Tag Archives: policy

Community, November 2018

NIH’s efforts to fight sexual harassment fall short of expectations

2 Comments

On October 21, the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) new policy to fight sexual harassment in science went into effect. This policy requires institutions that receive NSF funding to report to the agency any findings related to sexual harassment, including coercion, assault and other forms of harassment (as defined here), by principal investigators (PIs) and co-PIs, within ten business days of the report. This policy also requires the institutions to report any administrative actions that have been taken against such PIs, including putting them on a leave during an investigation. This policy, originally drafted in February of this year, will apply to any new grants and any extensions to existing grants made on or after that date, and is considered as the “strictest action yet by a US research funding agency” to fight sexual harassment.

In comparison, the NIH’s new efforts to battle sexual harassment pales when held up to the NSF’s new policy. Several months after the NSF’s initial undertaking to design their policy, NIH Director Francis Collins unveiled the new anti-sexual harassment website containing a centralized reporting system for sexual harassment and violence, and updated policies that would apply to the institutions that receive NIH funding. These policies require the institutions to also develop and foster an environment that prevents gender violence, increase accessibility to reporting of incidents, respond to any reported incidents and notify the NIH in case of status change of the PI/co-PI on existing grants.

While these policies seem sound, a comparative analysis between NSF and NIH’s efforts reveal the lukewarm nature of such policies. The NSF requires that the agency be notified by funded institutions whenever a PI/co-PI has been placed on administrative leave, faces any administrative action related to the incident, or is under investigation for violating the award policies or the codes of conduct related to sexual harassment. In contrast, the NIH only requires that it be notified when there is a change of status for the PI/co-PI (a change of status is required when a PI/co-PI is no longer able to substantially contribute to the research efforts of the grant awarded). In addition to requiring that incidents be reported within ten business days, the NSF also has a review process for evaluating such incidents. The NIH has no such timeline, provides no guidance on investigating such incidents, and has no proper review process in place for determining the course of administrative action. It should be noted that both the NSF and NIH are dependent on the investigation performed by the alleged perpetrator’s host institution, which is a problem in itself given how universities seem reluctant to pursue sexual harassment cases.  

The starkest difference between the NSF and NIH policies seems to revolve around the question of what will happen to the funding situation for the alleged perpetrator if they are to be found in violation of the codes of conduct. Under the NSF policy, the PI/co-PI can be either removed from/substituted in the award, or have their funding amount reduced, or have their award suspended or terminated. However, in the FAQ section of the new NIH website, the question of removal of funding is described as a “complex issue” and refers to an existing policy requirement that is not specific to gender violence and sexual harassment issues. NIH Director Francis Collins pointed out that NIH grants are awarded to “institutions, not to individuals”; he also mentioned that due to the legal constraints the NIH faces since it is under the Department of Human and Health Services (HHS), immediate termination of the perpetrator’s funding cannot be applied as it can from the NSF, which is an independent agency.

Critics argued that Collins’ rationale appears contradictory and unclear. NIH policies allow grantees to transfer their funding when they change institutions, which is directly opposite to his statement that NIH grants are awarded to institutions and not individuals. Additionally, there are other mechanisms that the NIH can use to address time-sensitive issues, such as those of sexual harassment when they threaten the safety of scientists. The disappointment and frustration expressed towards NIH’s lukewarm efforts to fight sexual harassment is amplified by the fact that Collins had announced this topic to be on his agenda back in 2016. Critics pointed out that if the NIH had actually started working on this issue when they promised, they would have already made progress with the the complex rulemaking process. Collins has promised to work with the government and his counterpart in NSF, France Cordova, to work on these issues.

