Repositories of human genetic material emerged more than a decade ago in Iceland with the company deCODE genetics. The United Kingdom has created a biobank with 500,000 enrolled volunteers. In the United States, researchers at Kaiser Permanente have revealed early findings based on a treasure trove of genetic and medical data collected from 100,000 Californians. This effort, establishing perhaps the largest biobank in the United States, has already shown new links between disease traits and genetic variants.

"One of the things that is becoming obvious is that genomes are far more variable from individual to individual than we thought even 5 years ago," said Joshua Meyer, a postdoctoral researcher at Oregon Health and Science University, where he works on chromosomal rearrangements with potential applications in cancer research. "Mapping those variations is really important if we are going to realize the medical dream of personal genomics."

The emergence of low-cost genome sequencing is opening doors across many fields of research, and it all depends on access. "We need more and bigger databases to figure out how to help people, and yet, more and bigger databases mean greater threats to people's privacy," stated Meyer.

The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues sought to address this challenge with its October 2012 report, Privacy and Progress in Whole Genome Sequencing. The report called for formal policies to address ethical dilemmas raised by genome sequencing, particularly for policymakers to create privacy protections governing how genomic data can be collected, stored, and shared. Presently, these data are treated differently depending on who took the sample for sequencing and the state in which it was taken. In many places, they can be used without the patient's knowledge or consent.

"These are just a few discrepancies in public policy that can create confusion and uncertainty when it comes to understanding how to protect some of our most personal data," said Commission Chair Amy Gutmann. "Confusion and uncertainty tend to erode trust, and trust is the key to amassing the large number of genomic data sets needed to make powerful, life-saving discoveries."

A study published in January 2013 in the journal Science (Gymrek et al. 2013) highlighted additional complications. Using public data sets and online resources such as genealogy Web sites—and without violating present federal privacy regulations—Whitehead Institute geneticist Yaniv Erlich and his colleagues deduced the names of dozens of supposedly anonymous individuals who had contributed DNA for medical or scientific research. The report "calls into question whether the goal of [the] complete deidentification of many types of human data is realistic in today's information-rich society," stated an accompanying commentary (Rodriguez et al. 2013).

Privacy is a two-sided coin. In addition to issues regarding data access, there is also controversy surrounding incidental findings, which are unexpected but potentially important information discovered as a byproduct of an experiment on some other topic. For example, genome sequencing may reveal that a donor faces a substantial risk of a serious but treatable health condition. The Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues made no recommendations regarding the return of incidental findings, other than to advise that DNA contributors be informed of their possibility and whether they would be returned.

In contrast, a National Institutes of Health working group released explicit recommendations (Wolf et al. 2012). They called on biobanks to shoulder the responsibility for communicating pertinent findings to DNA donors, instead of the researcher and associated institution generating the result—as has traditionally been argued.

Some experts in the field, however, have called for flexibility. US biobanks—of which there are over 600—vary in a number of ways, including their size, their funding sources, and the types and sources of DNA samples held in them, according to a recent study (Henderson et al. 2013). "Given the diversity in biobank organizational characteristics identified in our survey, it's likely that management and governance policies will have to be tailored to fit the particular context," concluded Gail Henderson, lead author of the study and head of University of North Carolina's Center for Genomics and Society. "One-size policies will not fit all."

Resolving the issues associated with personal genetic data will not be easy. New regulations will likely be required, and the recommendations of the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues may provide a starting point for policymakers in the quest for genome privacy.

References cited
Gymrek M, McGuire AL, Golan D, Halperin E, Erlich Y. 2013. Identifying personal genomes by surname inference. Science 339: 321–324.
Henderson GE, Cadigan RJ, Edwards TP, Conlon I, Nelson AG, Evans JP, Davis AM, Zimmer C, Weiner BJ. 2013. Characterizing biobank organizations in the U.S.: Results from a national survey. Genome Medicine 5: 3.
Rodriguez LL, Brooks LD, Greeberg JH, Green ED. 2013. The complexities of genomic identifiability. Science 339: 275–276.
Wolf SM, et al. 2012. Managing incidental findings and research results in genomic research involving biobanks and archived data sets. Genetics in Medicine 14: 361–384.

BioScience 63: 333
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.5.6

"Collaboration between our leading experts in science and technology and Congress and federal agencies is the only way that public policy decisions will be made using sound science," said Senator Jay Rockefeller (D–WV), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, in a statement. "When drafting policy or regulations, we need to solicit advice from a spectrum of experts—from universities, nonprofits, industry, or scientific and professional societies—who deal in the issues every day."

Of course, scientific knowledge is not the only factor weighed by lawmakers (politics and personal values also play an important role) but science can and should be part of the decisionmaking equation, according to those who work both inside and outside the system.

Members of the biological sciences community are stepping up across the nation to participate in the legislative process. Their engagement spans a range of activities, including meeting with lawmakers in the nation's capital, consulting with local decisionmakers, and participating in letter-writing campaigns.

Lida Beninson, a PhD candidate in integrative physiology at the University of Colorado, became involved in science policy after doing coursework on the topic. She met with the Colorado congressional delegation last year in Washington, DC, as part of the Congressional Visits Day organized by the Biological and Ecological Sciences Coalition, a group co-chaired by AIBS and the Ecological Society of America.

Beninson found that most congressional staff were easy to talk to and receptive to her request for sustained support for federal investments in biology. The best experience for Beninson, however, was talking to staffers who challenged her viewpoint. She found these lively discussions about the state of science interesting and helpful to her effort to understand how best to communicate with policymakers. "The people who push back a little are the ones who are really listening to your case," said Beninson.

Beninson plans to stay active in science policy. "We're in danger of losing federal support for science," she said. "More and more congressional decisions depend on scientific guidance. It was gratifying to see that my expertise in science could benefit the field in a broader way."

Researchers have also found ways to get involved in policy outside of the nation's capital. Stephen Vives, professor and chair of the Department of Biology at Georgia Southern University, organized a tour of his department for Representative John Barrow (D–GA). The congressman visited the construction site of the campus' new biological science building. In addition to learning about the facility's green-building features, Representative Barrow was keen to learn about the research being conducted by faculty members. Vives used the annual Biological Sciences Congressional District Visits event last August as the prompt for reaching out to Barrow.

"Although I was a little bit nervous about the visit, Congressman Barrow made it easy," said Vives. "He asked questions and was very engaging. It was a nice conversation. I would encourage others to get involved. We need to get our story out and make it easier for our [elected] representatives to communicate the value of research."

Scott Collins, a regents' professor of biology at the University of New Mexico, has been an active participant in congressional meetings, science briefings, and letter-writing campaigns. "Everything we do depends on what happens in Congress," said Collins. "As a community, we have not been very effective in getting our message across."

Although Collins recognizes that each individual letter may not always have an impact in Congress, collective action by researchers does. "Congress makes a lot of decisions about ecology, and scientists need to be at the table when decisions are made," said Collins.

The involvement of researchers is especially important in terms of federal investments in science, according to Collins. "If Congress does not hear from the scientific community about funding [for science], it is that much easier for our programs to be cut" during the congressional appropriations process.

The 113th Congress convenes this month, during which lawmakers will begin to debate numerous policies that will affect biological research and education. How beneficial or detrimental those policies are will depend, in part, on the input of the scientific community.

BioScience 63: 12
doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.4

The conservation title of the farm bill cost $844 million in fiscal year (FY) 2012. Although there are many conservation programs within the bill, one of the most widely known is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). The goal of the CRP, which has existed in various forms since the Agriculture Act of 1954, is to counteract erosion by providing rental payments and cost-share assistance to landowners who take sensitive land out of production. Senator Debbie Stabenow (D–MI), chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, credits CRP for preventing in 2012 a repeat of the 1930s Dust Bowl that devastated the American Southwest: "The soil, while it was dry, stayed on the ground because [of] the Conservation Reserve Program."

