Wednesday, May 13, 2020


What Scientific Decline?

As a neurobiologist working at a local university for more than 30 years, I read Edward Archer’s provocative critique of scientific research with interest. We agree about a number of problems in the scientific enterprise, arising both from flaws inherent in people and from the sometimes-damaging pressures from funders and administrators whose goals aren’t focused on scientific discovery. Nevertheless, I believe Archer is mistaken in his main claim: U.S. science is not in intellectual decline, and evidence for moral decline is weak.

Most basic research in the biomedical sciences is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and led by professors who have received NIH grant awards for investigator-initiated research projects. Typically, a principal investigator (PI) experiences severe pressures, driven by the quest for discovery, as well as the need to get research funding (and often the desire for academic promotion).

Those pressures can be damaging to the PI and their staff and family, and may lead a few unbalanced scientists to engage in misconduct and commit fraud. The researcher’s university can drive much of that pressure. Over the past 50 years, research universities have become more and more reliant on the incidental government subsidies provided by the NIH to cover the “indirect costs” Archer mentions, as well as the “direct costs” that help to pay the salaries of academic scientists and their staff.

Not surprisingly, department chairs, deans, and others in the administration are eager for faculty to get more NIH money, and some researchers may spend more time chasing funding than doing research. However, Archer overstates the problem. Excessive “grantsmanship” is a real problem, but while it affects research faculty, it has little impact on students or their education.

Indirect costs may seem a cushy and perhaps illicit subsidy from the NIH, but biomedical research really does require buildings, libraries, technical services, personnel management, and many other services with real costs. Archer notes that 10 percent of universities receive 90 percent of NIH funding, citing this imbalance as evidence of corruption or misconduct. But he neglects to mention that most of the best research is performed in a small subset of institutions. Research funding is not a welfare program, and its allocation should be based not on need or on equality, but on merit.

Archer notes that from “1970 to 2010, as taxpayer funding for public health research increased 700 percent, the number of retractions of biomedical research articles increased more than 900 percent, with most due to misconduct.” Fraudulent research is of widespread concern within the biomedical community, but those statistics are misleading.

Archer neglects to correct for the three-fold increase in the total number of articles published in that interval, nor for the increased number of papers originating from non-Western countries (for which plagiarism is more common as Serena Stretton et al. of Australia’s ProScribe Medical Communications found), nor does he mention that scrutiny for misconduct has markedly intensified during that period, as Princeton University’s Charles Gross noted. Archer’s neglect of those confounding factors calls his conclusion into question. Since the number of retractions has increased just as critical scrutiny for misconduct and journals’ willingness to admit it has increased, it’s impossible to know whether the rate of scientific fraud in the U.S. is actually increasing, decreasing, or unchanging over time.

Likewise, he notes that “ubiquitous sexual harassment is also emblematic of the moral decline in academic science. The number of academics found responsible for sexual harassment has skyrocketed,“ but he disregards that conduct either ignored or considered acceptable in the past is no longer so. I suspect that sexual harassment in the U.S. has dropped precipitously over the past 30 years; Archer’s failure to mention that the bar for defining sexual harassment has lowered while its investigation has become more proactive suggests either disingenuous argument or fuzzy reasoning.

Archer points to incompetence as another serious problem in scientific research. Indeed, it’s a problem, but hardly a new one. Why should we think that researchers were more competent in the 20th century (or the 18th century, or the 15th century)?

Archer notes possible causes of the decline in academic research, but his essay assumes that such a decline exists:

For most of the past century, the United States was the pre-eminent nation in science and technology. The evidence for that is beyond dispute: Since 1901, American researchers have won more Nobel prizes in medicine, chemistry, and physics than any other nation…it is not surprising that across the political landscape Americans consider the funding of scientific research to be both a source of pride and a worthy investment. Nevertheless, in his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that the pursuit of government grants would have a corrupting influence on the scientific community.

He implies that Eisenhower’s warning was prophetic, suggesting that there was a decline after 1961. To test that claim, I counted the number of U.S. Nobel Prize winners in chemistry, physics, and medicine in 20-year blocks (the date of Eisenhower’s warning is shown by the black arrow). I conclude that Archer’s hypothesis is incorrect.

Of course, many “American” prizewinners were born in other countries (reflecting one of America’s enduring strengths), but the trend is obvious. Contrary to Archer’s claim, the data suggest instead that government support of science (which grew dramatically beginning in the 1950s after Sputnik) has enhanced the production of world-class science in the US, not degraded it. My opinion is widely shared in the international scientific community. For example, a 2016 study reports that “the pre-eminent role [of the US] is particularly marked in the life sciences and most health-related…fields.”

