|
NSF Biological Sciences Advisory Committee Learns About Advocacy
On April 17, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Biological Sciences Directorate held its Advisory Committee meeting. Following Dr. Collin’s presentation entitled “Life in Transition,” (very large file may take a while to download) much of the remainder of the day was devoted to discussions of biology in the federal science enterprise with presentations from three outside groups who were asked to address the following questions:
1. How does your organization describe and represent the biological sciences/biology with respect to science policy and budget?
2. What are your metrics for determining the effectiveness of “science on the hill” and other similar activities for Congress with respect to science policy and budget?
3. Will your organization provide science policy advice for the transition to a new administration? To the next Congress? If so, will your efforts be targeted to a particular group or groups within the new administration or Congress, and will they emphasize any specific area or areas of science?
Kei Koizumi, Director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), provided an historic review of NSF funding within the context of overall discretionary and non-discretionary spending (large file may take a while to download).
Kei’s presentation highlighted information from the recently released AAAS Annual Budget Report, a chapter of which (on behavioral and social science research funding) is co-authored by APA government relations staff, the Consortium of Social Science Associations, and the American Education Research Association. The Advisory Committee then heard from Dr. Robert Gropp, Director of Public Policy for the American Institute of Biological Sciences (large file may take a while to download). Finally, Dr Howard Garrison, Deputy Executive Director for Public Policy at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology described his organization’s role in advocating for biological science.
Much of the discussion centered around what the next administration might do with respect to science funding; how to make as good a case for funding basic NSF-type research as NIH advocates have made for health-related research; how to introduce science as a subject in upcoming election debates; who the next Presidential Science Advisor might be; and what lessons the science community should learn from the success of the American Competitiveness legislation and the National Academies report that fueled it. |