The impact of the CRP in reducing nonpoint-source pollution has been substantial. The Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute estimates that in FY 2010, the CRP reduced the nitrogen leaving fields by 95 percent (607 million pounds), and phosphorus by 86 percent (122 million pounds). The US Department of Agriculture Farm Service Agency estimates that CRP lands retained 220 million tons of sediment in that same period. Despite its successes, the CRP will continue downsizing as legislators continue to lower the cap on acres that can be enrolled. The CRP lost 7 million acres in the 2008 farm bill, and another 7 million acres went on the chopping block in the 2012 farm bill, bringing the cap to 25 million acres by 2017.

Senator Pat Roberts (R–KS), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, made it clear that trimming the budget was a key priority of the committee: "The Senate Agriculture Committee voluntarily wrote and reported a bill that provides $23.6 billion in deficit reduction.... We are the first authorizing committee to produce that kind of mandatory budget savings, and it was voluntary."

Conservation groups are concerned that the conservation programs, which account for only 7 percent of the farm bill's estimated $1 trillion price tag over the next 10 years, took a disproportionate share of the reductions. As the Senate began deliberation on the bill, 523 individuals and organizations requested in a letter that senators hold the line on conservation title funding. The groups argued that the funding levels the committee approved in April demonstrate that conservation "is already contributing more than its fair share to budget deficit reduction."

Even as the Senate debates the future of conservation programs, the programs are already taking a hit through the FY 2013 appropriations process. At a March subcommittee hearing, Representative Jack Kingston (R–GA), chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, took aim at the CRP: "CRP is something like 10 percent of the crop acreage, but it is 50 percent of the expenditure.... People are getting a monthly check and they decided they like the program. I think we need to look at it." Ranking member Sam Farr (D–CA) offered his own twist on the usual disparagement of paying people not to farm: "We ought not be paying people for not farming on land they shouldn't be farming" in the first place.

The debate over acreage caps could be moot, however, as prices for corn rise, prompting farmers to opt out of their CRP contracts. In the past year alone, the program has lost 1.5 million acres. The current total of 28 million acres is the lowest amount of enrolled acreage since 1988. Given the importance of CRP lands to wildlife such as migratory birds, conservation groups are keeping close tabs on these land-use changes. "The rate at which native grassland, particularly in our nation's prairies, is being converted rivals any in recent history," said Ducks Unlimited's chief conservation officer Paul Schmidt. "The results could be disastrous for this continent's waterfowl and wildlife."

BioScience 62: 797
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.9.4

The HGP generated great prosperity, according to a 2011 report by the Battelle Technology Partnership Practice. Between 1988 and 2010, human genome sequencing and associated activities by private industry and researchers generated $796 billion in US economic output. This represents a return on investment of $141 for every $1 spent by the government. The HGP has also generated an estimated 3.8 million job-years of employment and increased government revenue. As was reported by the Battelle group, the genomics-enabled industry generated more than $3.7 billion in federal taxes and $2.3 billion in state and local taxes in 2010 alone. "Thus in one year, revenues returned to government nearly equaled the entire 13-year investment in the HGP," states the report.

Beyond economic benefits, the HGP has influenced and benefited numerous disciplines outside genomics. From human health to agriculture and forensics, the discoveries and methods resulting from the project have generated numerous societal benefits. No one could have anticipated how revolutionary the project would be in improving human health, feeding the planet, fueling society, and remediating degraded environments.

"From a simple return on investment, the financial stake made in mapping the entire human genome is clearly one of the best uses of taxpayer dollars the US government has ever made," said Greg Lucier, chief executive officer of Life Technologies, whose foundation sponsored Battelle's analysis. "Now we sit at the dawn of the 'Genomics Revolution' and all humankind will reap the benefits as we transfer what we now know about the human genome into major breakthroughs.... These major advancements are rapidly creating multiple new industries and companies and those companies are creating quality jobs for thousands of people."

Of course, the HGP is just one example of government-backed science. The broader and more important issue is the economic track record for federal research and development (R&D) as a whole.

"R&D is central to economic growth," states Fred Block, a research professor at the University of California, Davis. Block's research on the economic effects of government investments in R&D demonstrates the importance of federally sponsored science. From 1948 to 2007, the output per unit of labor at private businesses grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent. More than half of that growth can be attributed to multifactor productivity "or the increase of knowledge that comes from R&D," states Block.

Vijay Vaitheeswaran, an editor for The Economist and the author of a new book on the future of innovation, argues that about 80 percent of US gross domestic product comes from services and activities, including R&D—not the physical production of products.

Accounting for the economic outputs of R&D is no easy task. That is why the federal government has launched an initiative to measure the outcomes of research. The Science and Technology for America's Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation, Competitiveness, and Science (STAR METRICS) initiative aims to track economic outputs, such as jobs and the creation of new companies, resulting from federally funded research. Scientific outcomes, such as publications and patents, will also be tracked. The project is still in the early stages, but it promises to create the necessary digital infrastructure to link science funding with outcomes.

Even without the detailed information that STAR METRICS aims to provide, ample evidence exists to make a strong case for the economic returns from federally funded science. "We have powerful evidence of R&D, but funding is moving in the wrong direction," said Block. Declining investments in science will impair the nation's ability to innovate and prosper in the future. "We're eating our seed corn."

The economic recession should not be used as an excuse to defer investments in science, according to Vaitheeswaran. The government invested in America during the Great Depression, investments that later fueled the economic growth of the 1950s and 1960s. "Great economies, like great companies, invest during a downturn," said Vaitheeswaran.

Watch a video of a recent briefing for policymakers on the benefits of federally funded research and development. The event was organized by an interdisciplinary group of scientific organizations, including the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which publishes BioScience. The video is available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=5m6y_ P2vUfg&feature=youtu.be.

BioScience 62: 631
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.7.4

Scientists have long asserted that research is an investment that yields economic prosperity. A growing number of scientists and engineers have more recently advised that the biological sciences are poised to inspire transformative discoveries that can solve persistent problems while stimulating new economic opportunities. Indeed, in 2009, the National Research Council (NRC) released a 112-page report, A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution, which offered recommendations intended to harness the potential of the biological sciences to solve society's grand challenges in the areas of energy, environment, food, and health.

The NRC report received a tepid response from many in the research community. Some scientists and agency research managers felt that the report stated the obvious or failed to make a compelling argument for fundamental research or specific lines of research. Many in the science-policy community, however, welcomed the report as a useful tool for triggering an important policy discussion.

To a degree, the NRC report provided a roadmap for policymakers interested in cultivating a bioeconomy. In September 2011, President Obama announced his intent to develop a National Bioeconomy Blueprint, a framework that would identify government actions to harness biological research innovations to address national challenges in health, food, energy, and the environment. It appears, therefore, that policymakers, including those in the White House, are indeed considering the roadmap offered by the NRC.

"Biological research underpins the foundation of a significant portion of our economy. By better leveraging our national investments in biological research and development, the Administration will grow the jobs of the future and improve the lives of all Americans," the OSTP stated in a Federal Register notice soliciting public input on the draft plan. "Twenty-first century advances in biological research and technologies are poised to return tremendous public benefits ... advances in human-genome-informed personalized medicine and data analytics could be combined to improve human health in novel ways. In bio-based industry, biological design can create new opportunities for biofuels, chemicals, materials, and energy-efficient manufacturing processes," wrote the OSTP.

According to administration documents from last fall, the National Bioeconomy Blueprint will identify, among other things, strategies to meet grand challenges, promote commercialization and entrepreneurship, focus research and development investments in areas that will provide the foundation for the bioeconomy, and expand workforce training to prepare the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Some scientists have been concerned that a bioeconomy policy focus during a period of significant federal budget pressure could threaten investments in fundamental scientific research, such as that supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF). However, others see opportunity on the horizon. This camp suggests that the OSTP's initiative demonstrates that policy-makers recognize that investing in the biological sciences is in our national interest.

Biology is "integral to understanding and solving the challenges of sustainable food production, reversing damage to our natural resources, developing alternatives to fossil fuels, and moving toward health care that takes an individual's environment and microbiome into account," states Nadine Lymn, director of public affairs for the Ecological Society of America. "A national focus on harnessing biological research to meet these challenges offers an opportunity to strengthen resources for the biological community," Lymn asserts. Investments in the NSF would have to be included, because it funds the foundational research that leads to the discoveries that inform developments in the bioeconomy.

