Washington Watch

The Sound of Silence at the Environmental Protection Agency

2008-10-30T21:17:11Z

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created on 2 December 1970 to “establish and enforce environmental protection standards, conduct environmental research, provide support to others combating environmental pollution, and assist the White House Council on Environmental Quality in developing and...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created on 2 December 1970 to “establish and enforce environmental protection standards, conduct environmental research, provide support to others combating environmental pollution, and assist the White House Council on Environmental Quality in developing and recommending to the President new policies for environmental protection.” In its early years, the EPA made sweeping changes to improve the environment and health of the United States and its citizens. In the 1970s, the EPA, among numerous other accomplishments, banned the use of DDT, set the first national standards limiting industrial water pollution, and banned the use of chlorofluoro­carbons in most aerosol cans.

Yet 38 years after the inception of the agency, its funding and morale have under­gone severe declines, and its administrator has been accused of allowing partisan politics to overshadow science. Some interested observers go so far as to say that instead of the EPA advising the president, the White House is advising the EPA.

Gag orders and a decided lack of response to staff proposals for regulating emissions are at least in part behind the plummeting morale. EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson, in particular, has come in for harsh criticism: former EPA scientist Evaggelos G. Vallianatos wrote in an editorial in Nature on 6 March: “Listing examples of alleged bad faith by Johnson, the unions [representing EPA staff] essentially refused to work with him until he cleans up his act.” And in June, Robbi Farrell, head of the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), issued an e-mail message instructing managers to remind their employees not to speak with the agency’s Office of Inspector General or the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress.

Nevertheless, some EPA scientists are speaking up. On 17 July, despite the Bush administration’s decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the EPA released a new report, Analyses of the Effects of Global Change on Human Health and Welfare and Human Systems. The report found it “very likely” that more people will die in coming years because of climate change. It further warned of greater dangers from hurricanes, dwindling water supplies, and increased food- and waterborne diseases. Prepared under the EPA’s leadership, the report was released by the US Climate Change Science Program.

“If you read between the lines, this EPA report on the health effects of climate change provides further evidence that our families and communities are seriously endangered by global warming, and that we must act now,” said Senator Barbara Boxer (D–CA), chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW).

After the report’s release, a group of EPA employees sent a letter to Administrator Johnson expressing their disapproval and disappointment over the agency’s decision in July to delay federal action on greenhouse gas emissions, and over Johnson’s public refusal of staff proposals for regulating emissions. Senator Boxer also publicly criticized numerous recent EPA decisions made during Johnson’s tenure. In sharp contrast to the accom­plishments made by the EPA to protect the health of the American people in the 1970s and 1980s, Senator Boxer said, “Mr. Johnson has consistently chosen special interests over the American people’s interests in protecting health and safety. He has become a secretive and dangerous ally of polluters, and we cannot stand by and allow more damage to be done.” Johnson has refused to appear before the EPW committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding White House interference with the EPA.

President Bush invoked executive privilege in June in order to withhold documents from a congressional investigation into whether Johnson was pressured by the White House to weaken a decision on greenhouse gases and smog. Johnson also claimed executive privilege when he was asked to provide testimony to the Senate EPW committee.

The EPA’s problems go beyond the administration’s alleged tampering in regulatory matters, note some science policy experts. The agency’s budget has declined over the past six fiscal years, and so too have the budgets for the scientific research programs administered through the EPA’s Office of Research and Development. The steadily diminishing budgets have not gone unnoticed by the EPA Science Advisory Board, which has repeatedly asked Administrator Johnson to revitalize eco­system research and put more resources—financial and otherwise—into ecological research. M. Granger Morgan, chair of the Science Advisory Board, wrote to Johnson in March 2006 expressing concerns about funding declines and “systematic bias against ecosystem research,” stating that ecosystem research at the EPA had “sustained a decrease of nearly 26 percent since 2004.” Morgan said the board was distressed that funding has been cut and work has declined.

What does the future hold for the EPA? Regardless of the outcome of the 2008 US presidential election, it is difficult to see how the EPA can fulfill its mission to protect environmental quality and human health unless its scientists are allowed to work free of political interference, and its budgets are sufficient to support that work.

Megan Debranski Kelhart (e-mail: mkelhart@aibs.org) is with the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience58: 924
doi:10.1641/B581005

Science Advice for the Next President

2008-09-16T16:44:03Z

Next month, voters will choose the next president of the United States. Whether they elect Senator Obama or Senator McCain, the president’s responses in coming years to national and global problems and opportunities will require access to scientific and technical...

Next month, voters will choose the next president of the United States. Whether they elect Senator Obama or Senator McCain, the president’s responses in coming years to national and global problems and opportunities will require access to scientific and technical expertise. Science and technology (S&T) policy organizations are thus working to provide recommendations and advice to both campaigns as they are undoubtedly already considering candidates for senior administration posts.

Many scientists believe that the current Bush administration has marginalized or ignored science. “I think many people feel that science has been politicized...especially in the areas of climate change, stem cells, and energy,” said Samuel M. Rankin III, associate executive director of the American Mathematical Society. What science and public policy organizations are therefore attempting to communicate to Senators McCain and Obama is that S&T must be elevated in the next administration, and S&T knowledge must be considered—in a visible way—in the policymaking process. Some organizations want the next president to make the selection of a science adviser a high priority—indeed, to nominate their choice for Senate confirmation within months of the election.

As former Indiana representative Lee H. Hamilton said: “There is a need to strengthen the relationship between scientists and policymakers. I can’t overstate the importance of strengthening the dialogue.” Hamilton now directs the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. The Wilson Center is among the organizations working to provide guidance to the next president. Earlier this year, the center gave each presidential campaign Critical Upgrade: Enhanced Capacity for White House Science and Technology Policymaking, a 28-page report summarizing the reasons for a strong White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and a robust scientific advisory process.

Informed by interviews and comments from past presidential science advisers, senior White House personnel, and others involved with Democratic and Republican administrations, Critical Upgrade articulates the importance of S&T to the nation. It also reminds the next president that in fiscal year 2008, federal investments in S&T research and development were roughly $142 billion. To strategically and efficiently manage this investment, set priorities, and provide resources and policy to address our most pressing challenges, Critical Upgrade argues that the White House’s S&T policymaking capacity must be enhanced. For the president to deal effectively with key issues—from energy and the environment to national security and the ability of the United States to compete and collaborate internationally—a robust S&T advisory structure through the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy is essential.

Critical Upgrade makes several important recommendations: (a) the next president should quickly appoint an assistant to the president for science and technology policy, a nationally respected leader who will serve at the cabinet level; (b) the Office of Science and Technology Policy should be funded adequately, staffed fully, and integrated closely with other policymaking bodies within the White House; and (c) robust mechanisms should be established and maintained to obtain expert and timely advice.

Rankin agrees with much of the report. “One thing that is apparent is that many former science advisers are available to share their expertise and counsel,” he said.

Many science policy advocates in Washington, DC, further note the importance of quick and respected appointments to senior S&T positions. One long-time science-policy watcher reflected on President George W. Bush’s commitment to S&T research and development: “This administration did not show any support for science until the second term when ACI [American Competitiveness Initiative] was introduced. I believe that this happened because of pressure from industry.” Some attribute this scramble to the phlegmatic pace with which senior S&T officials were appointed during Bush’s first term.

Rankin and others assert that a quick appointment of a respected science adviser could lay the groundwork for a steady and strategic federal science policy. A case study for how a strong science adviser could shape policy can be drawn from testimony Rankin gave to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee earlier this year. He said that the United States must make adequate yearly investments in research, and these investments must be stable over the long term. “Dependable increases allow for planning, infrastructure development, feasible expectations, a manageable pipeline of graduate and postdoctoral students,” Rankin said. Current budgeting practices jeopardize jobs and opportunities for researchers, and have a tendency to create imbalances in the US science portfolio.

The new president will be sworn into office in January 2009. The S&T community will be watching closely to see whether rhetorical flourishes about the importance of science to public policy decisionmaking translate into a prominent place at the table for science in the next White House.

Robert E. Gropp (e-mail: rgropp@aibs.org) is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 58: 798
doi:10.1641/B590906

Sweating the Small Stuff: Environmental Risk and Nanotechnology

2008-08-22T15:33:41Z

Nanoscience, or nanotechnology, is science or technology that creates functional materials from atomic particles. Once considered to be little more than science fiction, nanotechnology is now a well-established field, as evidenced by various new journals and federally funded research programs,...

Nanoscience, or nanotechnology, is science or technology that creates functional materials from atomic particles. Once considered to be little more than science fiction, nanotechnology is now a well-established field, as evidenced by various new journals and federally funded research programs, as well as myriad new products ranging from industrial materials to cosmetics. According to the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies (PEN), more than $60 billion in nanorelated products were sold in 2007, and this number could more than double by the end of 2008. Estimates are that by 2014, more than 15 percent of all products on the global market will have some kind of nanotechnology incorporated into their manufacturing process. This technology boom raises an important question: what is being done to address the environmental risks associated with nanotechnology?

As companies, federal laboratories, and international unions call for more research funding for nanotechnology, emerging scientific investigations into the effects of nanorelated materials on the environment and human health reveal potential problems with the new, largely unregulated technology. Anthropogenically manipulated nanoparticles, the basic unit for many advancing technologies, are deemed “more chemically reactive than their ordinary-sized counterparts,” according to PEN. Scientists at the University of Florida have identified potential pathways for engineered nanoparticles that carry mercury into natural systems, and a recent review of potential environmental risks associated with emerging nanotechnologies (Journal of Environmental Monitoring 10: 291–300, 2008) pointed to the potential bioaccumulation of particles in natural systems via wastewater and runoff. In April, the Department of Defense released a memorandum to its researchers that voiced the agency’s concerns regarding nanotechnology, “especially while no current set of standards exists to fully evaluate the environment, safety and occupational health risks.” A May 2008 study published in Nature Nano­technology examined carbon nano­tubes, one of the first usable nano­technologies, and found their structure to be similar to that of asbestos—a known carcinogen.

