Extended call to July 12th for applications to serve on Future of Research’s Board of Directors 2018-20

Extended call to July 12th for applications to serve on Future of Research’s Board of Directors 2018-20

Due to issue with the futureofresearch.org domain from July 4-8, we are extending our call for applications to July 12th – please see details below!   *****   Future of Research is looking to recruit new members to serve on our Board of Directors from 2018-2020.   Members of the Board serve for two years. We are looking for people interested in taking a lead on small projects, or in working groups, to support the work of the organization and help us in our goal of helping junior researchers organize local meetings; increasing transparency about the academic system; and generally advocating for change for junior researchers.   In particular, this year we are gearing up to focus on: empowerment of early career researchers, through recognition of their scholarly efforts in peer review, and to advocate for more ECRs on the boards of organizations in the research community; incentivizing and rewarding good mentoring, and calling out egregious behavior and sexual harassment in academe; and fundraising efforts to help sustain the work of the organization going forward. Applications from anyone able to commit to work on these projects will be particularly favorably viewed.   The time commitment expected is 1-2 hours per week, usually working over video calls. We would be happy to receive applications from anyone interested in helping us, regardless of field, career stage or location.   Please spread the word! To apply, fill out the form here and send a brief CV to garymcdow@gmail.com – feel free to contact us for more information! The applications are open until July 12th....
In Defense of Science: the National Science Policy Network

In Defense of Science: the National Science Policy Network

In Defense of Science: The National Science Policy Network Is Helping the Next Generation of Civic Scientists and Engineers to Organize Nationwide Network Receives More than $100,000 in Grants for Local Work   See this op-ed in Scientific American.   From the National Science Policy Network:   The National Science Policy Network (NSPN) is excited to announce a major new effort to support early-career science policy groups nationwide. With the support of Schmidt Futures and other national partners, NSPN will significantly increase assistance to grassroots STEM groups advocating for greater engagement of the scientific community in policy and advocacy.   The political turmoil of the past year has catalyzed civic engagement amongst members of the scientific community. New data from a survey conducted by NSPN earlier this year shows that out of 22 science policy groups surveyed, 45% have launched within the past year and a half, and 60% of all groups operate on an annual budget of $1,200 or less.   To support the growing trend of civic scientists, NSPN is launching three programs focused on providing training and resources.   First, we are providing microgrants for early-career science policy groups, giving seed funding to support high-impact projects and facilitate the growth of smaller, underfunded groups. Second, we are collaborating with Research!America on the Bipartisan Candidate Engagement Initiative to raise awareness among candidates running for national office on the importance of scientific research. Third, we are hosting a fall symposium in NYC to bring together student science policy, advocacy, and communication groups from across the country.   All of this is available at a new website that also...
Call for International Network for the Science of Team Science (INSciTS) Board of Directors Nominations

Call for International Network for the Science of Team Science (INSciTS) Board of Directors Nominations

See below for a call for nominations on the BoD of the International Network for the Science of Team Science (INSciTS) – they are interested in applications from emerging scholars: INSciTS Board of Directors Nominations, Deadline June 22, 2018 For those of you who were not able to attend the SciTS conference in Galveston this year, I am writing to let you know that we have, under the guidance of our advisory board and with generous funding from UTMB, decided to form a 501c3 – the International Network for the Science of Team Science (INSciTS).  INSciTS will now be the new official society of our Science of Team Science community. The formation of INSciTS allows us to: 1. Engage in long-term strategic planning beyond the scope of annual conference planning 2. Develop and deliver ongoing academic and professional development throughout the year to support long-term career growth 3. Foster academic and practice interest/working groups to generate an even more robust evidence base to inform practice Ultimately, we aspire to the following INSciTS vision: INSciTS will create and facilitate a high-impact community that develops and disseminates an evidence-base to support team science and shapes how research is conducted to solve complex problems. Currently, our Board of Directors includes:   Maritza Salazar Campo (President) Kevin Wooten (Treasurer) Holly Falk-Krzesinski (Secretary) Gaetano Lotrecchiano (President-Elect).  We seek to fill up to 8 more positions on our board and nominations are open until June 22nd! We encourage you to become part of the leadership to shape the direction of our organization.  For more information about how to nominate yourself or someone else to the board, please see the attached document. ...
Call for applications to serve on Future of Research’s Board of Directors 2018-20: Applications Close July 10th

Call for applications to serve on Future of Research’s Board of Directors 2018-20: Applications Close July 10th