Even scientists who are eager to embrace the bioeconomy concept worry about how a national policy might affect science and society. Karl Glasener, director of science policy for the American Society of Agronomy, the Crop Science Society of America, and the Soil Science Society of America, says that "crop scientists are interested in developing biocrops through both plant breeding and genetic manipulation that are best suited for conversion to ethanol." However, Glasener warns, soil scientists "are concerned that any effort to develop a bioeconomy not compromise the environment." Many soil and environmental scientists worry that a push to generate biofuels or other products from crop residues could lead to soil erosion, loss of organic matter, and water-quality issues.

Glasener believes that the OSTP is genuinely interested in obtaining answers to specific questions that can inform bioeconomy policy development. Some policy experts suggest, however, that an ongoing process for considering new issues and concerns and refining policy objectives is necessary to ensure public confidence in whatever bioeconomy policy the nation may pursue.

BioScience 62: 121
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.2.5

"I would like to stay in the US long term, but I'm not sure as of now," said Prithviraj. "The reason I'm not sure is because the US makes it so hard for us foreign nationals to get a green card, irrespective of how qualified we are."

The dilemma faced by Prithviraj and other foreign-born graduates with an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) is that they must either wait for years for the chance to attain permanent residency in the United States or return abroad. Under current immigration policy, there is no direct path from graduation from an American university to permanent residency. Instead, many graduates use a temporary visa to work in the United States while they wait for a green card. The process can take years—even up to a decade. During this time, visa holders may be unable to seek promotions, move to a new city, or change jobs.

"The world's best and brightest aren't begging to be let into the United States any more," said Vivek Wadhwa, director of research at Duke University's Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization, at a recent hearing held by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives. "They often have better opportunities in their home countries than they have in the US. We can't take it for granted that everyone wants to come here; we have to start competing for the best global talent."

For the time being, the United States is still the top destination for students from abroad. America's edge, however, is shrinking. In 2006, 20 percent of foreign students worldwide attended US universities, down from 25 percent in 2000. Despite this decline, temporary residents still make up a sizable proportion of US STEM graduates: 24 percent of master's degree recipients and 33 percent of doctoral degree recipients in 2007.

Although most of these graduates plan to stay in the United States after completing their degrees, the percentage of doctoral recipients who actually stay in the country is dropping. For the doctoral class of 2002, 62 percent were still in the country five years later. This figure is slightly lower than the five-year stay rate for the class of 2000, although it is higher than that of the previous decade.

Despite high retention of STEM graduates, lawmakers from both ends of the political spectrum are concerned about the roughly 40 percent of foreign graduates who leave the country after their training is complete. Congressional Democrats and Republicans have floated legislation to reform immigration policies to address this issue.

"It makes no sense for us to educate the world's brightest students and then ship them back to their home countries to compete against us," stated Representative Zoe Lofgren (D–CA), ranking member of the House's Subcommittee on Immigration Policy and Enforcement, in a press release. Lofgren, whose district includes part of Silicon Valley, is the sponsor of legislation (HR 2161) that would help American companies attract and retain the best and the brightest workers by empowering these companies to seek green cards for graduates with an advanced STEM degree from an American university.

Representative Jeff Flake (R–AZ) has proposed legislation (HR 399) that would offer permanent residency to foreign-born students who earn a PhD in a STEM field from an American university and who have an offer of employment. Flake's bill, known as the STAPLE Act, would "staple a green card to every diploma," notes the Congressman. "Unless we want to see the next Google or Intel created overseas, we've got to enact legal immigration reforms that allow foreign-born, US-educated students who have earned advanced degrees to remain and work in the country after they've graduated," said Flake in a statement issued by his office. HR 399 has drawn bipartisan support from more than a dozen cosponsors.

Despite some bipartisan rhetoric, the future of immigration reform for skilled STEM workers is uncertain. The largest hurdle is likely to be that congressional action will probably be tied to the issue of illegal immigration, a debate that has been stalled for years.

BioScience 62: 15
doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.4

According to proponents, synthetic biology offers great promise. Some scientists suggest that the emerging field could lead to advancements in individualized medicine, more efficient vaccine and drug production, new renewable energy sources, higher-yielding and more sustainable crops, and organisms that can remediate harmful chemicals in the environment. Synthetic biology is also widely acknowledged to have the potential to adversely affect human health, the environment, and national security.

The possibility for unintended environmental effects concerns Allison Snow, a professor in the Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology at the Ohio State University. Uncontrolled escape of synthetic organisms and the rise of new invasive species are a few of the threats, according to Snow. Given the risks, synthetic organisms will need to be thoroughly evaluated before they are moved outside contained facilities. "Ecological research takes time and funding," Snow said during a public presentation on synthetic biology in July 2010. "This is why risk assessment research shouldn't be left for the last minute. It should go in tandem as the development of these products is moving forward."

Policymakers recognize there are trade-offs between scientific advancement and societal hazard. The same day the Venter Institute's research was published, President Barack Obama directed his newly minted Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues to provide him with a report considering the issues surrounding synthetic biology.

The president's bioethics panel released its recommendations in December 2010. The report did not call for a moratorium or additional regulations on synthetic biology research; instead, the panel called for the federal government to develop an ongoing, coordinated mechanism for the evaluation of developments, risks, and oversight in synthetic biology. According to the report, "The Commission believes that the field of synthetic biology can proceed responsibly by embracing a middle ground—an ongoing process of prudent vigilance that carefully monitors, identifies, and mitigates potential and realized harms over time." The commission recommended that this approach be led by a central body, such as the Executive Office of the President.

Currently, oversight of synthetic biology falls within existing government regulations for genetically engineered organisms and biotechnology products. Oversight and enforcement is divided among numerous federal agencies, including the Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Departments of Transportation and Commerce. Additionally, any deliberate government release of a synthetic or genetically modified organism would be subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act.

"So far, I think the current system has worked well in the US," says Snow, whose research assesses the ecological risks of transgenic crops. "GMOs [genetically modified organisms] that have been commercialized—mainly corn, soybean, cotton, and canola with just a few new traits—are widely considered to pose few new risks. With synthetic biology, which is an extension of genetic engineering, new GMOs like blue-green algae for biofuels could be more challenging to evaluate. We have less experience with these organisms and the newly invented traits they will have. It would be naïve to assume that regulations will catch every bad idea and prevent it from happening."

Experts in ethics, biosecurity, and law also see cause for concern. Some have raised doubts about society's ability to plan for low-probability, highimpact events, such as the release of a synthetic organism. Doubts linger about gaps in the current regulatory framework to oversee privately funded research, especially that of "do-it-yourselfers" who work outside of agencies, universities, and corporations.

Even if the laws were sufficient to cover synthetic biology products, the more important issue, warns Michael Rodemeyer, is "whether the agencies have the resources and tools they need to both assess the risks of this new technology and to manage the risks as well." Now at the University of Virginia, Rodemeyer was formerly assistant director for environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "The challenge, though, particularly as the technology develops will be to develop guidelines that are sufficiently cautionary, but without imposing unnecessarily expensive and cumbersome containment requirements that might hinder research."

It remains to be seen whether or how the federal government will strike a balance between scientific discovery and risk mitigation.

doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.4.5

The 112th Congress has at least 95 new members in the House of Representatives and 16 in the Senate. A number of these legislators won elections in part by championing ideas that will set some policy discussions back years. According to an assessment by the progressive group Think Progress, 35 of 46 Republicans in the Senate and 125 of 240 Republicans in the House have publicly questioned the science of global climate change.