Federal oversight of nanotechnology is minimal. Individual cities, states, and companies within the United States have begun to regulate nanotech operations in the absence of federal oversight. Berkeley, California, now requires all nanotech companies and university laboratories to report how they are dealing with waste products from their activities. California, Massachusettes, and Wisconsin are working to establish voluntary registry programs for organizations that work with nanotechnology. DuPont has teamed with the Environmental Defense Fund to establish standards in nanotechnology that minimize environmental and human health risks. In a recent report dealing with these “bottom-up” approaches, PEN director David Rejeski stated: “In the absence of substantial and timely federal government activity in this area, industry is left without clear guidance and exposed to downstream liabilities and potential public backlash. State and local governments can fill this gap.” Many entities hope that such bottom-up approaches will spur more comprehensive federal action and, as the PEN report states, “pave the way for more effective federal oversight.”

Federal funding requests for specific research projects to analyze nanotechnology and potential environmental consequences have been sluggish and few. Moreover, some federal funds that were intended for environmental assessments of nanotechnology have been reprogrammed for other programs, according to a Government Accountability Office report.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is hosting a conference in October to explore international nanotechnology issues as part of a strategic plan developed by EPA’s Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Research, and the Ecological Exposure Research Division to “address potential gaps in research and international collaborations,” said Nora Savage, the lead in the EPA’s internal effort to develop a nanotech research strategy. Although the US Geological Survey (USGS) has individual research proj­ects involving nanotechnology, it has not yet made formal requests to Congress for funding for nanotech risk-assessment research. “But there are many programs interested in these research questions,” noted Sarah Gerould, program coordinator for the USGS Contaminant Biology Program, and “unfortunately, many of these programs are seeing funding cuts. Our program has lost about half of its spending power over the last eight years.”

In response to these concerns, the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) Amendments Act (HR 5940) was introduced in the House of Representatives in May 2008. The legislation is intended to direct more funding under nanotechnology programs for environmental, health, and safety research, as well as to require regulatory agencies such as the EPA to assist in reviewing and recommending actions regarding nanotechnology. The NNI would receive $1.49 billion for additional research and development in the proposed fiscal 2009 budget, of which $76 million is directed toward environmental, health, and safety research.

Natalie G. Dawson (e-mail: ndawson@unm.edu), a freelance writer, is a doctoral student at the University of New Mexico.

BioScience 58: 690
doi:10.1641/B580805

A New Farm Bill, Research Structure at USDA

2008-06-30T22:17:23Z

The significant challenges facing national food, fiber, and bioenergy systems call for a robust agricultural research system, whether for addressing food safety, security, and availability; thwarting disruptions to food supplies; or managing agricultural and natural resource systems. The federal framework...

The significant challenges facing national food, fiber, and bioenergy systems call for a robust agricultural research system, whether for addressing food safety, security, and availability; thwarting disruptions to food supplies; or managing agricultural and natural resource systems. The federal framework supporting the agricultural research infrastructure was recently changed in an effort to meet those challenges.

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (also known simply as the Farm Bill, or PL 110-234) is a more than $300 billion response to the range of issues concerning agricultural systems, including research. The new law aims to streamline and boost funding to “ensure the technological superiority of American agriculture,” according to the USDA Research, Education, and Economics Task Force appointed by the secretary of agriculture in 2003 at the request of Congress.

Upon passage of the bipartisan measure, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D–MN) and ranking member Bob Goodlatte (R–VA) jointly stated, “While no one got everything they wanted in this Farm Bill, we struck a balance that meets the pressing needs of working American families struggling with high food prices and that supports America’s farmers and ranchers as they continue to provide a safe, abundant, homegrown supply of food and fiber while protecting our natural resources and developing new sources of renewable energy.”

Ian Maw, vice president of food, agriculture, and natural resources at the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, echoed the sentiments of congressional leaders. “We view this as a real win,” Maw told Science magazine.

According to Representative Peterson, the Farm Bill will “reinvigorate national investment in agricultural research by creating NIFA [National Institute of Food and Agriculture], address the growing list of needs in agricultural research, extension and education for food and agricultural sciences, and increase research for renewable fuels, feed stocks and energy efficiency.”

NIFA’s establishment sets in motion the recommendations of the USDA Research, Education, and Economics Task Force. After reviewing the purpose, efficiency, and effectiveness of the Agricultural Research Service, the task force called for the creation of one or more national research institutions. The mission the task force envisioned for NIFA was “to support the highest caliber of fundamental agricultural research in order to, among other things, increase the international competitiveness of American agriculture; improve food safety and food security by protecting American plants and animals from insects, diseases, and the threat of bio­terrorism; enhance agricultural sustainability and improve the environment; decrease American dependence on foreign sources of petroleum by developing bio-based fuels and materials from plants; and strengthen national security by improving the agricultural productivity of subsistence farmers in developing countries to combat hunger and the political instability it produces.”

The task force modeled NIFA on the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, recommending that “NIFA should accomplish its mission by awarding competitive peer-reviewed grants that support and promote the very highest caliber of fundamental agricultural research.” NIFA replaces the USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service. The head of NIFA will be “a dis­tinguished scientist” appointed by the president for a six-year term on the basis of recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences, a mechanism intended to ensure that the agency serves science rather than political interests.

NIFA will house what some describe as the United States’ premier agricultural research program, the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI). AFRI will provide competitive grants to colleges and universities, agricultural experiment stations, and other organizations conducting research in priority areas. Authorized at $700 million per fiscal year, the AFRI budget is $200 million more than the authorization for the National Research Initiative (NRI), the extramural, competitive grants program it is replacing. However, the NRI budget currently receives only $180 million each year.

Megan Debranski Kelhart (e-mail: mkelhart@aibs.org) is with the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 58: 586
doi:10.1641/B580705

Shale Oil: Alternative Energy or Environmental Degradation?

2008-05-28T21:09:55Z

In the continuing quest to diminish US dependence on foreign oil, in 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), which calls for developing unconventional fuels. To fast-track the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands, the law directed...

In the continuing quest to diminish US dependence on foreign oil, in 2005 Congress passed the Energy Policy Act (EPAct), which calls for developing unconventional fuels. To fast-track the commercial development of oil shale and tar sands, the law directed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for a leasing program, and to issue leasing regulations within two years thereafter. Last December the BLM released its draft EIS, endorsing a strategy to open roughly 1.9 million acres of public lands for development in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Shale-oil development was last on the national energy scene after the 1970s Arab oil embargo, when the Synthetic Liquid Fuels Program burned through $8 billion of congressional subsidies and propelled western Colorado through a boom-and-bust economy before Congress shut the program down in 1985. “Despite all the attempts to develop a shale-oil industry in the US over the past 100 years, the fact remains that no proven method exists for efficiently removing the oil from the rock,” Bob Loucks, a former shale-oil project manager, attested at a Senate committee hearing last June.

The shale in the proposed lease lands holds an estimated 1.5 to 1.8 trillion barrels of oil. Roughly half of this is potentially recoverable, and calculations from a 2005 RAND Corporation report suggest that at a daily production rate of 5 million barrels—about 25 percent of today’s national consumption—the recoverable resources could last more than 400 years. “Such a level of production would yield considerable economic and national security benefits, primarily by causing world oil prices to be lower than what would be the case in the absence of oil shale development. As a result, consumers would pay tens of billions of dollars less for oil,” Jim Bartis, a coauthor of the RAND report, told the House Sub­committee on Energy and Mineral Resources last April.

However, shale’s low energy density makes squeezing oil from it a Herculean task with draconian costs. “Per pound, it contains one-tenth the energy of crude oil, and one-sixth that of coal,” Colorado energy analyst Randy Udall explained. Using conventional methods, creating 25 gallons of oil would require digging a ton of rock from massive open-pit mines and cooking it in surface retorts to release the low-grade oil, which would be shipped out for refining. Shell Oil is in the early stages of researching another technology that would involve heating the shale underground for two to three years, until it reaches temperatures high enough to release the oil.

Argonne National Laboratory estimates that manufacturing a million barrels of shale oil daily could consume up to 370,000,000 cubic meters of water per year—from the already over-extended Colorado River system—necessitating considerable expansion of regional water-storage facilities. Likewise, electricity needs would be formidable. Production of a million barrels per day would require ten 1.2-gigawatt power plants and five new coal mines to feed them. Regional sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions would soar.

The EIS states that each project would heavily degrade up to 14,000 acres and require hundreds of miles of roads, pipelines, and transmission lines. Leases would displace all “incom­patible” activities, such as recreation, mining, livestock grazing, and oil and gas drilling. Proposed lease lands en­compass 170,000 acres with wilderness characteristics, 249 miles of perennial streams, and a vast array of plant and wildlife communities, including 14 threatened and endangered species.

The greenhouse gas costs also would be steep. Studies by energy analyst Adam Brandt at the University of California–Berkeley indicate that the full cycle of carbon emissions—from industrial processing to combustion of the finished product—would exceed those of conventional oil by 27 to 52 percent, depending on the technology used.

Although less lucrative deposits of tar sands have drawn little commercial interest, four corporations have obtained small-scale BLM leases for research and development of shale-oil technology, BLM spokesperson Heather Feeney said; none has begun on-site operations yet. (Shell’s research is taking place on private land; the Department of Energy has identified more than 3 million acres of private lands containing shale oil—many controlled by oil companies—where no shale-oil activities have yet begun.)