*We have extended applications to July 12th*   Future of Research is looking to recruit new members to serve on our Board of Directors from 2018-2020.   Members of the Board serve for two years. We are looking for people interested in taking a lead on small projects, or in working groups, to support the work of the organization and help us in our goal of helping junior researchers organize local meetings; increasing transparency about the academic system; and generally advocating for change for junior researchers.   In particular, this year we are gearing up to focus on: empowerment of early career researchers, through recognition of their scholarly efforts in peer review, and to advocate for more ECRs on the boards of organizations in the research community; incentivizing and rewarding good mentoring, and calling out egregious behavior and sexual harassment in academe; and fundraising efforts to help sustain the work of the organization going forward. Applications from anyone able to commit to work on these projects will be particularly favorably viewed.   The time commitment expected is 1-2 hours per week, usually working over video calls. We would be happy to receive applications from anyone interested in helping us, regardless of field, career stage or location.   Please spread the word! To apply, fill out the form here and send a brief CV to info@futureofresearch.org – feel free to contact us for more information! The applications are open until July 10th....
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on sexual harassment in academia to be released June 12th

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on sexual harassment in academia to be released June 12th

  From the National Academies site:   “The study scope will include the following:  Review of the research on the extent to which women in the fields of science, engineering, and medicine are victimized by sexual harassment on college and university campuses, in research labs and field sites; at hospitals/medical centers; and in other academic environments; Examination of existing information on the extent to which sexual harassment in academia negatively impacts the recruitment, retention, and advancement of women pursuing scientific, engineering, technical, and medical careers, with comparative evidence drawn from other sectors, such as the military, government, and the private sector. Identification and analysis of policies, strategies and practices that have been the most successful in preventing and addressing sexual harassment in these settings. For purposes of this study, the definition of sexual harassment includes unwanted sexual advances and requests for sexual favors and other unwelcome conduct that is sexual in nature, as well as those situations in which the work or study environment is made intimidating or offensive as a result of actions that are gender-based and that interfere with an individual’s academic or work performance, opportunities for advancement, and morale.   Report Release Event Public Report Release Event June 12, 2018, 11 am – 12:30 pm ET Washington, DC To attend in person or via webcast: Webcast will be made live on this page on Tuesday, June 12, 2018 at 11:00 AM ET. How can academic institutions improve in the #MeToo era? Join the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on Tuesday June 12, 2018, 11 am – 12:30 pm ET, for the public release of...
Future of Research Statement on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report, “The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through”

Future of Research Statement on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine Report, “The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through”

Future of Research has issued a statement on the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report, “The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through. You can find the text of the statement below, and a downloadable PDF version of the statement here.   *****   Future of Research endorses the recommendations in the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report, “The Next Generation of Biomedical and Behavioral Sciences Researchers: Breaking Through,” released on April 12, 2018. This report addresses the factors influencing transitions of trainees in biomedical and behavioral sciences into independent research careers. It offers recommendations to reform systemic issues that reduce the efficiency of these transitions, and thus affect the productivity and scientific discoveries of researchers in the United States. This report, mandated by Congress under the 21st Century Cures Act, was envisioned by Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Susan Collins (R-ME).   Though the issues that plague the biomedical research system have long been discussed within the scientific community, the key stakeholders (such as federal agencies, private funders, and universities) have frequently abdicated their responsibility for the system. The “Breaking Through” report addresses this issue head-on. The report argues that greater transparency, accountability and shared responsibility are needed to improve the biomedical enterprise.   Many of these suggestions have been made before, and while some changes and interventions have been made, others have not been heeded and have not resolved a key issue: that this enterprise depends on a large amount of cheap, and mostly foreign, labor in the guise of training. We recognize that no stakeholder seems willing to take responsibility...
Watch live today: Release of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on STEM Graduate Education

Watch live today: Release of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report on STEM Graduate Education

  The National Academies will launch “Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century” today, which you can view remotely via webcast, at 1.30pm EST. This consensus study re-visits a 20-year old report on the state of science, technology, engineering and mathematics graduate education in the United States. The study is a comprehensive look at the U.S. graduate education system, identifying policies, programs, and practices that could better meet the diverse education and career needs of graduate students in the coming years.   Those present for discussion include: Alan Leshner (chair of the study), Chief Executive Officer Emeritus, AAAS Mary Sue Coleman, President, Association of American Universities (AAU) Kenneth Gibbs, Jr., Program Director, National Institute of General Medical Sciences Suzanne Ortega, President, Council of Graduate Schools Kate Stoll, Senior Policy Advisor, MIT Washington Keith Yamamoto, Vice Chancellor for Science Policy & Strategy, Vice Dean for Research, School of Medicine, Professor of Cellular & Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco   You can view additional details about this project here at the National Academies website and you can view the live webcast here....
Join us in crowdsourcing journal policies May 31st: Which journals recognize co-reviews by graduate students and postdocs?