The newly elected legislators will not be the only roadblock to action, according to some advocates for issues ranging from federal investment in science to adoption of climate change policy. Some of the returning members of Congress have built long and storied careers on questioning science. Senator James Inhofe (R–OK) was recently profiled in the newspaper Roll Call. Reporter John Stanton wrote of Inhofe: "He boasted of his role at international climate change talks last year in Copenhagen, in which he was vilified by virtually the entire world. 'It was really quite enjoyable,' Inhofe said, recalling when he caused a commotion by announcing to attendees that the United States would never ratify a climate change deal. 'I always remember with all those people in the room, hundreds of them, and all the cameras. And they all had one thing in common: They all hated me.'"

Not all Republicans share Inhofe's beliefs or amusements. Yet with each passing year it appears that there are fewer Republican members of Congress willing to embrace or act upon scientific knowledge, particularly when it relates to issues such as climate change.

Two Republican members of the House of Representatives who have publically challenged their colleagues on climate change are not members of the 112th Congress; Representative Vernon Ehlers (R–MI) retired, and Representative Bob Inglis (R–SC) was defeated in a primary election by a tea party candidate. Inglis has warned his colleagues that a focus on criticizing climate science and scientists is unproductive, particularly when the nation's competitors are working to develop next-generation energy sources.

At a climate change hearing last November, however, the then-presumptive new chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology, Texas Republican Ralph Hall, argued that reasonable people still disagree about the science.

The challenges facing advocates for action on the issue of climate change are great. Representative John Shimkus (R–IL) has used religion to argue against government action on climate change. "The Earth will end only when God declares it's time to be over," Shimkus said during a 2009 congressional hearing. "Man will not destroy this Earth. This Earth will not be destroyed by a flood."

Meanwhile, Inglis asserted that many in South Carolina perceived his newly held position—that climate change is real—as a slip to "Satan's side," as he told Evan Lehmann of the New York Times/ClimateWire. Inglis further explained to Lehmann that his position that atmospheric warming is a scientific certainty was one of three "blasphemies" he committed. Failure to support President Bush's troop surge in Iraq and support for President Bush's Troubled Asset Relief Program were the other two.

"For many conservatives, [supporting climate change] became the marker that you had crossed to Satan's side—that you had left God and gone to Satan's side on climate change...because many evangelical Christians in our district would say that it's up to God to determine the length of Earth, and therefore, you are invading the province of God," Inglis told Lehmann.

In this newly divided government, in which the leaders of one chamber owe their political fortune to freshly minted conservatives seemingly at odds with some in their own party, only time will tell whether and how the issues of the day will be addressed.

doi:10.1525/bio.2011.61.2.4

"The retirements of champions of science, such as Representatives Brian Baird, Bart Gordon, Vern Ehlers, and Dave Obey and the defeats of Senator Arlen Specter and Rep. Alan Mollohan [in primary elections earlier this year] mean the loss of considerable support for science in the Congress," warned Howard J. Silver, executive director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations, in an e-mail interview.

The House Committee on Science and Technology will be hit hardest by these departures: Committee Chair Bart Gordon (D–TN) is retiring after 26 years in Congress. Since becoming chairman in 2007, Gordon twice championed the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act, the law that aims to stimulate innovation and improve science education by increasing funding authorizations for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other federal agencies that support basic research.

The leadership of several House science subcommittees will also change. The top Democrat and Republican on the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will leave Congress in December. Chairman Brian Baird (D–WA), a clinical psychologist, is retiring; Ranking Member Bob Inglis (R–SC) was defeated in a runoff election during the Republican primary. Subcommittee on Research and Science Education Ranking Member Vernon Ehlers (R–MI), a physicist, is also retiring after 17 years in Congress.

Collectively, the House science panel will lose at least 50 years of congressional experience. "Representatives Gordon, Ehlers and Baird will be missed," said Samuel M. Rankin III, associate executive director of the American Mathematical Society. "They all understand the value of federal support for science research, are strong advocates for science, and are willing to work across party lines to gain support for legislation impacting science research and education."

Unlike many congressional committees, the House Committee on Science and Technology was able to maintain a degree of bipartisanship under Gordon's leadership. According to a committee press release, all of the committee's bills passed by the House in the past four years have had bipartisan support. With ever-increasing partisanship on Capitol Hill, it is unclear whether this tradition of bipartisanship will remain the norm in the new Congress.

The loss of these members leaves the future uncertain for many of the issues they have advocated. "Reps. Baird and Ehlers have been particularly important for the promotion and defense of peer review and the social and behavioral sciences," Silver said. "Reps. Gordon and Ehlers have been key supporters of improving science education."

Federal investments in science could also be in jeopardy. Representative David Obey (D–WI), chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, is retiring after 21 terms in Congress. As chairman, he worked to increase funding for science and education, including major investments in medical research. Additionally, Representative Alan Mollohan (D–WV), who was defeated in a Democratic primary, will no longer lead the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations, in which he worked to increase funding for the NSF and NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Senator Arlen Specter (D–PA), who switched party affiliation last year, was defeated in his first Democratic primary race. A force behind the effort to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Specter successfully lobbied for the inclusion of $10.4 billion for the NIH in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

The biggest uncertainty in the future of federal science funding may be a desire by members of both political parties to reduce spending. "The continued emphasis on deficit reduction will likely constrain science funding no matter what political situation we face in the 112th Congress," Silver said. "We hope that new champions emerge to replace those who will no longer be there to thwart attacks on science and peer review."

Others in the scientific community share Silver's hope that new leaders will emerge. "The departure of these champions for science will leave big shoes to fill and provides an opportunity for the scientific community to encourage other Members of Congress to assume leadership roles and cultivate broad support for science," commented Adam P. Fagen, public affairs director for the American Society of Plant Biologists.

Philippe Cohen, of Stanford University's Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, also recognizes the need for scientists to engage with the new Congress. "Scientists will need to maintain a high profile in the development of science policy at every level of government and education," he said. "To do otherwise is to abdicate our responsibilities to a society that has invested heavily in our careers."

doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.4

In June, shortly after the House of Representatives passed its version of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010—legislation to reauthorize the National Science Foundation (NSF) and several other federal science programs—the chamber's Subcommittee on Research and Science Education convened a hearing to examine the future of the biological sciences. Spurred in part by the NRC report, the hearing considered how potential scientific advances can be translated into technologies that benefit society, and how to prepare researchers to thrive in areas of research that do not fit easily into a single academic department.

In his opening remarks, Subcommittee Chairman Daniel Lipinski (D–IL) shared an amusing and informative recollection: "Biology was not my favorite subject in high school—although that may be because it was first semester freshman year and we had to dissect the fetal pig—the new, 21st century biology has me much more interested. I was trained as a mechanical engineer, and when I hear people talking about cells as a systems design problem, I understand the important role of engineers and physicists working in biology."

Testifying before the panel, James P. Collins suggested that biology "will flourish in the 21st century by sustaining strength in core disciplines while simultaneously supporting research at the intersection of the natural, physical, and social sciences, as well as engineering. Research at these disciplinary edges holds great promise for addressing problems in energy, the environment, agriculture, materials, and manufacturing." Collins, AIBS president-elect and Virginia M. Ullman Professor of natural history and environment at Arizona State University, was the assistant director for biology at NSF when it, the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health commissioned the NRC report.

The environmental sciences offer promising research opportunities. "Interdisciplinary research is advancing our basic understanding of challenges such as global change and global loss of biodiversity and suggesting ways in which we might mitigate these changes," Collins testified. "NSF supported sensing systems in the Long Term Ecological Research Network and in the proposed National Ecological Observatory Network are designed to gather enormous quantities of data continuously. These networks of sensors, computers, and people promise to transform how we test basic ecological theory and apply the results."

As this research matures, Collins advised, researchers need new tools. Fast, highly accurate molecular techniques for identifying species will be important, as will efficient computer algorithms for analyzing, visualizing, and storing large quantities of data.

"Students entering these fields must be skilled in quantitative and computational methods, [and] understand how to draw on multiple disciplines to address problems," Collins said.

Representative Vernon J. Ehlers (MI), a PhD physicist and the panel's ranking Republican, said he is still getting his head around the report's recommendations. He told a story about a friend who, after receiving the Nobel Prize in Physics, decided that the important problems are in the biological sciences. Unfortunately, Ehlers noted, his friend has had less impact in biology than his friend anticipated, highlighting the need to support the development of young scientists. It may be better to prepare young scientists to work in more than one field, rather than expecting a scientist to master one field before working in another.