Conservation groups and local government officials—including the Western Governors’ Association—want to put the brakes on the leasing process until research and development efforts have run their course. Congressional funding for finalizing lease regulations was withheld from the 2008 omnibus spending bill, but draft regulations are under review by the White House Office of Management and Budget, Feeney said. “Unless the EPAct is amended, BLM is under very clear statutory direction to complete the program EIS and publish leasing regulations,” she said.

Noreen Parks (e-mail: nmparks@q.com) is a freelance science and environmental writer who lives on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula.

BioScience 58: 490
doi:10.1641/B580605

Big Bucks for Biosecurity Research—But Who’s Doing What?

2008-05-01T15:38:27Z

After 11 September 2001 and the anthrax attacks that followed, President Bush made it a government priority to protect human health and food systems from biological attack. Federal agencies have allocated billions of dollars to biological security programs and new...

After 11 September 2001 and the anthrax attacks that followed, President Bush made it a government priority to protect human health and food systems from biological attack. Federal agencies have allocated billions of dollars to biological security programs and new research infrastructure across the governmental, aca­demic, and private sectors. However, some government observers have questioned the leadership, coordination, and oversight of these activities, asking, “Are we more vulnerable to a biological attack today than we were in 2001?”

The responsibility to protect the welfare of people, plants, and animals is shared by various federal agencies. These include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH); the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS); the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Department of Defense (DOD).

According to recent estimates from the Center for Biosecurity of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, the federal government has spent $40 billion for civilian biodefense since 2001. In 2007, more than $5 billion was allocated to bio­defense. A significant portion of these resources has been used to build high-containment bio­safety laboratories (BSLs), specifically BSL-3 and BSL-4 labs, where scientists study the most deadly and highly contagious diseases, including Ebola, small­pox, and avian influenza. The NIH has spent more than $1 billion for new lab construction since 2001. The DHS is moving forward with plans to build a $451 million National Bio- and Agro-Defense Facility to research biological threats and countermeasures involving zoonotic diseases—those that may be transmitted from animals to humans—and foreign animal diseases. Construction is nearly complete on the DHS’s National Bio­defense Analysis and Counter­measures Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland, on a National Inter­agency Biodefense Campus that has lab facilities operated by the CDC, NIH, US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and DOD.

The existence of the National Inter­agency Biodefense Campus suggests that the federal government recognizes the importance of scientific collaboration, coordination, and communication in addressing issues of biosecurity. Yet according to fiscal year 2009 DHS budget documents, “A comprehensive understanding of how biodefense initiatives are coordinated at various levels of government and the private sector does not exist.”

Evidence pointing toward inadequate oversight amid expansive growth in the number of biosafety research laboratories emerged during an Oc­tober 2007 hearing of the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Keith Rhodes of the Government Account­ability Office (GAO) testified that no one agency is responsible for tracking the rapidly growing number of high-containment labs (BSL-3 and BSL-4) in the academic, state, and private sectors. In fact, the GAO review revealed that even the number of BSL-3 labs—where work is done on biological agents such as anthrax and West Nile virus—remains unknown.

Whatever the number, it is growing, and as the number of laboratories grows, the number of individuals handling dangerous biological agents grows as well, as does the potential for accidents. Unchecked expansion of laboratories with little federal oversight is a recipe for disaster, contended Edward Hammond of the Sunshine Project, a now defunct nongovernmental watchdog organization. He warned Congress that “the most likely source of a bio­terrorist event in the US is a US bio­defense lab.”

In light of these concerns, the NIH initiated a Trans-Federal Task Force on Optimizing Biosafety Oversight. The task force, cochaired by the De­partment of Health and Human Services and USDA, includes representatives from the agencies responsible for managing biosafety risks. According to Mary Groesch, senior adviser for science policy in the Office of the Director at the NIH, the group is working quickly to identify gaps in current bio­safety oversight, lay out potential options for addressing these issues, and develop recommendations for department leadership. Strategies under consideration include the development of mandatory federal biosafety standards and the centralization of federal bio­safety authority.

“The time is ripe for something to be done,” says Gigi Kwik Gronvall, senior associate at the Center for Biosecurity. “Biosafety failures have been more evident in the media, and this area has lots of eyes on it. If recommendations from the task force are reasonable, nothing should block action from being taken.”

Gronvall emphasizes that one must remember that the greatest danger is for the people working with the patho­gens. Centralizing oversight and authority in one office may help get more resources dedicated to improving bio­safety, she said. “It is more im­portant that recommendations take a bottom-up approach, focusing more on the people and the lab safety officers who directly oversee the work.”

Holly Menninger (e-mail: hmenninger@aibs.org) is with the AIBS Public Policy Office. Josh Smith, a graduate student policy fellow sponsored by the American Society of Mammalogists, contributed to this report.

BioScience 58: 390
doi:10.1641/B580504

Political Science

2008-04-01T00:10:58Z

Whether in response to the “politi­cization” of science, or simply to ensure that public policy is informed by science, many scientists are mobilizing and becoming more active in the public policy arena. Whatever the reason, science is more prominent in...

Whether in response to the “politi­cization” of science, or simply to ensure that public policy is informed by science, many scientists are mobilizing and becoming more active in the public policy arena. Whatever the reason, science is more prominent in the 2008 race for the presidency than it has been in other races. In December 2007, a grassroots group called Science Debate 2008 issued a public call for a presidential debate on science.

Supporters of Science Debate 2008 argue that science should be a central theme in the presidential election because the important scientific challenges facing the United States call for precise, unbiased scientific data to support policy decisions, and because the country needs to encourage scientific and technological innovation to stay competitive in the global marketplace. Others maintain that although presidential nominees should discuss climate change and energy policy, those issues are more political than scientific.

In an interview on 11 January with Ira Flatow on National Public Radio’s Talk of the Nation: Science Friday, Shawn Lawrence Otto, chief executive officer of Science Debate 2008, said, “Science and technology lie at the center of almost every major policy issue that we’re facing, that we feel it deserves a debate of its own, especially since many of the candidates have not been able to articulate any kind of position about science policy.”

Science Debate 2008 started with a petition signed by 11 Nobel laureates and a handful of university presidents, business leaders, and politicians. Since December, the number of signatories has grown to more than 150 American universities and organizations, representing more than 125 million people. Representatives Rush Holt (D–NJ) and Vernon Ehlers (R–MI), both of whom have advanced degrees in physics, agreed to cochair the science debate. National and international media have also taken note: Radio New Zealand, MSNBC, and Time magazine, to name just a few, have all reported on Science Debate 2008.

Gaining momentum, by February, Science Debate 2008 had established an online collection of video statements by scientists, politicians, and several former White House staff. Dozens of or­ganizations, including AIBS, have endorsed the effort. Neal Lane, Rice University professor and science advisor to President Clinton, said in a video statement that “science and technology really do underpin everything that is important.... Science and technology research and development and inno­vation lead to a bright economy for the future, protecting the environment, producing the energy we’re going to need, and protecting our families and children from disease.” Oregon State University Distinguished Professor of Zoology Jane Lubchenco agrees: “Science affects so many aspects of our lives, it really is the key to much of our future.”

Not everyone thinks that a presidential debate on science is a good idea. David J. Goldston, former staff director for the House Committee on Science under Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R–NY) and visiting lecturer at Harvard University, argues that having a science debate could have some unintended con­sequences. In the 7 February issue of Nature, he stated, “There is no reason to assume that a presidential debate on science matters would be instructive for the public or helpful to scientists.” Goldston holds that candidates should discuss climate change and energy policy, but he questions whether these issues are primarily science issues, noting the “increasing tendency to conflate science questions...with policy questions.” He also asks whether a political debate is the best venue for a discussion about the politicization of science.

Roger Pielke Jr., of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, agrees with Goldston: “Politicians debate politics.” Perhaps supporters of the science debate should focus their attention on influencing the nomination of the next presidential science adviser, or, as Goldston suggests, scientists might spend time “lobbying Capitol Hill and talking to candidates—the kind of political activity often seen as ‘dirty work’—rather than leaping into the showy realm of presidential debates.” Additionally, they may want to consider their next step: redirecting their fervor toward developing a list of highly qualified scientists for the position of presidential science adviser. Influencing that process may prove more advantageous than holding a science debate.

Regardless of whether there should be or will be a science debate, both sides of the argument might agree that world-renowned scientists, scientific organizations, businesses, universities, and government leaders should continue to mobilize in support of science and science policy.

Megan Debranski Kelhart (e-mail: mkelhart@aibs.org) is with the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 58: 296
doi:10.1641/B580404

Theory and Funding for 21st Century Biology—Maybe

2008-02-29T20:50:54Z

Compared with other scientific disciplines, some leaders in the science community have said, biology is too heavily centered on facts, with too little emphasis on underlying theory. The propagation of this misperception in recent years has very likely contributed to...

Compared with other scientific disciplines, some leaders in the science community have said, biology is too heavily centered on facts, with too little emphasis on underlying theory. The propagation of this misperception in recent years has very likely contributed to a drive to allocate larger portions of the federal research budget to nonbiological disciplines, a move that some assume will have a “transformative” impact on the nation’s research enterprise.

To stimulate thinking about the role of theory in biology, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) commissioned the National Acad­emies of Science to study the explicit role that theory plays in shaping basic biological research. According to James Collins, the NSF’s assistant director for BIO, the report—The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st Century Biology: Catalyzing Transformative Research—“shines a bright light on the fact that there are lots of theories in biology; it is a theory-rich discipline that goes beyond the theory of evolution.”