Join us in crowdsourcing journal policies May 31st: Which journals recognize co-reviews by graduate students and postdocs?

Data from an eLife Early Career Researcher Group survey   At a recent meeting about journal peer review, one of the key outcomes was the realization that there needs to be a greater effort to recognize the scholarly contributions of graduate students and postdocs.   “Ghostwriting” of peer reviews, whereby the name of graduate students and postdocs is not passed on to, acknowledged or collected by the journal, but is instead submitted solely under the name of the PI is an apparently widespread but unrecognized phenomenon. For example, data in a recent survey conducted by the eLife Early Career Researcher Group, showed that nearly 60% of graduate students and postdocs surveyed saw no involvement by their supervisor in preparing a peer review report.   It’s clear that a number of journals do recognize that early career researchers are involved in the peer review process – but which ones? What do they require in the reporting of co-reviewers, and what language sets the expectation for this reporting? To which journals can early career researchers be directing their efforts to participated in, and be recognized for, peer review? And by recognize, this does not mean publicly disclosing the names – merely that the journal editor knows who has really carried out the review, likely key data in a climate where it is claimed there are too few reviewers to carry out all peer review.   We are therefore excited to announce, as part of an upcoming project at Future of Research on recognizing the contribution of and empowering early career researchers, that we are partnering with a number of actors in this space...
Future of Research welcomes Dr. Adriana Bankston as Associate Director of Fundraising and Strategic Initiatives

Future of Research welcomes Dr. Adriana Bankston as Associate Director of Fundraising and Strategic Initiatives

We at Future of Research are very excited to announce that as of May 14th, former Board member Dr. Adriana Bankston has joined the FoR staff as Associate Director of Fundraising and Strategic Initiatives. Dr. Bankston will start with us as a part-time hire for 6 months which we hope to sustain as part of her efforts into raising funds.   As we enter the last year of our initial seed grant from Open Philanthropy, we are looking into how we sustain the efforts of Future of Research. It has become clear that this work requires dedicated time and effort, and with the enthusiasm and dedication to the organization that Dr. Bankston brings, we are hopeful that we will be able to more efficiently sustain the efforts of FoR.   Dr. Bankston is a skeletal muscle biologist by training, with the overall goal of improving the biomedical research enterprise. In 2005, she obtained her B.S. in Biological Sciences from Clemson University with a Magna cum laude distinction. She then moved onto Emory University, where she completed her Ph.D. in Biochemistry, Cell and Developmental Biology in 2013. Her Ph.D. dissertation studies with Dr. Grace Pavlath centered around skeletal muscle growth and repair using primary muscle stem cells and rodent models. Her postdoctoral studies at the University of Louisville were initially focused on membrane trafficking, followed by the regulation of mammalian myogenesis with Dr. Ashok Kumar until September 2016.   During her postdoctoral studies, she developed an interest in training practices and policies affecting junior scientists within U.S. institutions. To this end, she co-founded and co-organized two initiatives to improve professional...
Postdoc salaries at the National Institutes of Health in 2016 and 2017, and advocating for NRSA stipend raises

Postdoc salaries at the National Institutes of Health in 2016 and 2017, and advocating for NRSA stipend raises

As part of our effort to make individual postdoc salaries in the U.S. more transparent, we have been carrying out Freedom of Information requests at public institutions to have a standard, albeit blunt, instrument for gathering data on postdoctoral researchers. You can find more information and data on our requests to public universities for data as of Dec 1st 2016 here; but as we continue with this project, we have recently gathered data from the National Institutes of Health for salaries for their intramural postdocs (i.e. those postdocs who work at NIH Institute laboratories).   Using Freedom of Information requests, we have gathered data for postdocs at all institutes at the NIH as of Dec 1st 2016 and Dec 1st 2017, principally in Intramural Research Training Awards (IRTA, for US Citizens and permanent residents) and Visiting Fellowships (VF, for those typically on non-immigrant visas).   The request asked for: “An excel spreadsheet which provides: The total number of postdoctoral researchers at the institute, appointed to postdoctoral intramural training awards IRTAs or as Visiting Fellows, with their job titles on both 12/1/ 2016 and 12/1/17. The annual salaries on both 12/1/16, and 12/1/17; or monthly compensation received for the payroll month of December 2016 and December 2017, of each of the postdoctoral researchers in the institute appointed to postdoctoral intramural training awards IRTAs or as Visiting Fellows.”   Here we provide a very brief overview of the data that we have gathered, which we are continuing to interrogate. A more thorough analysis will follow in due course.   Number of Postdocs The NIH’s page on Postdoctoral Programs at NIH states: “Altogether, the NIH is...