Keith Yamamoto, chairman of the National Academy of Sciences Board on Life Sciences and professor of cellular and molecular pharmacology at the University of California, San Francisco, alluding to the long wait many scientists must endure before receiving their first grant, told the subcommittee that increasing the training period for scientists is not the way to proceed. He suggested that new scientists should be grounded in one discipline but able to work and communicate with colleagues from other fields.

Although the subcommittee hearing was a signal that lawmakers are interested in the recommendations outlined in A New Biology, it remains to be seen whether the scientific community is ready to embrace the report's findings. Moreover, are the federal agencies that fund scientific research and education prepared to implement the recommendations?

BioScience 60: 684
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.9.5

Since 2006, progress has been slow but steady. The governors of Ohio and Wisconsin appointed science advisers. Massachusetts created two advisory bodies to inform science education and ocean management in the state. Two recent reports also drew attention to the issue. A 2008 report from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and a 2007 report from the National Governors Association and Pew Center on the States considered the options for providing science advice to states—ranging from science advisers in the governor's office to state academies of science. These reports concluded that regardless of its structure, scientific expertise should be accessible to state governments in order to help officials foster innovation, make sound investments in public-private partnerships, and formulate public policy.

A strong case can be made, however, for individual science advisers. "If you have a science adviser sitting in the governor's office, you have a person who is hearing everything that's going on all the time, not just in science, but in transportation and homeland security and health and education and everything else," said Thomas Bowles, science adviser to New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D), at an NAS meeting on the topic. "And where appropriate, you can jump in and say, 'Wait a minute, science ought to have some say in this.... We have a way to help you.'"

Although states have been slow to hire science advisers, climate change advisory boards have been springing up across the country. At least 32 states have formed such bodies to evaluate the risks of climate change and make recommendations for mitigating and adapting to climate impacts. Composed of representatives of state agencies, academia, industry, and other interest groups, these task forces are often disbanded after their final report is completed, making it difficult for a state to update its climate action plan as climate science progresses. One exception is Alaska's Climate Change sub-cabinet, formed by then-governor Sarah Palin (R) to advise the governor's office on the preparation and implementation of a state climate change strategy. According to Larry Hartig, sub-cabinet chair, Alaska's strategy is dynamic and changes with the state of climate science: "My hope is the climate change strategy will be a living document reflecting the best knowledge on the effects of climate change in Alaska."

Despite the benefits of implementing science advisory boards, some states have elected to do away with these bodies. Idaho Governor C. L. "Butch" Otter (R) disbanded his state's Science and Technology Advisory Council in 2008. In 2005, Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen (D) targeted a quarter of his state's advisory commissions for termination, including the Science and Technology Advisory Council, to save money and reduce bureaucracy.

Science advisers are also susceptible to political influence, especially when appointed by a governor: Science advisers have no job security after an election. However, the 37 gubernatorial elections this November provide an opportunity to increase the number of science advisers in state governments. For better or worse, elections are a chance to elevate the status of science within state governments and to encourage newly elected, or reelected, governors to add science advisers to their administrations.

"States, like the federal government, are grappling with many issues where science expertise is crucial," said Don Waller, professor and chair of the biological aspects of conservation major at the University of Wisconsin. "Scientists are trained to approach problems creatively and objectively—they enjoy looking at problems from many points of view. But states do not have the same staff or resources as the federal government has to respond to demands for scientific expertise. Recruiting a distinguished science adviser, or science advisory committee, represents a very cost-effective way to add that expertise."

Julie Palakovich Carr (jpal...@aibs.org) is an AIBS public policy associate.

BioScience 60: 420
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.6.5

The stimulus outlined ambitious goals for federal science agencies. The National Science Foundation (NSF) aimed to support 40,000 researchers, educators, postdoctoral scholars, and students with its $3 billion of ARRA funding, including $2 billion for "high-risk, potentially transformative research proposals" that were already in hand. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) planned to create or save 50,000 jobs with its $10.4 billion in ARRA funds, half of which has already been spent. Congress directed other agencies to address deferred projects, such as research facility maintenance and management activities, that have resulted from years of stagnant or declining budgets. The Agricultural Research Service, NOAA (the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), the US Geological Survey, the NIH, and others will collectively spend more than $1.2 billion for federal research facility repairs and construction.

Addressing past budget shortfalls is also the goal at the NSF and NIH, where much of the stimulus funding for R&D is supporting quality research proposals that had gone unfunded because of empty agency coffers. The NSF, whose agency-wide grant proposal success rate has hovered around 22 percent for years, has already surpassed its goal to award 4000 additional grants in 2009 and 2010. Even with the bolus of cash, however, some scientists still view funding at the NIH in short supply, after dealing with a 20 percent proposal success rate for much of the past decade.

For example, researchers submitted more than 20,000 applications for about 200 to 400 NIH Challenge Grants. This high demand for grants may spell disaster in 2011 when ARRA funds have been allocated, warns Francis Collins, director of the NIH. Collins told Science: "It's likely to be a pretty tough year...not only because one has to worry about what the NIH base [budget] can be, but a large number of Challenge Grants that didn't get funded are going to come back as R01s [NIH's basic research grants]. So the number of applications is expected to be quite high."

Others are concerned about the future of the young researchers and graduate students who are supported by the stimulus. The NSF plans to fund at least 2400 new investigators and 220 professional science master's students, the NIH directed approximately $100 million to recruit up to 117 new faculty at academic institutions, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the Department of Energy's Office of Science (DoE Science) also funded research fellowships. "While this generous increase in funding is very promising, we need continued financial support not only for young investigators, but also to bolster the entire US research enterprise," said Stacy L. Gelhaus, chair of the National Postdoctoral Association Board of Directors.

For the agencies included in the America COMPETES (Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) Act of 2007 (NSF, NIST, and DoE Science), prior congressional pledges offer greater hope for the future. The COMPETES Act authorized a doubling of these agencies' budgets over a 10-year period, a goal the president has committed to meet by 2016. Other science agencies, however, may once again struggle in a post-ARRA world, especially if annual appropriations are not adjusted to support investments spawned by the stimulus.

"The issue becomes not just what are we investing in, but how are we spreading out the investments," said Nadine Lymn, director of public affairs at the Ecological Society of America. "The potential pitfall is that if sustained and predictable funding doesn't come through once ARRA ends, graduate students and other young researchers will be hit hard, and advances in research needed to address critical areas such as climate change and infectious disease will once again be curtailed."

Julie Palakovich Carr (jpal...@aibs.org) is an AIBS public policy associate.

BioScience 60: 101
doi:10.1525/bio.2010.60.2.4

"Plants are central to the future of scientific discovery, human well-being, and the sustainable use and preservation of the world's natural resources," says Andrea Kramer, executive director of the US Office of Botanical Gardens Conservation International. Yet, Kramer and others warn that federal agencies have failed to make investments in research and training that will drive discovery and inform decisionmaking. Kramer and colleagues recently convened academic scientists, government managers, and representatives from nongovernmental organizations. The meeting, held at the Chicago Botanic Garden, assessed the nation's botanical capacity.

"The project itself was prompted by anecdotal reports that botanical capacity was declining in many sectors," Kramer says, including education and training and research infrastructure; moreover, there is a lack of qualified candidates for government positions, and fewer academic botany departments to produce qualified scientists. "Botany departments at universities [are] being subsumed into more general or interdisciplinary departments and subsequently losing resident expertise as professors retire," warns Kramer.

The issues that prompted the botanical capacity summit are not new, and present a challenge to federal policymakers struggling to invest historically limited resources in programs that must support a range of scientific fields while solving societal problems. There is a lack of disciplinary strength—too few qualified organismal biologists—according to many participants at the Chicago conference. A growing stack of reports, however, asserts that there is a need for scientists with the skills and training to work in interdisciplinary teams. This, in short, is a recommendation in two reports released this year: Transitions and Tipping Points in Complex Environmental Systems, published by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and A New Biology for the 21st Century, published by the National Research Council (NRC).