The issue of gender violence and gender bias in STEM fields have taken a center place with the burgeoning #MeTooSTEM social media movement. It was given a more concrete place in policymaking with the report from the National Academy of Sciences, published on June 12, that showed how pervasive these issues are, the failure of current Title IX policies, and the absence of any specific policies to address them. In this report, female STEM students in the University of Texas system reported higher levels of sexual harassment and related issues compared to non-STEM majors, with the highest level in Medicine; similar trends were found when female graduate students in the Pennsylvania state system in a separate survey. The report also showed how sexual harassment is also harming careers and driving women away from pursuing scientific careers altogether. All this data build on previous research which showed that prevalence of sexual harassment in academia stands at 58%; women of color, LGBTQIA and gender minority folks experienced a higher rate of harassment. The NIH’s new policy does not take into account the barriers victims face when reporting incidents of sexual harassment and violence due to established power dynamics and the pervasive patriarchy in society; nor does it take into account that it is more often than not that the victim suffers in their professional careers more than the perpetrator. The latter is exemplified in the case of the tobacco researcher at UCSF, who has been found guilty of sexually harassing a post-doc (although the perpetrator has denied responsibility), but is still employed and lauded by UCSF for winning a large NIH grant, whereas the post-doc had to leave the university and her work has not been published. This only adds to the argument as to why the NIH needs to take serious action against perpetrators and not reward them further with more funding. 

Scientists are not just waiting for NIH to catch up on the times to fight gender violence – Beth McLaughlin, the founder of #MeTooSTEM, and others have launched a petition to Francis Collins to stop funding perpetrators of sexual misconduct. Julie Libarkin has created a detailed spreadsheet of publicly available information on sexual misconduct in academia. Maryam Zaringhalam and Angela Saini are trying to bring Saini’s book Inferior, which details how gender bias in STEM fields have been constructed over decades, to public schools in the US to educate the youth, and especially encourage girls to pursue scientific careers. These trailblazers are, unsurprisingly, all women. It is also critical to note that neither these policies nor a critical examination of the pervasiveness of sexual harassment in academia would have come to light without these young women scientists blowing the whistle at great risk of their careers. Ultimately, the effects of gender violence and gender bias affects all sexes, and we should all be doing our part, especially the male scientists, to fight against it and not leave the burden on those who are affected by it the most.

Community, December 2017

Lessons from #GradStudentTax

The recent tax reform bill passed in the House caused much uproar in the academic community as it removed the provision in the current tax code that waives the students’ school tuition. This provision, known as qualified-tuition-reduction provision (section 117(d)(5)), allows for the waived tuition to be exempt from taxable income; removal of this provision would therefore add to the tax burden of the students, who are already living marginally with an average income of ~$30,000/year. Sackler students, who currently receive $33,500, would see their taxable income increase by ~$20,000 (annual tuition) which would push them to a higher tax bracket (15% to 25%). It should be noted that this tuition waiver provision does not affects students in their 6th or higher year of study at Sackler as tuition is not charged past the 5th year.

Fortunately, the Senate’s version of the new tax bill retains this provision, for now. It remains to be seen whether the merged version of the bill will keep or remove this provision. In the meantime, graduate students have been organizing nationwide; the Sackler graduate student council organized a call your representatives event last Tuesday. If you haven’t gotten a chance to make your voice heard yet, consider signing onto FASEB’s letter to Congress asking them to protect the waiver provision.

The fight to protect this provision has raised other questions among grad students, particularly, why do universities bill tuition and then waive it? It appears that the waiver is not done in the same manner across all private universities. For example, Cornell University considers its tuition waiver as a qualified scholarship, which is tax exempt and not affected by the removal of the provision in the House bill. But this still allows for the question to be asked as to why universities just don’t charge $0 for tuition or if they can NOT charge it after 5 years, why they can’t do it for the years before. The answer seems to lie with the fact that universities are using the billed tuition as a way to generate revenue, especially in the sciences. This may sound sinister, but the reality is more complex. As scientists & trainees supported mostly by government grants, we are all aware of the overhead & indirect costs that are involved with doing research and that a percentage of every grant awarded to a faculty member at the university is matched by the NIH and given to the university administration. This support is necessary for maintaining a research environment, but it also begs the question of whether taxpayer money should be used to fund administrations of private universities with large endowments, particularly at a time when budgets for scientific endeavors are being slashed. Additionally, given that private universities, which enjoy a non-profit status, are behaving more and more like for-profit institutions, one is left to wonder whose interests are being represented at the administrative level.