Michael Mares, presidential professor of zoology and distinguished research curator of mammals at the University of Oklahoma, and chairman of the NSF BIO Advisory Committee, notes that much of the report will be self-evident to biologists. He points to one of the publication’s chapters, “Are There Still New Life Forms to Be Discovered?” and comments, “I search for new species of mammals...and see new species and even genera or families being discovered on a regular basis—this is an easy question to answer. Certainly any entomologist would chuckle at the question.” Yet Mares and other advocates for biology recognize the importance of restating this and similar questions so that the entire scientific and engineering enterprise can better understand the robust theoretical framework underlying biology.

Although the report was released with little fanfare in 2007, the document is quite good and deserves the attention of scientists from all disciplines, Mares says. Collins agrees, pointing out that The Role of Theory articulates opportunities for exciting new research at the fuzzy boundaries between biology and other disciplines. One chapter asks, “What Are the Engineering Principles of Life?” and proceeds to describe opportunities for applying engineering practices to the study of life: for example, in the emerging field of synthetic biology, biological units such as proteins, cells, and organs are viewed as modules that can be built, combined, or deconstructed. Another chapter explores how biology and other disciplines that grapple with the storage, accumulation, and transmission of information—including mathematics, computer science, and statistics—could mutually benefit from the exchange and application of theoretical ideas and tools.

To support the report’s recommendations, the NSF’s BIO has launched a grant program intended to encourage biologists to think about advancing the theoretical and conceptual understanding of biology in transformative ways, cutting across traditional disciplinary boundaries. However, a look at President Bush’s 2006 American Competitiveness Initiative and at recent federal science budgets—in which investments in the physical sciences and engineering take priority over other disciplines—gives natural and social science advocates serious cause for concern. With so many calls for breaking down disciplinary boundaries and pursuing the best, most transformative research, why do the budget requests for the biological and social sciences lag so far behind others?

Take the fiscal year 2009 budget for the NSF, delivered to Congress on 4 February 2008 as part of President Bush’s last budget proposal for the federal government. For two consecutive years, the percentage increases proposed by the administration for the NSF directorates that support physical science and engineering have been nearly twice the percentage increases proposed for BIO and the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate. At a briefing after the budget’s release, NSF Director Arden Bement eloquently described the scientific opportunities and discoveries that lay before the nation. His remarks justifying the NSF’s $6.9 billion budget request included references to cutting-edge research in biology and the social sciences, research that has produced remarkable societal benefits—for example, findings from studies of neural networks have directly informed the development of artificial intelligence systems.

Following Bement’s presentation, a member of the audience asked him about the less than robust investment in social science research, compared with other disciplines. The inquiry was particularly interesting, given the examples that Bement had just presented, coupled with research from the social science community—frequently cited by the Bush administration—that links American scientific research and innovation directly to global economic competitiveness. A growing segment of the scientific community continues to wait for an adequate answer.

Holly Menninger (e-mail: hmenninger@aibs.org) and Robert Gropp (e-mail: rgropp@aibs.org) are with the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 58: 198
doi:10.1641/B580304

Fertilizing the Seas for Climate Mitigation—Promising Strategy or Sheer Folly?

2008-01-31T23:26:46Z

As the effects of global warming appear more ominous, and the world community makes minimal progress in curbing fossil-fuel emissions, geoengineering schemes for climate mitigation are taking on new allure. One proposal, “fertilizing” ocean waters with micronutrients such as iron...

As the effects of global warming appear more ominous, and the world community makes minimal progress in curbing fossil-fuel emissions, geoengineering schemes for climate mitigation are taking on new allure. One proposal, “fertilizing” ocean waters with micronutrients such as iron or nitrogen to stimulate the growth of carbon dioxide–guzzling plankton, is spurring commercial projects targeted on the global carbon-credits market. Fearing that ill-conceived commercialization could drive development of this strategy before its impacts and feasibility are adequately evaluated, scientists, policymakers, and environmental groups are calling for clear policy guidelines to regulate ocean fertilization.

The dozen experimental releases of iron in relatively small areas of open ocean between 1993 and 2005 produced mixed results—measuring the effects of iron seeding in moving water proved especially difficult. Kenneth Coale, director of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories and chief scientist on all US-led iron expeditions, explained that these efforts were designed to address questions about past climate. “None assessed the ecological consequences of much larger-scale or frequent fertilization efforts for climate mitigation,” he said.

Nevertheless, the idea excites some entrepreneurs who are eager to exploit prospects for selling carbon credits to the burgeoning numbers of people and corporations seeking to offset their carbon footprints. Last spring, California-based Planktos, Inc., announced plans for several iron-seeding ventures, beginning with the dumping of 100 metric tons over a 10,000-kilometer stretch of international waters west of the Galápagos Islands. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) informed Planktos that the project might require a permit under the US Ocean Dumping Act (which governs activities of US-registered ships, even outside federal waters), company officials responded that they would use a foreign-flagged vessel, effectively flouting EPA’s authority.

In October the Australian-based Ocean Nourishment Corporation, with the intention of triggering plankton blooms in the Sulu Sea near the Philippines, started trial releases of nitrogen-­containing urea without permission from the Philippine government. The government is investigating the incident.

A symposium at Woods Hole Ocean­ographic Institution (WHOI) in September 2007 considered the scientific, economic, and legal questions raised by ocean fertilization. Researchers pondered whether broadscale efforts might cause harmful algal blooms, generate excess greenhouse gases, turn marine midwaters eutrophic, negatively affect fisheries, or lead to other adverse, un­anticipated consequences. John Cullen, an oceanographer at Dalhousie University, warned that the combined impacts not only might wreak havoc but also could be impossible to trace to a single liable party.

Margaret Leinen, chief scientist for the start-up company Climos, believes private enterprise could help answer critical questions by responsibly carrying out more research, while profiting from the sale of carbon credits. Climos has adopted a voluntary code of conduct for ocean-fertilization activities and a methodology that, according to company officials, is “based on precedent established by the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism.”

In November, members of the international Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Waste and Other Matter—an agreement now ratified by 82 countries—unanimously endorsed a statement prepared by its scientific advisers, cautioning that large-scale ocean fertilization is not yet justified, because of gaps in scientific knowledge. Signatory nations should “use the utmost caution when considering [such] proposals,” the statement read. Convention representatives agreed to discuss the issues further and decide on regulations at a meeting in 2008.

Lacking enforcement authority, the convention relies on member countries to enforce its provisions. In the United States, that responsibility rests with the EPA. Elizabeth Kim, head of the agency’s Ocean Dumping Management Program, told WHOI conferees that the government supports research into technologies such as ocean fertilization “if the risks are evaluated and found to be acceptable.” There have been no applications for permits for ocean seeding, the EPA reported, but Leinen said agency officials told her the process will be similar to that for other permitted activities.

Nonetheless, the enforcement question remains open. “If a US ship re-flags and conducts activities on the high seas, there’s not a lot the government can do,” said Lisa Speer, a policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The worst possible thing we could do in the name of climate mitigation would be to invest in something that doesn’t work and has big, unanticipated impacts on the global commons,” she cautioned at the WHOI symposium. “The world community needs to know there’s been an open, transparent, scientifically informed evaluation of this idea before we move ahead with experiments on a mass scale, and commercialization.”

Noreen Parks (e-mail: nmparks@q.com) is a freelance science and environmental writer who lives on Washington’s Olympic Peninsula.

BioScience 58: 102
doi:10.1641/B580204

FYI: Threats Remain for Evolution Education

2008-01-01T16:05:12Z

Just over two years ago, intelligent design and creationism (IDC) proponents suffered a stunning legal defeat when a federal judge ruled that intelligent design is no different from religious belief in creationism and has no place in the science classroom....

Just over two years ago, intelligent design and creationism (IDC) proponents suffered a stunning legal defeat when a federal judge ruled that intelligent design is no different from religious belief in creationism and has no place in the science classroom. Long-time science education advocates applauded the significant victory in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case (400 F. Supp. 2d 707 [M.D. Pa. 2005]).

Since the Kitzmiller decision, politicians from state capitols to the halls of Congress have seized on reports warning that the nation's schoolchildren continue to lag behind international peers in science and mathematics, and that the nation's global leadership in research and innovation are in jeopardy. Nationally, Congress and the executive branch have moved with alacrity to enact legislation intended to stimulate innovation and enhance science edu-cation through teacher training and improved instruction. Governors, working through the National Governors Association, have launched "Innovation America," a plan that recognizes the important role states play in training skilled and scientific workforces. Also since Kitzmiller, many elected officials who advocated—sometimes surreptitiously—teaching IDC have lost elections. In this context, some in the science community hoped for a respite from the evolution issue. But political interests seeking to serve the IDC community remain, particularly at the state and local levels, and in some circumstances, they retain power.

Thus, science education advocates are once again vigilant. In June 2007, Texas governor Rick Perry (R) signed into law legislation that changes the process by which the state adopts textbooks and supplemental instructional materials. In short, the law makes it easier for the state to introduce alternatives to accepted science into the curriculum. Also capturing the attention of scientists and educators is the new chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, Don McLeroy. Appointed by Governor Perry, McLeroy—a Republican who served on the board before his appointment as chairman—voted against the state's current biology textbook because it fails to discuss the weaknesses of evolution.

"Chairman McLeroy is an admitted young-earth creationist and supporter of intelligent design creationism," says Eugenie Scott, of the National Center for Science Education. "Although he seems to have received the memo from the Discovery Institute about not openly advocating for intelligent design to be taught in the schools, and instead to argue...'teach the controversy'...he is in a more powerful position now than in 2003, when he and his allies on the board almost succeeded in watering down the coverage of evolution," Scott said.