Former NSF assistant director for biology James Collins described the Tipping Points report earlier this year: "The...focus on environmental complexity and the need to understand how our social systems integrate with the rest of Earth's systems is an important message. Research at the interface of natural and human systems forms the underpinnings for the adaptation and mitigation strategies needed for a changing planet."

Scientists cannot continue to study the components of environmental systems in isolation from each other, according to Susan Stafford, of the Department of Forest Resources at the University of Minnesota and chair of the NSF committee that authored Tipping Points.

Kramer agrees that interdisciplinary collaboration is necessary for progress, but questions what will happen if too many programs become dominated by interdisciplinary researchers. "Rather than focusing on specific disciplines that should be integrated, what is lacking is training in effective communication skills that are translatable beyond the realm of academia, as well as training in effective collaboration," argues Kramer.

The NSF and NRC reports press the need to invest in biological and environmental research. Some scientists who have read the reports find them to be refreshing. They call for interdisciplinary research and skills development, but recognize that these efforts require a strong foundation of disciplinary research. The NRC report, for example, references the importance of organismal biology and evolution for solving environmental, food, energy, and health problems.

The NRC report, which some have described as biology's call to action, or "moon shot," argues that a blend of research and new funding models should be implemented to achieve the ambitious goals proposed in the nearly 100-page document. Although the NRC neglected to place a price tag on its proposal or to outline a government engine that should be used to drive a "New Biology," the authors have been clear that a multiyear commitment and new funding—substantial resources beyond existing program budgets—are required. Some familiar with the plan speculate that an investment of $50 billion over the next 10 years is required.

Although $50 billion is significant, even in Washington, DC, a question worth asking is what the cost would be if the nation fails to build a research infrastructure that can deliver safe and nutritious food, functional ecosystem services, cleaner and sustainable energy, and quality, personalized medicine.

Robert E. Gropp (rgr...@aibs.org) is director of the AIBS Public Policy Office.

BioScience 59: 932
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.4

Many see the US Coast Guard (USCG) as the logical choice. As a federal agency authorized by Congress to regulate ballast water management, the USCG can enforce a national standard for domestic and foreign ships that use American ports. Indeed, since 1993, the USCG has required ocean-going vessels entering the Great Lakes to exchange their ballast water at least 200 nautical miles offshore, or to retain their ballast while in the lakes.

For the last five years, the USCG has been working to create a mandatory national program for ballast water management. In August, the agency released a draft rule that would require the exchange or treatment of ballast water for almost all ballast-carrying vessels operating in US waters. The program, which would be implemented in two phases, would require ships to meet certain performance standards for the con­centrations of living organisms in their ballast water. The interim performance standard would require ships to reduce the concentration of living organisms in their ballast water by 80 percent; the final standard is potentially a thousand times more stringent.

According to David Lodge, professor of biology at the University of Notre Dame, this is an "essential and long overdue step." However, Lodge says, "the Coast Guard's effectiveness measures refer to the magnitude of reductions in the concentrations of organisms in discharged ballast water, not to the outcome that is most important: the reduction in new invasions." He adds that the policy could be strengthened by "coupling it with an invasive species monitoring policy. Without meaningful surveillance for new invasions, we don't have enough information to accurately evaluate the effectiveness of ballast water policies."

Uncertainty regarding the relationship between the number of organisms released through ballast water and the potential for new invasions has led several states to create their own ballast water discharge policy for their coastal waters. Regulations in California, Ha­waii, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington vary widely, resulting in a mosaic of rules that shippers must follow. California's are the most stringent: By 2020, no ship will be able to discharge ballast water that contains living organisms.

Adding to the confusion are regu­lations adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Although not yet in force, the IMO performance standard is comparable to the USCG's interim standard. Additionally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been ordered by a district court to use its authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of ballast water in the United States.

In response to this jurisdictional muddle, some members of Congress have called for a unified national requirement for ballast water management. In a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, Senator Carl Levin (D–MI) testified: "I believe that we need to enact legislation that will require ballast water discharge management...as soon as possible. I support establishing a strong national ballast water technology standard for
all ships."

In 2008, the House of Representatives did just this, passing legislation that establishes strong treatment standards so that, by 2015, no ballast water discharged into US waters will contain living organisms. The Senate has yet to pass its own legislation. For some senators, it is a matter of state sovereignty—a federal regulation or law preempts a state's right to control its coasts and waters. For instance, California's regulation is almost a thousand times more stringent than the IMO standards. On the other hand, the shipping industry fears that allowing each state to set its own ballast water management regime creates too heavy a regulatory burden.

This debate is far from over. The USCG is accepting comments on its draft rule until 4 December, but a final rule could take years. The EPA is also reconsidering its stance on the issue. Meanwhile, potentially invasive species continue to arrive by the boatload.

Julie Palakovich Carr (jpal...@aibs.org) is a public policy associate with AIBS.

BioScience 59: 830
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.10.4

Obama's directive revoked the Bush administration's restrictions and funding ban on hESC research, which had limited scientists to using only 21 approved cell lines out of about 700 in existence. The directive also ordered the NIH to issue new guidelines for hESC research, which were released in July 2009. These new guidelines specify that NIH funding can be provided for research on hESCs derived from human embryos "that were created using in vitro fertilization for reproductive purposes [but] were no longer needed for this purpose," and were donated by individuals who were fully informed about embryo treatment and gave their voluntary, written consent to use the embryos for research. The guidelines also stipulate that there can be no finan­cial inducements for embryo donations, and that NIH-funded research must remain separate from privately funded research. Additionally, the NIH will establish a working group of scientists and ethicists to review existing cell lines, determine their eligibility for federal funding, and post those hESCs eligible for federal funds in an online registry.

The presidential directive greatly expands the research potential in this field, but Obama noted in his remarks about the order that the "full promise of stem cell research remains unknown, and it should not be overstated." Many advocates of stem cell research agree: Much more stem cell research will take place, yet much more policy work still awaits action.

The spotlight is currently on the NIH working group. This is because until the NIH determines which cell lines are eligible for federal funding, hESC research remains on hold and, as of early September 2009, the NIH registry was still empty. Alan Smith, senior research scientist at Stemina Biomarker Discov­ery (a meta­bolomics company in Madison, Wisconsin), says that this void in the registry is a major concern for industry because it is slowing efforts to build new collaborations with other companies that are using yet-to-be-approved cell lines and to spur innovations in stem cell research. It is unclear when new stem cell lines will be entered into the registry—no timeline has been announced—but some researchers are concerned that the addition of the new lines may take years.

Other pressing policy issues remain. Some analysts have suggested that the government focus on developing a coa­lition among all the entities that work on stem cells, perhaps by supporting the formation of geographic in­novation hubs. Such a large-scale collaboration between universities and industries could be transformative for the field of regenerative medicine. Other experts, such as Jonathan Moreno, a senior fellow at the Center for American Prog­ress, believe that the next grand policy challenge will be to develop guidelines for safe human trials. The pharmaceutical company Geron was set to begin the first-ever human clinical trial of stem cell therapy on spinal cord injury patients in August. However, in the last round of animal trials, researchers found a larger-than-expected occurrence of cysts, and the US Food and Drug Administration halted the trial. Moreno argues that stem cell advocates ought to proceed to clinical trials with caution, as human trials with tragic results would cause a change in the tide of public support for stem cell research.

Proponents of stem cell research are hopeful that the Obama administration policy will allow US scientists to remain leaders in stem cell science and technology. More research should soon be eligible for federal funding, and making more lines available for research, as Smith says, will "open up the vast range of hES lines derived from genetically diverse embryos." Stem cell advocates remain hopeful that the pace of research will accelerate as scientists collaborate and eliminate some of the delays associated with past requirements for separate and dedicated stem cell research laboratories, equipment, and personnel. Many believe that once the public sees the first positive results from hESC research, much of the tension surrounding the stem cell debate will disappear, and stem cells will truly grow.