The grad student tax debate has also raised the question of the role of graduate students in the workplace. Traditionally, graduate students have been considered as trainees rather than employees and a certain paternalistic relationship exists between faculty/administration & graduate students. However, since the National Labor Relations Board’s decision to recognize graduate students as employees, thus allowing them to unionize, this trainee status is being questioned more and more. Graduate students have faced obstructions from the university administrations when they have tried to unionize, and faculty have been divided on the topic of whether students should unionize (one professor going as far to tell grad students to focus on work rather than wages). Tufts currently has a graduate student union, but the Sackler school doesn’t have one at the moment, reasons for which lie with the content student body and the lack of a teaching requirement as part of the stipend.

It seems that the tax bill requires major revisions, for reasons separate from the grad student tax. This gives us, academics, time to organize around this issue and keep putting pressure on our representatives to protect the tuition waiver for graduate students. This also allows us to have a broader discussion about the roles of graduate students in the workplace, and how universities use funds that they receive from the public through the government funding bodies. Transparency from the administration’s side is likely to win them more supporters among students and faculty alike, rather than a nebulous state of operations.

 

articles, Community, Events for Students, February 2017

Educate & Communicate: A Science Activism Manifesto

3 Comments

Science is often thought of as a monolithic entity, but it is actually a complex composition of a discipline, an institution, and a community, all focused on finding truth and knowledge in data and the natural world. Science as a community consists of people of all ethnicities and from all socioeconomic classes; talent is found everywhere, and we as scientists do not and should not limit our number to those with a privileged pedigree. Science as an institution is a pillar of modern society, supporting and enabling growth and progress previously impossible to achieve. Science as a discipline is an investigative practice that demands rigor, critical analysis, and substantive evidence to support the conclusions that we draw from the data. Science as a discipline to formulate theory may be apolitical, but as an institution and a community that is an integral part of modern civic society, science cannot simply be an idle observer. Atrocities have been committed in the name of science when the idea of the pure monolith prevails and is exploited by political regimes to suppress minorities, such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiments and Nazi human trials. However, science has also been used to fight for the welfare of all people and to resist such regimes: Rachel Carson, Albert Einstein, Linus Pauling, Max von Laue all used their privilege as scientists to fight for justice and the greater good. While the scientific discipline provides a path for pure theory, we are human, each with our own biases that guide our investigation, influence our analysis, and may even blind us to the truth. Ultimately, the application of scientific theory to society bears the imprint of our ideas and our biases, and we as a community bear responsibility for the results. It is therefore imperative that we distinguish the apolitical discipline of science from the institution and community of science, which are a part of civic society and inherently political. We currently hold privileged positions in society that are at risk in the contemporary political climate. The defense of science is our moral and civic duty. Furthermore, in defending ourselves, we should also take a stand to give a voice to those who cannot do so for themselves.