Education, science, and religious liberty advocates in Texas worry that political pressure from the governor's office or his political appointees will be brought to bear, particularly as the state considers its next textbooks and revisits Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Science, the state-mandated curriculum guidelines.

Concern escalated to outrage in December, when state officials called for the dismissal of Christine Castillo Comer. Then director of science at the Texas Education Agency, and a veteran classroom teacher, Comer was pressured to resign for forwarding an e-mail announcement she had received, stating that Barbara Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was scheduled to speak in Austin. Comer had forwarded the message, which she had modified by adding "FYI," to a small number of friends and colleagues. Forrest—an expert witness in the Kitzmiller trial—has conducted scholarly research demonstrating the evo-lution of creationism into intelligent design.

"This is a deplorable politicization of science and science education," Scott said of the effort to oust Comer. Part of the justification for seeking to remove Comer from her post was that the Texas state agency responsible for science education must remain "neutral" on the issue of evolution.

Responding to the developments in Texas, 2007 AIBS president Douglas J. Futuyma said, "When it comes to science education, we absolutely cannot remain neutral on evolution. Evolution is the unifying principle of modern biology."

Science education advocates have taken the actions in Texas seriously. This is "a shot across the bow of TEA [Texas Education Agency] and of science educators statewide, warning them against the straightforward teaching of evolution," Scott said. She worries that the actions will "have a chilling effect," and are intended to intimidate teachers and TEA staff.

"It is the responsibility of science educators at all levels to stay well informed, and to inform their students on the major principles in every area of science. With biology, evolution is the leading principle," Futuyma asserted.

Robert E. Gropp (e-mail: ) is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 58: 1
doi:10.1641/B580104

Feds Seek to Ignite Bioenergy Research

2007-11-30T19:46:19Z

Whether from a desire to reduce dependency on foreign oil, to develop new rural economies, or to reap potential environmental benefits, bioenergy-related research has captured enormous national attention in the last couple of years. In June 2007, the Department of...

Whether from a desire to reduce dependency on foreign oil, to develop new rural economies, or to reap potential environmental benefits, bioenergy-related research has captured enormous national attention in the last couple of years. In June 2007, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced that it would spend $375 million over the next five years on three bioenergy research centers in Wisconsin, Tennessee, and California. The centers’ mission is to investigate various aspects of bioenergy development, including the conversion of cellulosic biomass to sugars, the biological and chemical processes associated with conversion, and the economic and environmental sustainability of converting biomass to energy.

“The collaborations of academic, corporate, and national laboratory researchers represented by these centers are truly impressive, and I am very encouraged by the potential they hold for advancing America’s energy security,” said DOE Secretary Samuel W. Bodman.

Tim Donohue, director of the DOE’s Wisconsin Bioenergy Initiative, said that the Wisconsin center “will bring forth technologies that are economically viable, environmentally sustainable, and able to improve the quality of life on Earth.” The chancellor of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, John D. Wiley, agrees: “We have much to offer in terms of breaking the fossil fuel habit and laying the foundation for sustainable and environmentally sound bioenergy technologies.”

But even as the government funnels money and resources into bioenergy production research, several prominent scientists warn that more questions need to be asked—namely, what are the potential environmental, ecological, and economic effects of bioenergy production, and are federal funding agencies considering these effects?

David Pimentel, professor emeritus at Cornell University, worries that “few of the appropriate policy issues”—and “very few of the environmental issues”—are being addressed. Corn-based ethanol production, he says, “causes more soil erosion and uses more nitrogen fertilizer, insecticides, and herbicides than any other crop grown.” In November 2006, Pimentel wrote a BioScience editorial urging that priority be given to “energy conservation and development of renewable energy sources, such as solar cells and solar-based methanol synthesis.”

On 10 October 2007, the National Academies issued Water Implications of Biofuels Production in the United States, a report that echoes many of Pimentel’s concerns. The report concluded that incorporating more biofuel crops into agricultural practices would affect water quality and quantity. Furthermore, “converting pastures or woodlands into cornfields, for example, may exacerbate problems associated with fertilizer runoff and soil erosion.” The report also predicted that if the projected increases in the use of corn for ethanol production occur, the “harm to water quality could be considerable.”

Results from a study funded by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Program, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the US Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service were released a few months ago. The study, an examination of the potential effects of biofuels on water quality, recommends pursuit of a “diversified portfolio of biofuels” and federal funding “to support research and development of ecologically sustainable perennial grass or tree-based cellulosic ethanol,” although it acknowledges that “grain-based ethanol will be dominant for the foreseeable future.”

Ecosystem scientists are already ramping up research programs to explore how to create such an environmentally sustainable biofuel enterprise. Some researchers have suggested that problems with water quality, erosion, and runoff may be mitigated if corn farmers avoid till management, plant cover crops, and use less fertilizer. Moreover, wildlife may even benefit from the use of landscape-appropriate biomass crops. These were among the issues recently explored with policymakers on Capitol Hill at a science briefing on bioenergy sponsored by the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers (AERC).

Clifford Duke, science director for the Ecological Society of America (ESA), attended the AERC briefing and commented, “There is a growing effort on the part of working scientists, agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] to ensure that the ecological, environmental, and social implications of bioenergy production are thought through in a systematic way, and that policymakers are adequately informed about those implications.”

In an effort to trigger a dialogue between researchers and policymakers, the ESA is convening a national conference on the ecological dimensions of biofuels in March 2008. According to the ESA Web site, the 500 expected attendees will hear presentations on the sustainable development and use of biofuels; social, biogeographic, land-use, and biodiversity considerations; and ecological dimensions of alternatives for crop selection and production, harvest and transport of product to refinery, and refining of liquid fuels and other coproducts.

The hope is that more research and better communications will help lead to a sustainable—and environmentally and economically viable—energy alternative.

Megan Debranski Kelhart (e-mail: mkelhart@aibs.org) is a public policy associate
in the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 57: 928
doi:10.1641/B571104

Ocean Acidification: The Biggest Threat to Our Oceans

2007-11-12T18:21:51Z

When it comes to the oceans and carbon dioxide, there’s good news and bad news. To date, the world’s oceans have absorbed nearly a third of the excess carbon dioxide emitted as a result of anthropogenic activities. That may be...

When it comes to the oceans and carbon dioxide, there’s good news and bad news. To date, the world’s oceans have absorbed nearly a third of the excess carbon dioxide emitted as a result of anthropogenic activities. That may be good news for the atmosphere, but scientists and policymakers are increasingly concerned about the side effect of carbon dioxide absorption: ocean acidification.

Since the industrial revolution, ocean pH has gone down by 0.1 units, which translates into a 30 percent surge in acidity. Scientists predict that pH will go down another 0.14 to 0.35 units by the end of this century. Accompanying the lower pH are lower saturation points of minerals such as calcium carbonate, the primary skeletal material of marine organisms that form the basis of ocean food webs, such as phytoplankton and coral reefs. As the ocean becomes more acidic, calcium carbonate begins to dissolve. The shift in ocean chemistry is so profound that the shells will literally dissolve off the backs of some organisms under the ocean conditions predicted for 2100, according to experiments conducted by Victoria Fabry, of California State University in San Marcos.

The rapid change in seawater acidity is almost unprecedented. At a Senate Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee hearing on ocean acidification, Scott Doney, of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, testified, “Marine life has survived large climate and acidification variations in the past, but the projected rates of climate change and ocean acidification over the next century are much faster than experienced by the planet in the past, except for rare, catastrophic events in the geological record.” Thomas Lovejoy, president of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, shares Doney’s concern. Lovejoy has described ocean acidification as “the most profound environmental change I have observed in my entire professional career.”

Unlike the situation with other aspects of climate change, there is no controversy over ocean acidification. At the Senate hearing on ocean acidification, the panelists universally painted a grim picture. Not only will species have to adapt to a changing thermal environment, but they will also have to cope with increased acidity of seawater. David Conover, dean and director of the Marine Science Research Center at Stony Brook University, warned the subcommittee that the combination of stresses will make commercial species less resilient to harvesting: “We may need to reduce [the] harvest [of] some species in certain areas to enable them to withstand the additional stress.”

Further complicating matters are potential shifts in marine community structure. David Hutchins, a professor at the University of Southern California, has conducted experiments in open ocean areas to determine how plankton communities will react to the higher temperature and greater acidity of oceans of the future. His team’s results suggest a shift in marine food webs “that will make the ocean much less productive of resources like fish that a hungry human population depends on.”

Scientists concede there are many unknowns regarding ocean acidification. As with other aspects of climate change, scientists need to refine models of the physical environment. But even with improved physical models, Doney says, “significant knowledge gaps” in ocean biology will hinder “the creation of the skillful forecasts needed to guide ocean management decisions.”

Despite the knowledge gaps, there is no dedicated federal funding for ocean acidification research. Some members of Congress want to change that. Senators Frank Lautenberg (D–NJ) and Maria Cantwell (D–WA) have introduced S. 1581, the Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring Act of 2007, to create an interagency task force for ocean acidification, as well as a research program to be housed at NOAA. Lautenberg says the bill’s time has come: “Congress has been hearing from our Nation[’s] experts on ocean acidification since 2004. Now is the time for national investment in a coordinated program of research and monitoring.”

Although ocean acidification is relatively new on the policy radar screen, do not be surprised to see it jump the queue to the top of marine conservation issues. Cantwell, who chairs the Senate subcommittee with jurisdiction over ocean issues, sees acidification as a “must address” issue: “If we fail to address the potential impact of global climate change and ocean acidification, we may be jeopardizing all of our hard-fought ocean conservation gains.”

Adrienne Froelich Sponberg (e-mail: asponberg@aslo.org) is director of public affairs at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.