BioScience 59: 744
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.9.5

The progress report touts the country's largest-ever investment in science and technology, including $4.5 billion for infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). So why are researchers upset? A primary concern is that the greater support for infrastructure displaces funds for the researchers who use the equipment. In Canada's Budget 2009, funding was cut by 5 percent for the country's three granting agencies: the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

John Smol, professor at Queen's University and Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change, says that the funds supplied by those agencies—for NSERC discovery grants, for example—offer the government the "most bang for the buck." While directed funding certainly has its place in government-funded science, funding programs that allow scientists' research to progress freely are more in line with how science actually works, he says. "Of the 10 papers I am most proud of, I don't think I anticipated a single one of them in the grant I wrote funding that work."

Since the budget cuts were announced, the outcry against the government's policies has become more vehement. Academic groups such as the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) have voiced concerns over the funding cuts, noting that "labs and research stations may be better equipped but are forced to cut back or close because they do not have sufficient funding for staff and operational costs." The editors of the CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) criticized the Canadian economic stimulus plan (Budget 2009) in an editorial: "In saying yes to deficits and stimulus, yet being lukewarm to science, the un­mistakable message from Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is that science is unimportant in Canada's economy." Several grassroots efforts protesting the government's policies have emerged as well, including an open letter to the government, "Don't Leave Canada Behind," which has gathered more than 2000 signatures, and "Protect Science Funding in Canada," a 3400-member Facebook group.

But not everyone thinks there is cause for complaint. In an opinion piece in the National Post, Michael Bliss, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, says that many of the community's complaints are unfounded, and scientists risk further backlash if they continue to bite the hand that feeds them. "The danger is that politicians, instead of caving in, will respond by washing their hands of Canada's science community."

The budget may not have drawn as much criticism had it not been for the inevitable comparisons with Canada's southern neighbor. During the Bush administration, Canadians prided themselves on having the more comparatively favorable environment for science. Indeed, between 2002 and 2007, the number of university professors and assistants who moved from the United States to work in Canada increased by 27 percent, reported Elizabeth Church and Daniel LeBlanc in Canada's Globe and Mail (27 January 2009). But with the election of President Barack Obama, the tables have turned. In his inaugural address, Obama vowed to "restore science to its rightful place," and he swiftly set about instituting a string of new policies favorable to science, including a massive infusion of funds to federal science agencies through the economic stimulus package.

The turnabout with regard to funding raises concerns that top Canadian researchers will leave for the United States. In an April 2009 poll commissioned by the CAUT and the Canadian Federation of Students, two-thirds of Canadians surveyed admitted apprehension about Canada's ability to attract and retain researchers, given reductions in research funding.

But Smol is unsure whether a "brain drain" should be a major concern: "Researchers are mobile people by nature," he says, and there has always been movement between the two countries. Additionally, programs such as the Canada Research Chairs and the CFI—both of which receive new funding under the 2009 budget—have been successful in recruiting talent from abroad. Rather, Smol says, the biggest problem Canadian scientists face is that "science has never been able to capture the imagination of politicians." Until that happens, the debate over Canada's science policies will most likely rage on.

Adrienne Froelich Sponberg (sponberg@aslo.org) is the director of public affairs and coeditor of the Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin for the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography.

BioScience 59: 648
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.8.5

Hot air emanating from some media talking heads might lead the casual observer to believe that Congress routinely creates new agencies; in fact, however, lawmakers rarely direct the establishment of a new federal office. Nonetheless, stakeholders ranging from scientists to local utility managers have been encouraging Congress to create a new climate forecasting function—a "National Climate Service" or "Climate Services Program," which would be housed in NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration).

NOAA already houses the National Weather Service (NWS), whose mission is to provide "weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings," but weather and climate are different. Weather is a snapshot of atmospheric conditions at a specific place and time, whereas climate is the long-term average pattern of weather for a particular region.

A National Climate Service, supporters assert, could provide decision­makers at all levels of society with the information they need to respond to climate change. The House Science and Technology Committee recently considered HR 2407—the National Climate Service Act of 2009. The legislation would (a) advance the understanding of climate variability and change at all geographic scales; (b) provide forecasts, warnings, and information to the public on climate variability and change and its effects on the public; and (c) support the development of adaptation and response plans by government agencies, the private sector, and the public.

The legislation's sponsor is Representative Bart Gordon (D–TN), chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology. He asserts: "State and local governments, private industry and resource managers across the country recognize that weather and climate impacts influence many aspects of our lives.... Some of these changes will be positive and offer new opportunities. Others will present challenges. Without more specific information about the magnitude and direction of these changes we will be ill prepared to exploit new opportunities and to adapt to new challenges."

At a committee hearing in May, NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco expressed the need for a coordinated climate program. "There is unequivocal evidence that the Earth is warming," she said. "This warming can be seen in increases in global-average surface air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, rising sea level, and changes in many other climate-related variables and impacts." Lubchenco commends the climate change research efforts of the already established US Global Change Research Program and the US Climate Change Science Program, but says "more work is needed... to understand users' needs and deliver climate-relevant information to inform decisionmaking."

In 2007, the National Academies released Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and Preliminary Results. Lubchenco said this report "highlighted existing gaps in federal programs to provide climate change information, [and] recognized that good progress has been made to determine many aspects of climate change; however, 'progress in synthe­sizing research results or supporting decision­making and risk management has been inadequate.'"

Lubchenco is not alone in urging a greater federal investment in climate-related data synthesis, analysis, and products. Other hearing witnesses also called for an institutional structure that would work closely and collaboratively with other agencies and end users of climate data.

The only apparent concern about a new climate program is whether it should be an office separate from the NWS. Richard Hirn, general counsel and legislative director for the NWS Employees Organization, cautioned during congressional hearings that a new office would not only "duplicate the historic and current mission, programs, and services" of the NWS but also draw resources from it.

Members of the committee responded to these issues. Representatives Brian Baird (D–WA), chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, and Bob Inglis (R–SC), the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, amended HR 2407 to set up a three-year process during which the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy will "evaluate alternative structures to support a collaborative, inter­agency research and operational program that will achieve the goal of meeting the needs of decision­makers."

On 3 June, by a 24–12 vote, the Committee on Science and Technology reported out HR 2407 to the full House of Representatives, where the bill awaits further action.

Robert E. Gropp (e-mail: rgr...@aibs.org) is the director of public policy at AIBS.

BioScience 59: 558
doi:10.1025/bio.2009.59.7.6

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and many biologists have voiced support for an ecosystem observation system to monitor climate-related changes in species' distribution and abundance, ecosystem disturbance, phenology, nutrient cycling, and other ecological data. Such environmental observations, the IPCC says, are "vital to allow for adjustments in management strategies." The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), the inter­agency organization responsible for federal climate research, has identified a need to expand existing monitoring networks and to develop new capabilities for ecosystem observations. A 2009 review of the CCSP by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that the establishment of a climate observation system to monitor physical, biological, and social systems was a top priority for the program. Progress has been slow despite the continuing need for data.

Congress has heard this message. In the last six years, at least 20 witnesses have testified before Congress about the importance of ecosystem monitoring as a core element in climate-change science. Appearing before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on In­terior and Environment in April, conservationist Jeff Corwin, host of Animal Planet's The Corwin Experience, said: "As a biologist, I firmly believe that we should start by expanding our scientific understanding of global warming's impacts on the living world. We cannot develop and implement an effective strategy without this knowledge."

In the 110th Congress, Senator John Kerry (D–MA) introduced S. 2307, the "Global Change Research Improvement Act of 2007." Had it been enacted, S. 2307 would have required CCSP to inventory current observation systems relevant to climate change research, and to prioritize additional monitoring needs. Although the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transpor­tation reported the legislation out, the congressional session ended before the Senate voted on the measure; the act was cleared from the books and did not become law.