It has been three weeks since President Trump has entered office. It has been three weeks of chaos and confusion. In these three weeks, President Trump’s actions have threatened to tear apart the fabric of American society, wrought and held together for so long by people of all ethnicities, sexual, religious and political orientations. However, whereas his actions have largely focused on promoting protectionist values, it also appears that he and his cabinet nominees are determined on ignoring scientific evidence and denying the real dangers of climate change, as well as showing utter disregard for environmental protection. Their plans to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, with the help of the Republican Party, and the threat to abolish the Endangered Species Act all point to their contempt towards protecting biodiversity, the very proof of evolution. Their intention to deregulate the pharmaceutical industry, under the illusion of lowering drug prices, will risk the lives of patients. Their attempts to champion creationism and intelligent design over evolution in public education will risk the credibility of scientific facts. Meanwhile, the House committee on science, space and technology appears more eager to accept the President’s words despite what multiple media outlets have to say in their defense, even as President Trump proclaims any media outlet as “fake news” if they fail to agree with him. In addition, Trump’s hobnobbing with the most prominent anti-vaxxer, Andrew Wakefield, should already raise concerns about how decades of public health work to minimize infectious diseases and maintain public support will be undermined because of his ideology, especially when the anti-vax movement is gaining momentum. Even further, his claims to “totally destroy” the Johnson Amendment, the law that upholds the separation of Church and State, also pose a major threat to the scientific endeavor.

The U.S.A, the country that still puts the highest amount of taxpayer money into scientific research compared to other Western nations, is currently being ruled by an administration that would rather shape policy based on pre-existing ideologies than hard evidence. Since this administration ignores scientific data regarding the dangers posed by climate change, restricts dissemination of scientific data to the populace who funded the research, subjects its doctors and scientists to a travel ban in the guise of “protectionism” when data clearly show that homegrown terrorists have caused far more deaths in the U.S. than immigrants from any of the seven countries on the ban list, it is our duty as scientists to stand up and take a stance. We can no longer afford to look away. We can no longer afford to remain in our comfortable positions as biomedical scientists whose careers are not currently threatened. We should use our privilege to stand up for those whose voices have been muted.

In these times when the foundations of the scientific community are threatened and evidence-based policies disregarded, the outpouring of support has solidified our unity. Already, scientists are taking action – a nation-wide and possibly global March for Science rally has been planned for April 22 (Earth Day). Prominent scientists across the U.S. have petitioned against the travel ban, and European scientists have offered laboratory space to scientists stranded due to the travel ban. Scientists from all walks of life are organizing to protect their communities; scientists are actively thinking about running for office and other positions to influence policy-making. These are all very encouraging, however, these actions are missing a key point – this is a battle of ideology, not policy or scientific literacy. As a recent study has shown, the public does not consider scientific questions that raise moral or ethical concerns as “science” questions. Another recent excellent article on how science journalism can combat this issue reports that science journalists should “listen, be curious and consider the non-science factors that shape people’s beliefs – because people’s beliefs shape policy, our society, and the world”. One may imagine that increasing scientific literacy should take care of such issues, however, that has not been the case. All too often, scientists  fail to properly communicate with the masses and are  unable to get the message across because they were too focused on explaining the basic science without taking into consideration the presentation of  facts.

This is not a temporary issue. Trump is not the only President who has or will challenge evidence-based policy and threaten the scientific community. However, it is crucial that we take action now because the dangers of climate change are imminent and we cannot afford to deny it anymore. Therefore, it is imperative that scientists come forward to educate and communicate with the public in a language and tone sufficient to start a dialogue. We start by communicating with each other, educating each other about our work. From there, we communicate and educate our family members and relatives, our friends, our communities and beyond. This has to be a grassroots movement – no top-down policy will fix the scientific literacy issue and lead American society toward a future where policies are based on hard evidence as  opposed to blind faith. This is how we can give back to the public, who provide the majority of funding for our work, and ensure that science does not belong to an elite population, but in the hands and minds of the people.

This is why we are calling on you, each and every scientist, ranging from technicians to postdocs, graduate students to faculty, to action. Educate and communicate with your science. Explain why it is necessary. Even if you talk to just one person a day, that can make a difference. That is where we start. If you want to do more, organize. Rally behind policymakers who heed scientific evidence and will champion such causes. Volunteer at high schools and colleges. Take part in science festivals. Celebrate science and its achievements sans the elitism. It is not about funding, or whose research is more important. It is about making science accessible to the masses, who have tirelessly supported and benefited from our work for decades and will continue to do so. It is about rescuing science from the clutches of political partisanship. It is about freedom to communicate our science, the protection of our community, and the advancement of our society.

