile were 7 points higher at grade eight, and three points higher at grade twelve. The average score for eighth graders, 282, was not significantly different than the scores in previous assessment years, with 26 percent performing below basic, 44 percent performing at basic, 27 percent performing at proficient, 3 percent at advanced.The 12 point increase in the average score for Black students from 1994 to 2010 contributed to a narrowing of the achievement gap to 31 points in 2010 from 37 in 2001 and 40 in 1994.  

The 12th grade average scores have dropped from 285 in 1994 and 2001 to 282 in 2010. However, there have been changes in the level of proficiency. In 2010, only 20 percent scored at proficient level compared to 27 percent in 1994. This is another example of how the longer American students stay in school, the worse they seem to do on these assessments.

The latest numbers are an indicator to many that geography needs to become a central part of education and integrated into the other subjects. "What we're starting to do is draw attention to the fact that this is a strategically important issue," said Daniel Edelson, the vice president of education at the Washington-based National Geographic Society.

For the full report on NAEP's Geography assessment go to:

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2010/2011467.asp.

Science and Human Rights Coalition Holds Meeting

On July 14 and 15 the AAAS-organized and led Science and Human Right Coalition held a meeting at its Washington, DC headquarters. The focus of the meeting was the consideration of the benefits of scientific progress and its applications as human rights. This was first universally recognized in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Basic tenets of the right include: ensuring equitable access to the benefits of scientific progress, with particular focus on vulnerable and marginalized groups, investing in research and development and creating incentives for innovation to address forms of suffering experienced by these groups; ensuring the freedom of scientists to engage in scientific inquiry while also conducting their work responsibly; and fostering international cooperation in science.

This meeting comes from AAAS's 2010 vow to:

• Bring to the attention of its affiliates and members the importance of engaging in discussions concerning the human right to benefit from scientific progress and its applications;
• Engage the domestic and global scientific communities in defining the content of the right and determining its application to a diverse range of scientific disciplines and issues of concern to the scientific community;
• Coordinate the efforts of the AAAS Science and Human Rights Coalition to conceptualize the right and pursue strategies for integrating this right into the work of the Coalition members; and
• Building on these activities, engage the US government and other key actors in dialogue on the right to benefit from science and its implications for relevant policies.

Using Science for Exonerating Wrongfully Convicted Persons

The public section of the event began on the evening of the 14^th with a screening of the film After Innocence which chronicles the stories of eight wrongfully convicted and imprisoned individuals who were later exonerated, most through the testing of DNA evidence and one following the reexamination of eyewitness testimony. The film emphasized the expanding role science and scientific methodologies play in the administration of justice. Following the film a panel of three experts discussed the role of science in the criminal justice system. Speaking were: Joe S. Cecil, Federal Judicial Center Division of Research; Sarah Chu, The Innocence Project; and Kenneth Melson, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The discussion involved several topics brought up by the film, but special attention fell to whether the right to compensation and the right to expungement are human rights after wrongful imprisonment. All panelists agreed that giving people these small tokens seems the only logical behavior following the unfair loss of their liberty and could go far in improving the mental state of individuals released after losing part of their lives in the prison system. The panel also discussed the need to understand the limitations of eyewitness testimony by reforming lineups and educating jurors about fallibility, and the need to ensure that suspects are not frightened into false confessions by threats during questioning.

Day two of the meeting began with a progress report from Mark S. Frankel and Jessica M. Wyndham, of the AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program. Wyndham discussed the many activities of various involved groups revolving around human rights. She also discussed the five working groups that make up the coalition: Welfare of Scientists, Science Ethics and Human Rights, Service to the Scientific Community, Service to the Community, Education and Information Resources. All of the working groups would meet later in the day to discuss the projects they were each pursing.

The same day, Felice Levine, Executive Director of the American Education Research Association, led a session on "STEM Education: Diversity, Human Rights and New Curricula." It explored disparities in access to education experienced by diverse groups in the United States generally, and the need to broaden access to an adequate STEM education in particular.

Speakers pointed out that early education is the first social institution outside of the family where children learn to engage in civic responsibility and to respect the human rights of others. In this context, since research has shown that learning and working in diversity produces better outcomes, diversity is a human right. The panel also delved into the value of incorporating human rights concepts into STEM training as a means to attract and retain students through the application of science to issues of broad social significance. Finally, they explored inequality in the U.S. education system, asserting that the black-white achievement gap is a human rights' failure perpetuated by a legacy of slavery and inequity. Further work is necessary to close this gap and create a fair education system, the panel concluded.

The next meeting of the Science and Human Rights Coalition will be held on January 23, 2012. 

PCORI Seeks Input on Definition of 'Patient-Centered Outcomes Research'

The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is currently seeking feedback on its 
Working Definition of 'Patient-Centered Outcomes Research.'  PCORI was established by Congress through the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act but is by law an independent, non-profit organization. It is governed by a 21-member Board of Governors. PCORI was created to conduct research to provide information about the best available evidence to help patients and their health care providers make more informed decisions. The Institute's research is intended to give patients a better understanding of the prevention, treatment and care options available, and the science that supports those options. 

According to PCORI, "Patient-centered outcomes research" is the type of research that will be the focus of the Institute's work. However, there are different opinions about what this research includes. PCORI has created a working definition, and is seeking input to make sure the definition is appropriate:

 Patient Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) helps people make informed health care decisions and allows their voice to be heard in assessing the value of health care options. This research answers patient-focused questions:

1. "Given my personal characteristics, conditions and preferences, what should I expect will happen to me?"
2. "What are my options and what are the benefits and harms of those options?"
3. "What can I do to improve the outcomes that are most important to me?"
4. "How can the health care system improve my chances of achieving the outcomes I prefer?"

To answer these questions, patient-centered outcome research:

• Assesses the benefits and harms of preventive, diagnostic, therapeutic, or health delivery system interventions to inform decision making, highlighting comparisons and outcomes that matter to people;
• Is inclusive of an individual's preferences, autonomy and needs, focusing on outcomes that people notice and care about such as survival, function, symptoms, and health-related quality of life;
• Incorporates a wide variety of settings and diversity of participants to address individual differences and barriers to implementation and dissemination; and
• Investigates (or may investigate) optimizing outcomes while addressing burden to individuals, resources, and other stakeholder perspectives.

Input will be accepted by PCORI until September 2, 2011. For more information and/or to provide input, see: http://www.pcori.org/pcorinput.html

European Union Offers Grants for US-EU Research

The Delegation of the European Union (EU) in Washington, DC invites proposals from think tanks, public policy research centers, and other non-profit and non-governmental organizations based in the United States for activities that encourage policy research and debate about EU-US relations.

According to the announcement, these activities should encourage reflection and discussion on the EU-US relationship. Activities should address a growing transatlantic agenda for globalization and take a fresh look at existing EU-US and international institutional frameworks, focusing in particular on future challenges and directions of transatlantic relations. They should increase awareness of issues on which the EU and US can further their cooperation, develop new ideas for reinvigorating EU-US relations, and result in concrete recommendations on how to develop further the transatlantic relationship. Project results should be disseminated widely to the EU and US policy communities.  

Key issues could include energy and climate security and environment policy, the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, global economic and financial stability, innovation and job creation, the creation of a transatlantic market, and EU-US cooperation in addressing global challenges.

 

Cooperation between US and EU-based institutions is encouraged. For applications featuring such cooperation, a US-based institution must take the lead in the proposal submission process, with any EU-based institutions involved acting as project partners.  

Activities may target broad audiences or specific groups. They may include:

• conferences, seminars and workshops;
• policy research, briefing and working papers;
• briefing sessions and fellowships targeting opinion-makers; and
• other activities that facilitate greater understanding of the EU and EU-US relations and productive dialogue across the Atlantic amongst policymakers and analysts.

Examples of projects financed under earlier Calls for Proposals can be found on the following website:

http://www.eurunion.org/eu/Washington-Delegation-Grant-Programs.html.

Institutions selected will receive funding in the form of a subsidy towards approved costs between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2013. The EU will provide an estimated 6-8 grants of up to €150,000 each will be awarded. Applicants may vary the level of project expense during the grant period but should strike a good balance of activities across the two years covered, with no more than 60% of project costs budgeted for either year. Applicants must provide a minimum cost share of at least 25% of eligible project costs. The European Commission is allocating up to €1 million to this program.  

Applications must be received by 5:00pm (US Eastern Standard Time) on September 19, 2011.

AAPSS Seeks Executive Director

The American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS), a COSSA member, seeks a new Executive Director. The mission of the Academy is to promote the progress of the social sciences, and the Executive Director, working with the board, is responsible for the design and implementation of new programs that achieve that end.  The Academy is based in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania.

The Executive Director is responsible for the conduct of the AAPSS' programs and serves as the Executive Editor of the Academy's bimonthly journal, The Annals. These programs include the annual election of distinguished social scientists as Academy Fellows and the annual awarding of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize to a social scientist or public official whose work has consistently used the findings of social science research to improve public policy.

The Executive Director works with the President and Chairman of the Board to conduct biannual board meetings and committee meetings. The Executive Director prepares and oversees the Academy's annual budget in collaboration with the Finance Committee. Working with Managing Editor, the Executive Director identifies topics and special editors for each volume of The Annals and ensures its quality and timely publication by working with Sage Publications, Inc. The Executive Director is also responsible for maintaining relationships with other organizations and associations in the social sciences to help to improve the quality of human life and to advance the public good, often collaborating in the planning and execution of academic conferences.

A Ph.D. in a social science discipline and 5-7 years of experience working in the field is preferred. The successful candidate should be broadly knowledgeable about the theories and methods of the social sciences, about the internal and external dynamics of social science and public policy, and about the marketing of social science research and publications. The successful candidate should be able to develop and implement a clear vision for the advancement of the social sciences. Administrative and editorial skills, as well as a rich network of colleagues across various social science disciplines, are also highly desirable.  

For more information and to apply go to: http://jobs.hr.upenn.edu/applicants/Central?quickFind=193731