S. Hartman, W. Horner, C. Jackson, E. Kovak, V. Velan
Feeding a growing world population and adapting agricultural production to a changing climate is a significant challenge that can be mitigated through the use of new gene-editing technologies in crops. However, current regulatory processes are overly burdensome and confusing, limit scientific innovation, and unduly hinder the widespread production of genetically engineered crops. To address these shortcomings, we propose the consolidation of federal regulatory communication into the United States Department of Agriculture and a unified and detailed web platform for commercial approval applications.
{"title":"Streamlining USDA Regulation of Gene Editing to Benefit US Agriculture","authors":"S. Hartman, W. Horner, C. Jackson, E. Kovak, V. Velan","doi":"10.38126/JSPG170108","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG170108","url":null,"abstract":"Feeding a growing world population and adapting agricultural production to a changing climate is a significant challenge that can be mitigated through the use of new gene-editing technologies in crops. However, current regulatory processes are overly burdensome and confusing, limit scientific innovation, and unduly hinder the widespread production of genetically engineered crops. To address these shortcomings, we propose the consolidation of federal regulatory communication into the United States Department of Agriculture and a unified and detailed web platform for commercial approval applications.","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130220562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
: Policy decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be informed by consulting the most relevant and updated information. Accordingly, the quality of information used is an integral part of federal decision-making as it can add credibility to policy. In 2018, EPA proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule (EPA-STRS, updated March 2020) as an effort to assess the quality of studies used by EPA and increase transparency in policy-making decisions through conducting publicly accessible peer-reviews of all data and models. Herein we detail three arguments detailing differing perspectives on EPA-STRS and determine that, while the proposed rule purportedly seeks to strengthen the scientific underpinning of EPA policy, the current language risks the integrity of the agency’s policy-making process. EPA-STRS neither adequately details methodology with which independent validation would occur, nor delineates how valid exceptions to this rule would be identified in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, the implementation of this rule as currently written would allow for the politicization of EPA policymaking through abuse of the scientific study screening process. We propose that EPA amend EPA-STRS to reduce ambiguity, minimize biases, and address concerns related to independent research validation and peer review.
{"title":"Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science: The Environmental Protection Agency’s Proposal to Internally Regulating Science","authors":"R. S. Herron, Jonathan Klonowski, Cassandra Rios","doi":"10.38126/JSPG170113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.38126/JSPG170113","url":null,"abstract":": Policy decisions by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should be informed by consulting the most relevant and updated information. Accordingly, the quality of information used is an integral part of federal decision-making as it can add credibility to policy. In 2018, EPA proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule (EPA-STRS, updated March 2020) as an effort to assess the quality of studies used by EPA and increase transparency in policy-making decisions through conducting publicly accessible peer-reviews of all data and models. Herein we detail three arguments detailing differing perspectives on EPA-STRS and determine that, while the proposed rule purportedly seeks to strengthen the scientific underpinning of EPA policy, the current language risks the integrity of the agency’s policy-making process. EPA-STRS neither adequately details methodology with which independent validation would occur, nor delineates how valid exceptions to this rule would be identified in an unbiased manner. Furthermore, the implementation of this rule as currently written would allow for the politicization of EPA policymaking through abuse of the scientific study screening process. We propose that EPA amend EPA-STRS to reduce ambiguity, minimize biases, and address concerns related to independent research validation and peer review.","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129920388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Charlotte M. de Winde, S. Sarabipour, H. Carignano, Sejal Davla, D. Eccles, Sarah J. Hainer, Mansour Haidar, V. Ilangovan, N. Jadavji, Paraskevi Kritsiligkou, Tai-Ying Lee, Freyja Ólafsdóttir
Securing research funding is a challenge faced by most scientists in academic institutions worldwide. Funding success rates for all career stages are low, but the burden falls most heavily on early career researchers (ECRs). These are young investigators in training and new principal investigators who have a shorter track record. ECRs are dependent on funding to establish their academic careers. The low number of career development awards and the lack of sustained research funding result in the loss of ECR talent in academia. Several steps in the current funding process, from grant conditions to review, play significant roles in the distribution of funds. Furthermore, there is an imbalance where certain research disciplines and labs of influential researchers receive more funding. As a group of ECRs with global representation, we examined funding practices, barriers, and facilitators to the current funding systems. We also identified alternatives to the most common funding distribution practices, such as diversifying risk or awarding grants on a partly random basis. Here, we detail recommendations for funding agencies and grant reviewers to improve ECR funding prospects worldwide and promote a fairer and more inclusive funding landscape for ECRs.