In summary, Dr. Archer’s essay is flawed. As a fellow researcher who has witnessed questionable funding decisions and has suffered occasional professional misfortunes arising from others’ errors or misjudgments, I can appreciate his outrage, but I believe that his essay is dangerously misleading in suggesting that increased governmental support for science has caused net damage to scientific research in the U.S.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s comment about democracy, the NIH extramural funding system is the worst system of supporting science, except for all the others.
The NIH system of awarding funds based on the advice of scientific peers who are asked to evaluate grant proposals is flawed. But to paraphrase Winston Churchill’s comment about democracy, the NIH extramural funding system is the worst system of supporting science, except for all the others.

There is room for improvement in the way science is supported, but this improvement requires a clear understanding of its current flaws and thoughtful consideration of possible remedies. The U.S. remains the world’s center for scientific research, and the notion that cutting governmental support will improve its performance seems misguided at best. America’s research community certainly owes a debt of gratitude to American taxpayers, but I believe that, over the long run, the current system of scientific funding has proved brilliantly successful and continues to repay the investment made by our country’s citizens.

Richard Weinberg is a professor in the Department of Cell Biology & Physiology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he conducts basic research in synaptic neuroscience. He received a PhD from the University of Washington in 1982.

Editor’s note: Below is a response from Edward Archer.

I read Dr. Weinberg’s critique and defense of the status quo with interest but was dismayed by his evasion of my argument and the use of unsupported opinion rather than fact. In my essay, I argued that academic research is intellectually and morally corrupt due to a lack of accountability, and offered 40+ links to primary research (including my own) and reputable sources for support. The strongest evidence is the “replication crisis” (i.e., the irreproducibility of research results), and cited my work in nutrition that showed how incompetence and fraud drive irreproducibility and meaningless studies. Yet on this ‘crisis’ of accountability, Weinberg was silent. However, he did offer his (unsupported) opinion on the moral decline stating: “Sexual harassment in the U.S. has dropped precipitously over the past 30 years.” Given that the number of women in STEM has increased exponentially over this period, Weinberg’s belief defies both common sense and the evidence.

In closing, Dr. Weinberg’s evasions and ‘evidence-free’ opinions are emblematic of the ubiquity of intellectual decline in academic discourse.

SOURCE 







DeVos finalizes due process protections for those accused of sexual assault on college campuses

The changes, which critics argue may discourage victims from coming forward, include provisions under the federal law Title IX that allow those accused of harassment or assault to question evidence and cross-examine their accusers.

The department under DeVos has said it is trying to strike a balance that is fair to all parties.

"Too many students have lost access to their education because their school inadequately responded when a student filed a complaint of sexual harassment or sexual assault," DeVos said in a statement Wednesday. "This new regulation requires schools to act in meaningful ways to support survivors of sexual misconduct, without sacrificing important safeguards to ensure a fair and transparent process."

The new rules, which are set to go into effect in August, narrow the definition of sexual misconduct on campuses. They define sexual harassment as a "school employee conditioning education benefits on participation in unwelcome sexual conduct," "unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person would determine is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the school's education program or activity" or "sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking."

The Obama administration's guidelines for schools -- issued in a 2011 memo referred to as a "dear colleague" letter -- had a broader definition of sexual harassment. Under the new regulation, schools will have to investigate the allegations in any formal complaint but dismiss any allegations of conduct that doesn't meet the definition of sexual harassment.

The final rule's definition of sexual harassment also differs from federal law's definition of what constitutes sexual harassment in the workplace. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defines sexual harassment as "unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature."

The regulation will expand to apply to the school's programs or activities on and off campus, including fraternity or sorority houses, but excludes allegations that occur during study abroad programs.

Schools will still have an option to use the "preponderance of evidence" standard -- the lowest standard of proof when judging sexual violence cases under Title IX, which protects people from sexual discrimination in education or other programs receiving federal aid -- or use a higher standard, "clear and convincing evidence."

Colleges and universities also will be required to hold live hearings with cross-examinations of both parties. Cross-examinations won't be done by the students personally, but by an "adviser." Either party can request the hearing be held virtually in separate rooms.

Kenneth Marcus, the assistant secretary of the department's Office for Civil Rights, said that the new regulation is a "game-changer" and "establishes that schools and colleges must take sexual harassment seriously."

"It marks the end of the false dichotomy of either protecting survivors, while ignoring due process, or protecting the accused, while disregarding sexual misconduct," he said in a statement. "There is no reason why educators cannot protect all of their students -- and under this regulation there will be no excuses for failing to do so."