For too long academics have been cooped up in their self-imposed exclusive isolation from the masses. For too long we have assumed that Science exists in a vacuum. We cannot afford this axiom anymore. We have to consider the social, political, and economic forces that affect the direction of scientific research. We have a moral and civic duty to fight for what is right and to prevent the use of science to advance fascist ideology. The time to take action is now. 

Here are some resources to help you take action in the short term –

Sincerely,

The Sackler Insight Team

articles, February 2016

New Dietary Guidelines focus on longevity of healthy eating habits

2 Comments

This year, Valentine’s Day may end up being a little less sweet, at least for those following the new 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This most recent report on the current status of nutritional health in the U.S. suggests reduction in sugar intake as one major priority for improving the diet of the American public. While not a particularly unexpected suggestion, sugar overconsumption was emphasized more than in past reports, which primarily focused on decreasing total calorie consumption as well as sodium and saturated fat intake. While the report also dictated that these latter two troublesome nutrient groups also be consumed less, it was sweet versus savory that emerged as the one of the more challenging adversaries to healthy diet that needs to be faced in coming years.

This eighth edition of the guidelines was released at the start of the new year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Updated every five years since its introduction in 1980, this report not only outlines the current state of nutritional health in the U.S. but also provides standards for improvement over the next five-year period. Each report encourages changes in Americans’ diet to improve overall health and prevent disease by suggesting key recommendations for beneficial food and beverage consumption as well as methods that organizations can use to enforce their implementation.

To make these recommendations, a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee consisting of leading nutrition scientists and medicals experts reviews available nutritional data in the form of existing literature reviews, committee-generate literature reviews, national data from federal agencies, and food pattern modeling analyses. From there, they summarize the scientific evidence and the corresponding proposals for dietary changes to pass off to a combined HHS and USDA policy contingent that assembles the final report. Professionals from federal and private organizations can then use this report to direct and shift public perception and practices regarding nutrition. The ultimate goal is to have these changes then improve public health in relation to diet and overall well-being.

Currently, about 60% of the U.S. population over two years of age exhibits a healthy eating index, while only around 20% meet physical activity guidelines. However, this is contrasted by the fact that over half the population of American adults has one or more diet-related chronic diseases. Thus, this year’s report framed its key recommendations in the context of being necessary to reduce chronic disease; specifically, they highlighted how a healthy diet can reduce the risk or progression of obesity, type-2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. It argues that encouraging disease prevention through healthy diet would not only improve quality of life, it would also reduce national medical expenses by a significant amount. Chronic disease focus was an expansion of previous years’ disease prevention aims, which centered on weight and obesity alone.

“This edition of the Dietary Guidelines focuses on shifts to emphasize the need to make substitutions—that is, choosing nutrient-dense foods and beverages in place of less healthy choices—rather than increasing intake overall.” – 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

As such, the key recommendations in previous reports emphasized calorie intake in addition to calorie balance (intake versus expenditure of calories) as crucial to maintaining health-beneficial weight. In contrast, this year’s report instead put the term eating patterns in the spotlight, with emphasis on variety within food groups and nutrient density, as part of their five key recommendations (see Box 1). While earlier editions of the guidelines also encouraged these three principles, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines push them front and center as a way to encourage the American public to make more long-term, and thus hopefully longer lasting, changes to their diets.

 

Box 1: Terms to Know

Eating pattern: The combination of foods and beverages that constitute an individual’s complete dietary intake over time.

Nutrient dense: A characteristic of foods and beverages that provide vitamins, minerals, and other substances that contribute to adequate nutrient intakes or may have positive healthy effects, with little or no solid fats and added sugars, refined starches, and sodium.

Variety: A diverse assortment of foods and beverages across and within all food groups and subgroups selected to fulfill the recommended amounts without exceeding the limits for calories and other dietary components.