BioScience 57: 822
doi:10.1641/B571004

Government Looks into Health of Federal Science Collections

2007-10-09T20:37:57Z

Researchers at university-based natural science collections have long known that their institutions face daunting budgetary and infrastructure challenges. It is becoming equally apparent that federal collections face comparable challenges. Recent circumstances at the Smithsonian Institution (SI), the flagship for federal...

Researchers at university-based natural science collections have long known that their institutions face daunting budgetary and infrastructure challenges. It is becoming equally apparent that federal collections face comparable challenges.

Recent circumstances at the Smithsonian Institution (SI), the flagship for federal research collections, illustrate some of those challenges. For example, the US Government Accountability Office has reported that a number of buildings within the SI museum complex have deteriorated to the point that some buildings have been closed to the public. And just a few miles from Washington, DC, the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) houses much of one of the largest entomology collections in the world in the basement of a building constructed in the 1930s. Although BARC is charged with protecting the nation's agricultural enterprise from invasive species, among other endeavors, the facilities for BARC collections lack appropriate ventilation and humidity- and temperature-control systems.

Congress has acknowledged the need for new investments in research infrastructure. The America COMPETES (America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act, signed into law by President George W. Bush in August, instructs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to review federal research infrastructure annually and to coordinate an acquisition, refurbishment, and maintenance plan to address deficiencies.

Also buoying up the natural science collections community are statements from the OSTP that reflect the importance of federal collections to the nation. Since 2005, the White House's Office of Management and Budget and the OSTP have included this language about collections in their annual budget guidance to federal agencies: "Object-based collections provide the fundamental infrastructure for contemporary and future scientific advancements." This guidance has produced a new National Science and Technology Council working group — the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections (IWGSC) — to assess the state of the federal government's vast object-based scientific collections, which include physical, chemical, and biological specimens.

The IWGSC recently completed a survey of object-based scientific collections held by federal agencies, note IWGSC cochairs Scott Miller, who is with the SI, and Phyllis Johnson, of the US Department of Agriculture. Survey results will be the basis for an IWGSC report, which many familiar with federal collections hope will include strong recommendations to improve the federal infrastructure. The IWGSC cochairs hope to issue the group's recommendations in March or April of 2008, which would allow ample lead time to influence the fiscal year 2010 budget.

In the meantime, the status of nonfederal collections, including state and local collections and university-based collections, gives cause for concern. "Nonfederal natural history collections are really struggling. They are not receiving the support they need," warns Alan Prather, director of the Michigan State University Herbarium. In response to community pressure, the IWGSC asked the National Science Foundation (NSF) to conduct a complementary survey of nonfederal collections. Prather worries, however, that the survey will exclude the vast majority of collections, because federal rules prevent the NSF from soliciting responses from institutions that have not recently received an NSF grant.

Ultimately, Miller hopes that the efforts of the IWGSC, including the complementary NSF survey, will contribute to a better appreciation of collections' value on the part of agency managers and the public. "Collections are not recognized as long-term assets and largely do not get recognized in agency budgets as needing that kind of care," Miller said. With the exception of the SI, no federal agency has specific budget lines for collections and the support staff necessary to maintain them. Consequently, collections management has suffered, Miller added.

Not surprisingly, improving the conditions and research opportunities associated with federal collections will require a sustained commitment from federal decisionmakers, an effort that has been difficult to secure because "the natural science collections community is so fractured that we haven't been able to articulate our concerns," admits Hank Bart, of the Tulane University Museum of Natural History. Bart and many of his colleagues are optimistic, however, that the results from the IWGSC and NSF reports will enable the community to coalesce around the common goal of refurbishing infrastructure for natural science collections.

Holly Menninger (e-mail: hmenninger@aibs.org) is a public policy associate at AIBS.

BioScience 57: 736
doi:10.1641/B570904

Congress Advances Multiyear Science and Education Plan

2007-08-27T20:56:59Z

Before leaving Washington, DC, for the August district work period, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed legislation authorizing $43.3 billion for science and science education programs at various federal agencies, and President George W. Bush signed the act...

Before leaving Washington, DC, for the August district work period, the Senate and the House of Representatives passed legislation authorizing $43.3 billion for science and science education programs at various federal agencies, and President George W. Bush signed the act into law on 9 August. The passage of HR 2272, the America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (America COMPETES), marks the culmination of one and a half years of legislative wrangling in both chambers of Congress.

The stated purpose of the act is “to invest in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy.” In essence, HR 2272 is a response to the recommendations made in the 2005 National Academies report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. According to documents from the Office of the Speaker of the House, America COMPETES establishes a multiyear framework for a federal emphasis on math, science, engineering, and technology education, as well as a renewed commitment to basic research. Ultimately, HR 2272 is a bipartisan compromise between prior House- and Senate-passed legislation authorizing programs and funding for US research agencies and departments: the National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy, National Institute of Standards and Technology, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Education.

The legislation maintains the trajectory for doubling NSF’s budget over the next seven years. However, Representative Bart Gordon (D–TN), chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee, noted that although the measure authorizes funding at what legislators think is a “responsible” level, the appropriations committees will have to determine whether that amount “is going to be too much money.” Indeed, many of the 57 House members who voted against HR 2272 (56 of whom are Republicans) said they did so because of the high level of funding.

Although he supported its final passage, Representative Ralph M. Hall (R–TX), the ranking Republican on the Science and Technology Committee, expressed his concern about the cost of the final measure: “I...tried in Committee and in Conference to address these concerns. First and foremost was the cost. The House passed a $24 billion bill that roughly mirrored the President’s ACI [American Competitive Initiative]...and even increased the budget in many areas. However, this conference report goes way beyond that amount to authorize $43.3 billion in spending.” Wisconsin Representative F. James Sensenbrenner (R) echoed this concern, warning that Congress was creating expectations that could not be met, because appropriators most likely will not provide full funding for the various programs authorized by the legislation.

Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA), evoking President Kennedy’s call for US leadership in space, urged House members to support the legislation because of its importance to the future. “In education, the COMPETES Act recognizes that America’s greatest resources for innovation are in classrooms across this country,” she said. “This legislation invests in creating the most highly qualified teachers, and training the next generation of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers through public–private partnerships.”

According to NSF data, in the 2002 academic year, 17 to 28 percent of public high school mathematics and science teachers lacked full certification in their teaching field. In academic year 1999, between 23 and 29 percent of public middle- and high-school mathematics and science teachers did not have a college major or minor in their teaching field. “We have to better prepare the teacher,” said Chairman Gordon.

Because so many teachers lack subject matter expertise, America COMPETES includes funding for two teacher scholarship programs, one of which provides support for new teachers, and the other helps current teachers secure certification. As Chairman Gordon noted during a press briefing before House consideration of HR 2272, the legislation goes beyond the production of new science PhDs. It also makes important strides toward improving the science and technology skills of high school, junior college, and baccalaureate graduates, he said.

Although Congress frequently becomes mired in partisan and jurisdictional squabbles, the passage of HR 2272 demonstrates that a broad cross-section of stakeholders from business, education, and academe can collectively advance a sweeping policy initiative. Nevertheless, enthusiasm for popular legislation does not ensure that programs authorized under it will produce the anticipated benefits. That outcome is contingent on the implementation of the programs and on their operating budgets.

Robert E. Gropp (e-mail: ) is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 57: 654
doi:10.1641/B570804

National Wildlife Refuges: Death by a Thousand Cuts?

2007-06-29T23:00:24Z

There’s no other wildlife conservation network like it in the world—547 reserves covering nearly 100 million acres (40.5 million hectares) of wetlands, forests, grasslands, islands, and deserts that support thousands of plant and animal species, including 260 listed as endangered...

There’s no other wildlife conservation network like it in the world—547 reserves covering nearly 100 million acres (40.5 million hectares) of wetlands, forests, grasslands, islands, and deserts that support thousands of plant and animal species, including 260 listed as endangered or threatened. Once a crown jewel of our national heritage, now the National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) system itself is under threat because of severe budget shortfalls, dwindling personnel numbers, and a staggering backlog in maintenance and operations. For years, refuge managers have tightened their belts and made do with less, and now some observers fear that a hundred years’ worth of conservation efforts are crumbling.

Michael Woodbridge, of the National Wildlife Refuge Association, testified before a House of Representatives subcommittee on 20 July 2006 that, on average, the refuges get less than $4 per acre ($10 per hectare) to manage and restore essential wildlife habitat, conduct research and monitoring, maintain facilities and equipment, and oversee recreational and educational activities for their 40 million-plus annual visitors. Funding for the refuge system within the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) budget has in recent years approached only about $400 million, a figure well below the amount refuge advocates believe adequate. At the same time, USFWS estimates show that operations costs such as salaries, fuel, and supplies are inflating by roughly $15 million a year, says USFWS spokesman David Eisenhauer. “Unfortunately, it appears these tight budgets are not going away soon,” he adds.

One dire consequence of the budget shortfalls has been the steady erosion in staff. By 2009, 565 positions—including 475 permanent field staff—will be eliminated, according to Eisenhauer. The number of unstaffed refuges will increase from 188 in 2004 to 221 in 2009, when they will make up 40 percent of all refuges. In the Pacific region alone, the reductions will eliminate almost a quarter of the positions held by biologists at the refuges, and only six full-time law enforcement staff will remain to cover the region’s 64 refuges.

The public has stepped up to the plate to help address the manpower deficit by forming 250 refuge “friends” groups, says Desiree Sorenson-Grove, of the National Wildlife Refuge Association. “Volunteers shoulder about 20 percent of the work, but sadly, sometimes they show up for projects and there’s no one to supervise,” she says.