Victim advocacy groups, however, argue that the new regulations diminish survivors and discourage them from reporting sexual assault and harassment.

Fatima Goss Graves, president and CEO of the National Women's Law Center, said that "if this rule goes into effect, survivors will be denied their civil rights and will get the message loud and clear that there is no point in reporting assault."

Dan Schorr, a former New York sex crimes prosecutor who now leads the consulting firm Ankura's sexual misconduct and Title IX Investigations practice, told CNN that many schools are "extremely unprepared" to implement the live hearings called for under the new guidance.

Congressional Democrats, including Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state, the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, have slammed DeVos for issuing regulations that are "completely unrelated to combating coronavirus."

"Our education system is facing an unprecedented crisis. But instead of focusing on helping students, educators, and schools cope with (Covid-19), Secretary DeVos is eroding protections for students' safety," Democrats on the House Committee on Education and Labor said on Twitter.

And the National Women's Law Center said Wednesday that it intends to sue the Education Department. Asked about anticipated legal challenges, a senior department official told reporters that the department "is focused on the new rule being understood publicly and by institutions."

DeVos said the department received "more than 124,000 public comments" when the rules were first proposed and that the final regulations come after "years of wide-ranging research, careful deliberation, and critical input," including from survivor advocates, people falsely accused and school administrators.

DeVos and other agency officials on a call with reporters were also asked how the Department of Education expects these regulations to be implemented given how schools are already struggling to allocate funding and manpower during the coronavirus pandemic.

DeVos argued that the "reality is that civil rights really can't wait, and students' cases continue to be decided.
"We've been working on this for more than two years, so it's not a surprise to institutions that it was coming," she said.

SOURCE 







Australian universities angry at 'final twist of the knife' excluding them from Coronavirus handouts

Universities are incensed by the third set of changes in a month designed to exclude them from the $130bn jobkeeper wage subsidy program, labelling them the “final twist of the knife” that will ensure none qualify.

New rules for the program, released late on Friday, specify universities must count six months of revenue when calculating their projected downturn, a tweak that puts $1,500 fortnightly payments per worker out of their reach.

On Monday, the University of Sydney, one of the last institutions still in contention for the funding, announced it is no longer eligible.

The move follows a decision in April to exclude universities from the more generous threshold for charities to access the program, meaning they must show a full 50% drop in revenue or 30% for those with revenue of less than $1bn a year to qualify.

On 24 April the government clarified that universities must count their commonwealth grants scheme funding towards their revenue, despite a change allowing other charities to leave out government grants.

Under the new rules, while other organisations such as businesses and charities can calculate their losses over one month or one quarter in order to qualify, universities must show the required decline from 1 January to 30 June.

The Innovative Research Universities executive director, Conor King, said after successive changes to jobkeeper it now appears “no university can claim it”.

“Universities have turned with every twist of the knife, only to be left to heal ourselves each time,” he said. “This seems to be the final twist of the knife.”

“The lack of support will impact how well universities will function in 2021 and beyond.”

The University of Sydney vice-chancellor, Michael Spence, told staff on Monday he believed it qualified and had applied on the basis of “the significant loss of revenue from student suspensions and withdrawals in March for semester 1”.

“The government has changed this rule for universities and extended the period in which to demonstrate revenue loss … this means we will no longer be eligible to receive jobkeeper funding,” he said.

Spence reassured staff that anyone who was paid a salary top-up in April in anticipation of receiving jobkeeper funding in May will be allowed to keep the payment.

A spokeswoman for La Trobe said the university believed it was eligible for jobkeeper based on a decline in projected GST turnover of more than 30% when comparing March 2020 with March 2019. But the university was then disqualified by the inclusion of commonwealth grant scheme funding.

“By applying for jobkeeper, we acted in good faith by following the published ATO guidelines,” she said. “We are very disappointed that the application criteria have changed again.”

In April the education minister, Dan Tehan, announced a support package including a guarantee on $18bn of projected university funding and $100m of regulator fee relief, shared with the rest of the tertiary sector.

Universities welcomed the package as a first step but warned it wouldn’t be enough to prevent an estimated 21,000 job cuts in the next six months in Australia’s third largest export sector.

Labor’s education spokeswoman, Tanya Plibersek, said the government “seems determined to do nothing while universities suffer big job losses and campus closures”.

“That will hurt families and communities right across Australia, including in regional areas.”

A spokesperson for the education department said the rules were changed because the monthly measurement of revenue applied through the “normal test” was “potentially subject to larger variations due to timing issues than underlying economic drivers would suggest”.

“Accordingly, the six month test is designed to smooth out any timing variations.”

SOURCE  

No comments: