Science of Science Policy

I’ve been at a meeting on the Science of Science Policy the past two days. The subject matter refers to the notion of grounding decisions on science policy more firmly in empirical data along with the notion that there might be some underlying social science theory as to how science policy decisions affect such things as national competitiveness . At the end of the day and a half, I was left with the opinion that while certainly it would be extraordinarily useful to harvest the data on federal investment in R&D across all of the agencies, it’s much harder for me to believe that we can somehow glean the rule set for making the right policy decisions from such data (although clearly heuristics might make themselves apparent). 

One idea that was floated was the notion of an investigator-specific ID number that might be given at the beginning of graduate school and that would allow for better outcomes research. Imagine that you can track all of the papers, grants, patents and products that are connected to any one scientists across their entire career–independent of institution. Putting aside privacy concerns for a moment, such tracking would facilitate the assessment of where and under what conditions early investment (e.g. graduate student fellowships) resulted in massive return on investment.
Jim

Psychology departments are being affected by neuroscience

From today’s Chronicle of Higher Education on-line: psychology departments are morphing as a result of the growth of neuroscience.

Money quote:

A generation ago, most research psychologists worked in small teams and with small budgets. Today, large psychology departments typically include big laboratories. The neuroscientists there work and publish in teams with as many as eight members, and their equipment costs can run into the millions. Down the hall, their more traditionally oriented colleagues continue to work in smaller teams, with much smaller budgets, and sometimes at slower paces.

Jim

The view from a distance: Thanksgiving in the mountains

I was up at the crack of dawn this Thanksgiving morning here on the top of Devil’s Knob mountain in the Virginia Blue Ridge–where our Wintergreen house is located. The two dogs wanted to eat and go for their walk. Out the front door I was greeted by the ruby orb of the rising sun creeping above the purple ridges that stretch out seemingly endlessly to the North. These are the old mountains of North America, their rounded eroded tops in stark contrast to the newer mountain ranges in the West.  Yet their restrained beauty still transfixes me.

Looking out at the view, I was struck by the enormity of my distance at that moment from the news on CNN broadcasting events from half a world away where lives are ripped apart as a result of human anger and presumably ideology–an emergent of our human brains.
There is much still to be thankful on this uniquely North American holiday–to be able to lead an institute of fine inquisitive minds at Krasnow has been a continuous pleasure over the past decade. To ponder the deep questions of how biology embeds into this amazing universe that manifests around us, and better yet to do that for a living–that also is a joy.
Happy Thanksgiving,
Jim

The Economy and our Institute for Advanced Study

It seems that every day recently, the headlines literally scream economic meltdown. I’ve lived a bit more than half a century (I distinctly remember growing up in the 1960’s) and I have to say the recent crisis is unparalleled in my own experience–distinct in its rate of daily change from the economic “malaise” of the late 1970’s.

In that environment, it’s inevitable that the world-wide storm would have effects on this small jewel of an institute for advanced study. And that is certainly the case–as an academic of one of the largest public universities in the Washington D.C. area, we are to some extent dependent upon the generosity of the Virginia taxpayer. But it’s also true that as an academic unit inside a large public university we are to some extent protected from the economic tsunami in a way that our stand-alone sister institutions are not. There is a certain strength that comes from being part of a commonwealth (lower case c intended).
The other positive note that I would think useful is how diversified our sponsored-research portfolio really is. The Institute receives support from multiple federal agencies, international organizations and private sector entities. And I believe, we do excellent science–I would argue that even in the worst of times, the really excellent science will be funded.
On the other hand, we are dealing with real cuts and we expect to see more contraction soon. That is the reality of our current interesting times. I am particularly grateful to our Advisory Board under the current conditions–their continued financial support is more important than ever.
Jim

Chronicle weighs in on Neuroethics meeting

Here’s the take from the Chronicle of Higher Education. We rapped up this afternoon and I think it was a fine meeting.  The key, as was mentioned by many in attendance, was that there were many neuroscientists there–joining the ethicists. So it was truly a trans-disciplinary discussion, which too often is not the case for the field of bioethics in general.

Tomorrow’s the first day of the Society for Neuroscience meeting. It’ll be competing with the G-20 “Breton Woods II” heads of state conference next door to shut down Washington traffic–should be very exciting. I’m taking Metro.
Jim

Live blogging from the First Annual Neuroethics Society meeting

We’re at AAA headquarters here in Washington DC. This is an incredibly eclectic group that ranges from hard-core neurophysiologists to lawyers. In the last session we heard from the CEO of one of the two private lie-detecting companies that purport to have successfully deployed fMRI–I’m pretty skeptical (as was a lot of the audience).

Here’s an interesting piece of data to come out of the meeting: the general public (think juries) tend to trust statements which include “neuroscience jargon” in contrast to those which don’t. So testimony with a neuroscience provenance could actually act to reduce the critical thinking of a jury.
Pretty worrisome.
Jim