{"title":"Towards inclusive funding practices for early career researchers","authors":"Charlotte M. de Winde, S. Sarabipour, H. Carignano, Sejal Davla, D. Eccles, Sarah J. Hainer, Mansour Haidar, V. Ilangovan, N. Jadavji, Paraskevi Kritsiligkou, Tai-Ying Lee, Freyja Ólafsdóttir","doi":"10.31219/osf.io/9sfm8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/9sfm8","url":null,"abstract":"Securing research funding is a challenge faced by most scientists in academic institutions worldwide. Funding success rates for all career stages are low, but the burden falls most heavily on early career researchers (ECRs). These are young investigators in training and new principal investigators who have a shorter track record. ECRs are dependent on funding to establish their academic careers. The low number of career development awards and the lack of sustained research funding result in the loss of ECR talent in academia. Several steps in the current funding process, from grant conditions to review, play significant roles in the distribution of funds. Furthermore, there is an imbalance where certain research disciplines and labs of influential researchers receive more funding. As a group of ECRs with global representation, we examined funding practices, barriers, and facilitators to the current funding systems. We also identified alternatives to the most common funding distribution practices, such as diversifying risk or awarding grants on a partly random basis. Here, we detail recommendations for funding agencies and grant reviewers to improve ECR funding prospects worldwide and promote a fairer and more inclusive funding landscape for ECRs.","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116970836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Impacts of Emerging Technologies on Inequality and Sustainability","authors":"","doi":"10.38126/jspg1602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg1602","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"113 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123432565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In light of the challenges impeding substantive global action on climate change mitigation, some have begun to look at geoengineering as a possible alternative. Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) is one such strategy that seeks to increase oceanic drawdown of carbon dioxide by stimulating marine phytoplankton growth in large iron-limited swaths of the Southern Ocean. Unfortunately, there remains lingering scientific uncertainty regarding the viability of a sustainable, global scale, iron-induced sequestration pathway. While reduced uncertainty could one day reveal a reasonable, measured approach to leverage OIF under unilateral authority and dynamic management, I argue against attempting to commercialize OIF under any emerging market framework. Current standards for globally recognized compliance offset markets require that a recognized activity is permanent, additional, free of leakage, and absent of adverse side effects. At present, there is not adequate scientific evidence that OIF is any. Worse, measurement challenges, unreliable auditing, ambiguous baselines compromised by high-frequency variability, and uncertain externalities could combine to cripple a market-based approach. Fortunately, the UN London Protocol has banned nonscientific iron fertilization, precluding the adoption of OIF into any international, compliance offset markets. However, voluntary offset markets, or those in which offsets are bought and sold without any federally mandated obligation, are not subject to any legitimate regulatory or enforcement mechanisms. I make that case that absent the appropriate oversight OIF activity on voluntary offset markets motivated by a reasonable market opportunity, the relative ease of deployment, and the perception of an ethical imperative, can, and will continue to, emerge. In turn, I argue that continued research is necessary to help constrain the public perception that voluntary markets depend on by further clarifying the risks, elaborating the challenges, and delegitimizing the promise of an iron bullet.
{"title":"Southern Ocean Iron Fertilization: An Argument Against Commercialization but for Continued Research Amidst Lingering Uncertainty","authors":"T. Rohr","doi":"10.38126/jspg150114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.38126/jspg150114","url":null,"abstract":"In light of the challenges impeding substantive global action on climate change mitigation, some have begun to look at geoengineering as a possible alternative. Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) is one such strategy that seeks to increase oceanic drawdown of carbon dioxide by stimulating marine phytoplankton growth in large iron-limited swaths of the Southern Ocean. Unfortunately, there remains lingering scientific uncertainty regarding the viability of a sustainable, global scale, iron-induced sequestration pathway. While reduced uncertainty could one day reveal a reasonable, measured approach to leverage OIF under unilateral authority and dynamic management, I argue against attempting to commercialize OIF under any emerging market framework. Current standards for globally recognized compliance offset markets require that a recognized activity is permanent, additional, free of leakage, and absent of adverse side effects. At present, there is not adequate scientific evidence that OIF is any. Worse, measurement challenges, unreliable auditing, ambiguous baselines compromised by high-frequency variability, and uncertain externalities could combine to cripple a market-based approach. Fortunately, the UN London Protocol has banned nonscientific iron fertilization, precluding the adoption of OIF into any international, compliance offset markets. However, voluntary offset markets, or those in which offsets are bought and sold without any federally mandated obligation, are not subject to any legitimate regulatory or enforcement mechanisms. I make that case that absent the appropriate oversight OIF activity on voluntary offset markets motivated by a reasonable market opportunity, the relative ease of deployment, and the perception of an ethical imperative, can, and will continue to, emerge. In turn, I argue that continued research is necessary to help constrain the public perception that voluntary markets depend on by further clarifying the risks, elaborating the challenges, and delegitimizing the promise of an iron bullet.","PeriodicalId":438080,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Policy & Governance","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128841617","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：