Nonetheless, debate continues in the 111th Congress on how to respond to global climate change. Several pieces of legislation have been introduced in the House of Representatives and Senate. In late March 2009, Representative Henry Waxman (D–CA), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, released a discussion draft of "The Amer­ican Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," the legislation viewed as the most likely to move through the legislative process. Indeed, on 15 May a revised version of the bill was introduced in the House (H.R. 2454). In addition to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and promoting renewable energy, the bill stipulates that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS) collaborate to establish a coordinated process for providing information on the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on natural resources.

Many of the act's ecosystem monitoring requirements, however, would fall to the states. To receive federal funding, states would have to establish programs to monitor the impacts of climate change on fish, wildlife and plant populations, ecosystems, and ecological processes. Each state's natural resources climate adaptation plan would be subject to approval by the secretaries of Interior and Commerce, although the bill does not specify the standards to which states would be held. A mosaic of state monitoring programs does raise some concerns. A 2009 NAS report cites reservations about the CCSP using climate-related data voluntarily provided by federal and state agencies, as the CCSP would not have the authority to ensure continued data collection from these agencies. Donald Boesch, a member of the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council, raised similar concerns during a 2007 Senate Commerce Committee hearing. "Many existing and planned observing systems have been cancelled, delayed, or degraded," he said.

Climate-related ecosystem monitoring efforts might also piggyback on existing ecosystem observation systems, such as the Integrated Ocean Observation System at NOAA, or the National Science Foundation's proposed National Ecological Observatory Network. Alternatively, a federal agency or program could take the lead on eco­system monitoring. The new National Climate Change and Wildlife Service Center at the USGS may be a logical choice, although other programs in USGS or NOAA may also be appropriate.

No matter where the ecosystem monitoring efforts are eventually lodged, the need for environmental monitoring is widely accepted by the scientific community.

Julie Palakovich Carr (e-mail: jpal...@aibs.org) is an AIBS public policy associate.

BioScience 59: 470
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.6.4

Accounting for 84 percent of the surface freshwater in North America, the Laurentian Great Lakes represent one-fifth of the world's freshwater supply. Management of the lakes, with their more than 17,000 kilometers of shoreline, has always been complex. Two countries, eight US states, two Canadian provinces, 40 tribal nations, and numerous metropolitan areas, counties, and local governments in the Great Lakes basin share governance of the lakes. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that within the US federal government alone, 10 agencies administer 140 programs related to the lakes.

The recently approved compact will provide a comprehensive management framework for the Great Lakes. While the compact deals with a large number of issues—conservation and economic development among them—perhaps the diversion of Great Lakes water is the most significant. Proposals to remove or divert water from the Great Lakes have emerged periodically since the 1980s. The original proposals were to transport Great Lakes water through pipelines or other means to the "thirsty West." These proposals resulted in the Great Lakes Charter, a good faith agreement signed by states and provinces around the Great Lakes, which requires that, among other things, a governor or premier give notice and consult on removals of water averaging more than 5 million gallons per day in any 30-day period. In 1986, Congress codified a slightly modified version of the charter through the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA).

But in 1998, the holes in the charter and the WRDA provision were exposed as the Far East set its eyes on Great Lakes water. The Nova Group applied for and received a permit from the Ontario Ministry of the Environment to withdraw 160 million gallons per year of water from Lake Superior for transport and sale to Asia. The permit was legal because the amount of water was less than 5 million gallons per day, on average, over any 30-day period, and since the proposal was made to the Canadian federal government, the protections under the Great Lakes Charter and WRDA did not apply.

Although that plan was greeted by a public outcry and scuttled, the governors and premiers set about crafting more solid protections for the Great Lakes. The end result of those negotiations is the Great Lakes–St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact. According to Noah Hall, assistant professor of law at Wayne State University and executive director of the Great Lakes Environmental Law Center, the compact's protections against diversion are tight: "[It] does everything possible under domestic law to guard against Great Lakes water exports." As water supplies become more limited across the nation, other water basins may look to the compact as a model for protection. Hall notes that some other interstate compacts already ban diversions out of the watershed, and he expects more to do so as water pressures and conflicts grow. Indeed, western interest in water diversion projects refuses to be quelled. In January 2009, Pat Mulroy, general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority, suggested that floodwater from the Mississippi River be diverted to the West.

With watertight protections against large-scale export and diversion in place, Great Lakes advocates are pressing forward with other items on their legislative agenda, such as cleaning up contaminated sediments and battling invasive species. They see great opportunity with the Obama administration in place. After all, the Great Lakes states awarded all of their 141 electoral votes to the former senator from Illinois and Great Lakes Congressional Task Force member. Tim Eder, director of the Great Lakes Commission, writes that President Obama "can make solid progress in protecting the nation's most valuable freshwater resource, while investing in regional economic growth." And in fact, the Obama administration has already signaled that the Great Lakes will play a key role in the nation's water policy. Speaking at the semi-annual meeting of the Great Lakes Commission, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, "As the Great Lakes go, so goes the national policy as to water."

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

BioScience 59: 372
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.5.4

But can these investments spur the innovations necessary for the country to find good alternatives to fossil fuels, help stem climate change, and lead the world in finding solutions to other catastrophic problems? It depends. Innovation comes from transformative, integrative, and often risky research, say influential reports from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Research Council (NRC), among others. The question is, then, has such transformative, integrative, and risky research become part of the culture and practice of biologists?

Over the course of most of the 20th century, biology research became increasingly reductionist and compartmentalized, with little exchange of ideas and information between the field's subdisciplines. In the 1990s, however, the growth of interdisciplinary collaborations and advances in technology led to the concept of integrative biology, an approach to studying biological systems by integrating perspectives and insights from various disciplines. As the concept caught on, more than a few departments of biology across the country renamed themselves departments of integrative biology. Despite the buzz, science commentators note, relatively few researchers employ a truly inte­grative approach. Marvalee Wake, professor of integrative biology at the University of California, Berkeley, attributes the problem to inadequate definition: "The term means different things to different scientists." To make further progress will require "changing the paradigm of graduate student training, development of shared facilities, and changing attitudes about the nature of expertise," Wake says. Nevertheless, she adds, "the general concept is taking hold as it becomes ever clearer that complex questions require not just diverse expertise, but new approaches."

In an effort to stimulate those new integrative approaches, the NRC published The Role of Theory in Advancing 21st-Century Biology: Catalyzing Transformative Research. The study points out that many principles in the theory-rich discipline of biology—such as evolution—blur disciplinary boundaries, and it encourages biologists in all subdisciplines to "examine the theoretical and conceptual framework that underlies their work and identify areas where theoretical advances would most likely lead to breakthroughs in our understanding of life." After the report's publication in 2008, the NSF launched "Advancing Theory in Biology" (ATB), an initiative to develop new theoretical approaches to "improve our understanding of fundamental biological principles that integrate phenomena across levels of biological organization."

A year into the ATB program, it is fair to ask whether the initiative has yielded any grand biological theories. Judging from the number of grant proposals, it would appear that the idea of grand biological theories has not yet fully caught on, according to Saran Twombly, an ATB program director. Sixty-eight grant proposals were received in 2008, many of them from chemists and physicists who wanted to use theories from their fields to transform biology; fewer proposals came from biologists. Many applicants apparently failed to understand that the mission was to develop grand theories from studies that cut across disparate fields of biological inquiry, not from studies across biology and other physical sciences. "We've made a generation of biologists [who] think that the answer is to collect facts, but...the power of theory is that it can tell us much more than facts can tell us," Twombly said.

The research funded by ATB is necessarily innovative and therefore risky, which may be another reason for biol­ogists' slow response to the program. Researchers have long believed that mainstream projects—the ones prom­ising results rather than risk—are the ones that get funded. And because funding for NSF's Biological Sciences Di­rectorate has been stagnant, Twombly suggests, "program officers have been extremely conservative in who they fund," thereby trying to ensure the most bang per buck of funding.

The ATB program accepted its last round of applicants in February 2009, which Twombly finds "unfortunate, because it seems that momentum is finally gaining for integrative approaches to studying biology and the biological science." However, NSF officials hope that the federal stimulus package may provide resources to fund more worthy proposals, and thus help biology transform itself and the economy.

BioScience 59: 286
doi:10.1525/bio.2009.59.4.6