Another outcome of the deepening cutbacks is the mounting backlog in maintenance activities (facilities repairs, equipment purchases, and so forth), and mission-critical work such as biological monitoring, habitat management, and species recovery and visitor programs.

The cost of this deferred work now stands at a whopping $2.75 billion, according to a recent report by the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), a diverse coalition of 21 wildlife, sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations. “The refuges have been hammered by bad budgets for decades,” says Sorenson-Grove. “They have gone through all the fat and they’ve now hit the bone.”

Refuge managers attested to the growing crisis in a 2006 survey by the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). About nine out of ten of the managers who responded say the funding for salaries and fixed expenses “is declining in real terms,” and nearly three-quarters of those who responded estimate that staffing levels for their refuges fall more than 25 percent below core requirements. Nearly two-thirds agreed the refuge system is “not currently accomplishing its missions,” and they are “no longer optimistic about the future of the refuge system.” Grady Hocutt, a 30-year veteran refuge manager now with PEER, says, “Morale is at rock bottom. What really jumped out from the survey was the increasing frustration of managers over having to spend more and more time justifying their actions with bureaucratic bean counters, instead of carrying out their missions.”

Earlier this year, 30 senators and 80 members of the House of Representatives signed letters urging their respective appropriations committees to boost the 2008 NWR budget to $451.5 million—an increase meant to compensate for inflation since 2004. On 23 May, the House Interior and Environment appropriations subcommittee approved a bill fulfilling this request, and advocates are hopeful that this portends full congressional approval of the increase. But CARE’s analysis shows that considerably more resources are needed to comply with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57), rehire the necessary staff, restore 4 million acres (1.6 million hectares) of debilitated habitat, and carry out other congressional mandates. The CARE report recommends an annual funding level of $765 million by 2013.

The prospects for such a hefty budget increase are hardly promising, even though the consequences will most likely be irreversible if things keep going as they are, Hocutt warns. “As longtime managers and other personnel leave, we’re losing hundreds of years of collective experience,” he says, “and as programs and projects that took decades to develop are mothballed, our wildlife loses precious ground.”

Noreen Parks (e-mail: nmparks@nasw.org) is a freelance science and environmental writer based in Port Townsend, Washington.

BioScience 57: 558
doi:10.1641/B570704

Congress Considers NSF Authorization

2007-05-31T19:35:39Z

Washington, DC, is abuzz with talk about innovation. Leaders in government, business, education, and science are calling for action to enhance the US science and technology enterprise for the 21st century. Both the White House and Congress—the former through the...

Washington, DC, is abuzz with talk about innovation. Leaders in government, business, education, and science are calling for action to enhance the US science and technology enterprise for the 21st century. Both the White House and Congress—the former through the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), the latter through numerous legislative proposals—have proffered plans to improve science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education; increase investments in research and development; and authorize federal research programs. As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) has said, “To meet the challenges of today and to create the jobs and economic security of tomorrow, the time to act is now.”

Given that 68 percent of basic biological sciences research is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), biologists are taking note that reauthorization of NSF is included in innovation measures moving through Congress. Nearly five years ago, Congress passed legislation that President Bush signed into law authorizing appropriations for NSF through fiscal year (FY) 2007. The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368) provided a bold framework for doubling funding from the $4.8 billion that NSF was appropriated in FY 2002 to $9.8 billion in FY 2007. As most biologists who have applied for NSF research funds are keenly aware, the agency’s budget—although faring better than those of many federal agencies—has not enjoyed that promised growth. Nevertheless, many in Congress continue to advocate for increased funding for NSF, and are using the need for reauthorization as a vehicle to press for new investments in NSF.

The Senate has included NSF reauthorization within its far-reaching “America COMPETES Act” (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science), S. 761, recently approved by a wide 88–8 majority. The measure outlines many basic research, education, and innovation programs across a number of agencies, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the Department of Energy. NSF is also included in the measure.

As passed, S. 761 would authorize yearly increases in the NSF budget from the $5.6 billion appropriated in FY 2006 to $10.2 billion in FY 2011. However, S. 761 would require NSF to develop a spending plan, “with a focus on strengthening the Nation’s lead in physical science and technology, increasing overall workforce skills in physical science, technology, engineering, and mathematics at all levels.” This language is borrowed, in part, from the National Academies’ 2005 report Rising above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Although specifically mentioning the physical sciences and engineering, Rising above the Gathering Storm also notes that “this special attention does not mean that there should be a disinvestment in such important fields as the life sciences or the social sciences. A balanced research portfolio in all fields of science and engineering research is critical to US prosperity.” This key qualifying language in the Academies’ report is absent from the spending plan provision in S. 761.

The limited focus of the spending plan required by America COMPETES strikes a nerve with scientists concerned by the unequal distribution of proposed budget increases among directorates in the FY 2008 NSF budget request. The Biological Sciences Directorate would receive a modest 4.1 percent increase, whereas the increases proposed for the directorates prioritized in the ACI range from 8.7 to 9.6 percent.

Nadine Lymn, director of public affairs at the Ecological Society of America, warns, “It is troubling that some of the language in the bill [S. 761] would essentially micromanage the director of the agency. Instructing the agency to single out a few disciplines for special attention flies in the face of NSF’s successful and well-established history of supporting the breadth of all science disciplines.”

The House of Representatives has approached its legislative efforts in a somewhat more focused way by considering several smaller pieces of legislation, including stand-alone NSF reauthorization (H.R. 1867), recently passed 399–17. If ultimately signed into law, H.R. 1867 would authorize an increase in NSF funds from $6.5 billion in FY 2008 to $7.5 billion in FY 2010. More important to the biological sciences community, H.R. 1867 does not contain language instructing NSF to focus its investments on specific disciplines.

Some members of Congress also are aware of the value of investment in all fields of science. For example, House Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Alan Mollohan (D–WV), during a hearing about FY 2008 science funding, queried National Science Board Chairman Steven Beering: “Could you talk about...the imbalances of the funding increases for the various science directorates? What are your concerns about the inequalities among the science directorates?” The biological sciences community will be watching closely to see whether such awareness will hold sway as Congress works to reconcile the differences between the House and Senate versions of the NSF reauthorization legislation.

Holly Menninger (e-mail: hmenninger@aibs.org) is a public policy associate at AIBS.

Wildlife Triggers Change in Congressional Debate on Climate

2007-04-23T20:15:58Z

The 110th Congress is taking a new approach to climate change. Rather than debating whether or not climate change is a “hoax,” the Democratic-majority Congress is moving full steam ahead. With the creation of a select House committee on climate...

The 110th Congress is taking a new approach to climate change. Rather than debating whether or not climate change is a “hoax,” the Democratic-majority Congress is moving full steam ahead. With the creation of a select House committee on climate change and a number of committees holding hearings and debating legislation, lawmakers are now discussing the possible consequences of climate change for, among other things, ecosystems and wildlife.

The impacts of climate change on wildlife are pulling more policymakers into the debate. Senator John Warner (R–VA) admits that his love of hunting and fishing sparked his interest in climate change. At a recent Environment and Public Works (EPW) subcommittee hearing on the link between climate change and wildlife, Warner noted, “The wildlife and the plant species are not represented by any lobbyists. And how they react to today’s climate is a pure, clear science and it could well provide the benchmarks, the early indicators, of what direction that our nation must move to solve this problem.”

Warner isn’t the only sportsman turning his eye toward climate change. In a recent survey of licensed hunters and anglers conducted by the National Wildlife Federation, 76 percent of respondents said they believe global warming is occurring. More than 70 percent of sportsmen believe that climate change is a serious threat to wildlife and affects, or will affect, hunting and fishing conditions. Even more—80 percent—said that America should be a world leader in addressing the issue of global climate change. “We are reaching a tipping point in this country where the vital sportsmen’s constituency is adding its voice to those who recognize global warming is occurring, that it poses serious threats and that action must be taken to address it,” said Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation.

However, Senator James Inhofe (R–OK), former chair and current ranking member of the EPW committee, believes that the link between climate change and wildlife is tenuous. In his opening remarks for a hearing on the topic, Inhofe stated, “The fact is that the relationship between species and climate is not clearly understood.” He added, “It is clear the environmentalists are seeking to use Americans’ love of wildlife as a way to bring about climate change policies they cannot get on the science alone.”

Thomas Lovejoy, director of the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, believes the science is there: “The data have moved from the anecdotal to the statistically significant, and they demonstrate unequivocally that nature is on the move.” Nadine Lymn, public affairs director at the Ecological Society of America, says Inhofe’s skepticism on the relationship between climate and species is unfounded. “If the senator had taken a moment to survey the scientific, peer-reviewed literature, he would have discovered numerous studies demonstrating clear linkages between climate and species, from population declines to disruptive effects in marine food webs.”

The challenge now confronting scientists is predicting responses to an uncertain future climate. “The important issue before us is not the stirrings we can already document but the changes that further climate change is likely to engender,” Lovejoy told the EPW committee. Margaret Palmer, coauthor of the 2004 report Ecosystems and Climate Change: Research Priorities for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, prepared for the Ecosystems Interagency Working Group, believes scientists are up to the challenge. “Once funding is enhanced, ongoing and future research will lead to important information for policymakers rather quickly, in less than a decade.” Scientists need not conduct thousands of site-specific experiments, either. “As long as the research reveals the trends and elucidates the underlying ecological mechanisms, then we are in position to suggest ways to deal with the impacts.”

However, the research to provide those answers relies largely on federal funding, and those dollars are becoming harder to obtain. The Climate Change Science Program is slated for a 7.4 percent cut in fiscal year (FY) 2008, the fourth year in a row that funding for the program has declined. Within that total, funding for the “ecosystem research element” has declined at an even greater pace, dropping 10.3 percent between FY 2005 and FY 2007. Earlier this year, Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told congressional appropriators that the current slide in climate change research funding needs to be reversed, saying that “a continuing decline is, I believe, a path to disaster.”

Adrienne Froelich Sponberg (e-mail: asponberg@aslo.org) is director of public affairs at the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.

Transforming the Rules on Federal Regulations

2007-03-26T21:24:43Z

In mid-January, as national attention focused on congressional reorganization and the never-ending controversies surrounding the Iraq war, the White House rewrote key chapters of the book on federal regulations. In one fell swoop, Executive Order 13422 made economic criteria the...

In mid-January, as national attention focused on congressional reorganization and the never-ending controversies surrounding the Iraq war, the White House rewrote key chapters of the book on federal regulations. In one fell swoop, Executive Order 13422 made economic criteria the primary basis for regulation, placed fresh restrictions on agencies, amplified the role of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and extended the already protracted process of rulemaking. US Chamber of Commerce spokesman William Kovacs hailed the moves as the “first truly significant attempt...to hold federal bureaucrats to account and insist they act with discretion when imposing new and expensive burdens on businesses and consumers.” But government watchdogs contend that the new order further politicizes the regulatory system, subverts agencies’ abilities to fulfill their legal mandates, and erodes Congress’s role in setting regulatory standards.

In brief, four important changes were enacted, affecting the federal agencies responsible for public health, safety, and environmental regulation. First, agencies must justify proposed new regulations to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) by identifying and assessing the specific “market failure” or other problem that needs fixing. Second, within each agency, a presidential appointee will serve as regulatory policy officer, with broad control over rulemaking. Third, agencies must estimate the cumulative annual costs of compliance for rules they expect to publish over a budget year. And fourth, OIRA now will review not only formal rules but also “significant” guidance documents, agency missives that clarify regulations.

The House Science and Technology Committee held oversight hearings on the executive order in February. Among those testifying was Sally Katzen, OIRA administrator under former President Clinton. Katzen argued that the administration had offered no explanation of the problems that prompted the new order. Furthermore, the order follows other recent controversial White House directives concerning information quality, peer review standards for regulatory science, risk assessments, and guidance practices. Together, Katzen asserted, these measures represent “a steady and unwavering effort to consolidate authority in OMB and further restrict agency autonomy and discretion.”

The most recent executive order states that “no rulemaking shall commence nor be included” for consideration without the approval of an agency’s regulatory policy officer, unless specifically authorized by the agency head. This means that presidential appointees could quash efforts such as new US Food and Drug Administration rules for the use of nanotechnology in medical devices, for example, or FCC (Federal Communications Commission) requirements that lights at federally licensed communications towers be changed to make the towers less deadly to migratory birds—before the public even learns that such regulations are being considered. “At any point in the process, the regulatory policy officer will be able to intervene,” said Rick Melberth of OMB Watch, a Washington, DC–based nonprofit organization.

David Vladeck, of Georgetown University School of Law and a member of the OMB Watch board of directors, decried the apparent sea change in regulatory philosophy signaled by the market failure “super-mandate.” It “appears nowhere in statute,” he testified, “and it cannot be reconciled with the dominant thrust of the health and safety statutes, which are designed to prevent deaths and injuries by avoiding market failure, rather than waiting until it is too late and market failure is evident.”

In his comments to the committee, the Chamber of Commerce’s Kovacs stated that agencies issue some 4000 new regulations annually, as well as thousands of guidance documents. More than 110,000 regulations currently exist, he said, with compliance costs estimated to be as high as $1.13 trillion (a figure disputed by Katzen). Kovacs lauded the expansion of White House scrutiny of guidance documents, which have been used to accomplish “backdoor regulation,” he said.

“There’s a grain of truth to this,” Melberth conceded, as agencies are looking for faster ways of doing their job. But Congress specifically exempted guidance documents from the external appraisals required for formal rules, he said, adding that saddling the system with additional layers of review—including scientific and technical review—that substitute OMB for agency expertise only delays actions required by law.

Likewise, Vladeck and others expressed wariness over the new requirement that agencies aggregate the annual compliance costs of new rules, saying that doing so would open the door for OIRA to cap the compliance costs agencies may impose. “Nothing in the statutes Congress has enacted gives OIRA the right to ration protections...through regulation,” Vladeck testified.

A Congressional Research Service report published 5 February characterized the executive order as a “clear expansion of presidential authority over rulemaking” that meshes with the administration’s view of the “unitary executive.” It concluded that the ultimate impacts will depend on how the changes are implemented.

Noreen Parks (e-mail: nmparks@pixi.com) is a freelance science and environmental writer based in Hawaii.

Just Another Report, or a Sea Change for Ocean Research?

2007-10-09T20:37:51Z

For several years, ocean science advocates have been buoyed by various reports focusing attention on the importance of invigorating and prioritizing ocean research. Indeed, the US Ocean Action Plan called for the development of a long-range national ocean research agenda....

For several years, ocean science advocates have been buoyed by various reports focusing attention on the importance of invigorating and prioritizing ocean research. Indeed, the US Ocean Action Plan called for the development of a long-range national ocean research agenda.

The wait for this much-anticipated plan ended on 26 January 2007. In a day filled with a White House ceremony and a public briefing at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, DC, the federal government issued its ocean research agenda. Prepared by the National Science and Technology Council’s Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (JSOST), Charting the Course for Ocean Science in the United States for the Next Decade: An Ocean Research Priorities Plan and Implementation Strategy establishes a federal and national research framework for the coming decade.

According to Dan Walker of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, a cochair of the JSOST, the report is unique because it evolved from prior drafts to reflect the breadth of the ocean sciences community. Moreover, unlike a traditional discipline-centered research plan, Charting the Course is organized around six societally important themes. Within this framework, 20 long-range research priorities are articulated. Four of these have been identified as high priorities requiring immediate attention: (1) forecasting the response of coastal ecosystems to persistent forcing and extreme events; (2) performing comparative analysis of marine ecosystem organization; (3) developing sensors for marine ecosystems; and (4) assessing the variability of the meridional overturning circulation, with its implications for rapid climate change.

Reflecting the wave of enthusiasm for science education and outreach that is flowing through a growing segment of the scientific community, and perhaps responding to the NSF (National Science Foundation) push to encourage scientists to communicate research findings to audiences beyond the research community, Charting the Course includes a discussion of the national need for improved ocean education and public outreach. “This interagency priorities plan represents a significant first step towards strengthening our ocean research and educational enterprise,” says Anthony Michaels, president of the National Association of Marine Laboratories. Michaels is pleased that the “plan starts to recognize the importance of blending research and education,” but hopes this integration will be further enhanced as the plan moves forward into the implementation phase.

Centrally important to any research plan or agenda is the availability of financial and human resources for the ultimate execution of the research. Indeed, this issue was raised in comments submitted to the JSOST by AIBS in late 2006: “A significant concern with the draft report is that it fails to articulate the funding that will be sought to achieve the proposed goals.... A realistic budget request and multi-year commitment to federal research program managers would seem to be a central element necessary for the ultimate success of the JSOST research plan.”

All too often, government documents lack a clear statement of the required financial commitment. Sadly, the same might be said for Charting the Course. The report does, however, allocate nearly a page to explaining the mechanisms that will be used for seeking and coordinating federal resources.

Although free of budget commitments, Charting the Course “will impact federal funding policy,” according to Walker. To illustrate this pledge, senior administration officials joined together at a White House event before the public briefing on the report. According to an administration press release, the Bush administration plans “major budget increases totaling more than $140 million to support coastal and marine conservation efforts in Fiscal Year 2008.” Of this amount, $20 million would be provided to the NSF and the US Geological Survey. NSF director Arden Bement acknowledged the pledge, stating, “Stewardship of the planet and its oceans begins with a clear understanding of the seas, and science and education are the tools that can achieve it. In partnership with the ocean community and other federal agencies, NSF is proud and excited to support research, discovery and innovation to fulfill the vision of the Ocean Research Priorities Plan.”

Now that a long-range, community-wide research agenda has been established for the ocean sciences community, it remains to be seen whether the community will fully embrace the plan and work to ensure that the funds are provided to achieve its ambitious goals. It also remains to be seen whether other research communities will strive to coordinate and define community-wide research programs similar to those for astronomy and, now, for ocean science.

Robert E. Gropp (e-mail: ) is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office.

Declining Amphibian Populations: What Is the Next Step?

2007-01-30T17:15:10Z

Declines in global amphibian populations have been in news headlines around the world since they were acknowledged in 1989 at the First World Congress of Herpetology. Eager to explain the causes, biologists have established ambitious research, monitoring, and inventory programs....

Declines in global amphibian populations have been in news headlines around the world since they were acknowledged in 1989 at the First World Congress of Herpetology. Eager to explain the causes, biologists have established ambitious research, monitoring, and inventory programs. But what is being done at the policy level to stem current declines and prevent future losses?

According to biologist Edmund Brodie, a professor at Utah State University, very little is being done. In the Salt Lake City Tribune this past summer, Brodie argued that “scientists and environment managers around the world are well aware of the crisis facing amphibians, and it is time to quit talking and get on with the activity of trying to save those species we can still save.”

In the United States, no federal government policy specifically targets amphibian population declines. However, Congress has periodically provided funding for increased monitoring and research. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated modest funding to agencies in the Department of the Interior for programs to address vulnerability issues, such as the Amphibian Research and Monitoring Initiative undertaken by the US Geological Survey (USGS). The funding helped expand the geographic scope of amphibian monitoring efforts and increased the number of sample sites.

Representative Jack Kingston (R–GA), then vice chairman of the House interior appropriations subcommittee, wrote in an April 2002 feature story that amphibian population declines are “a serious environmental problem that could have