The revised Dietary Guidelines themselves are not particularly different than past years and are what you would expect. Lots of veggies and fruit, some dairy, protein and grains, with limited amounts (<10% of overall calorie intake) of salt, fat, oil, and sugar is the recommended pattern of eating for the U.S.-style diet plan. Two alternatives were also described, where the Mediterranean-style plan contains more fruit and seafood and less diary while the Vegetarian plan obviously eliminates meat, poultry, and seafood while emphasizing legume, soy product, and whole grains intake.

In addition to listing daily intake amounts and limits for the food groups, each plan also frames these recommendations in the context of weekly amounts and limits. The unique aim of this dual description is to encourage more flexibility in adhering to the guidelines. It will hopefully allow Americans to recognize even if they cannot consistently meet daily quotas of appropriate nutrient and food group intake, they still can adhere to a healthy eating plan on a broader time scale.

The report also placed heavy emphasis on considering the nutrient density of consumed food. For example, a glass of juice serves as a fruit serving, but eating ‘whole fruit’ such as an apple or orange is better, as is eating whole grain bread over other types. The lack of variety in food groups—especially vegetables and protein—consumed by Americans was also a concern. Specifically, more range in veggie types (dark green, red and orange, legumes, and starchy) as well as a shift away from meat and poultry towards seafood was encouraged. Again, these are suggestions that have been made previously by the USDA and HHS, but combined with the flexibility from the newly emphasized weekly guidelines and eating patterns as a whole, the hope is to increase specifically the ease of following these nutritional recommendations.

The report also warns to keep an eye out for hidden sources of nutrient groups that should be ingested in limited amounts and have been linked by moderate to strong evidence to chronic disease (such as sugar, saturated or trans fats, sodium, and oil). For example, many types of meat are a source of high saturated fat, and yogurt can often contain high amounts of sugar, with processed foods and mixed dishes (such as burger or pasta plates) at restaurants typically containing significant amounts of salt. Given that the average American consumes almost twice the recommended levels of both sugar and salt in their diet, shifting eating patterns to lessen intake of these disease-linked food groups would be one significant way of improving general health.

To shift American diet towards a healthier nutritional composition, the guidelines helpfully provide a wide variety of suggestions in how to make this change. To incorporate more fruits and vegetables, they suggested skewing the balance of mixed meals towards these groups. For example, making an omelet for breakfast or a stir-fry for dinner that is composed of more vegetables than meat or poultry. They also give specific examples of how to make healthier exchanges in other food choices: celery and humus instead of chips and salsa, baked chicken over fried, an apple or unsalted nuts instead of commercially made granola bars, and oil instead of butter or shortening for cooking. It emphasizes that small modifications, when combined with one another, can compound into large changes to diet that, if maintained, can lead to beneficial improvements in health.

One outstanding gender-specific suggestion included reduced meat consumption by teen and adult males, who tend to over-consume that food subgroup. Additionally, adolescents and young adults as a whole typically demonstrate the worst adherence to past guidelines. This report’s heavy focus on how to shift eating patterns towards more nutrient-dense options hopefully will encourage adoption of healthy nutrition at a young age that will then be preserved into adolescence and adulthood.

Improving access to healthy food both outside and inside American homes was a major hurdle that the Dietary Guidelines identified in implementing these shifts in eating patterns. Grocery store development and access to other sources of food such as farmers markets, shelters, food banks, and community gardens or cooperatives were specific examples provided for how government and private sector professionals can make that challenge smaller. Household food insecurity—defined as the lack of consistent maintenance of healthy food choices within a home—was also a major concern, especially for families or individuals who struggle financially. Educational and nutrition assistance programs would need expansion and increased penetrance into communities to combat this issue in a more effective manner, especially given this report’s focus on healthy diet patterns that have longevity.

More than anything else, the Dietary Guidelines, 2015-2020 heavily emphasizes cementing long-term healthy eating habits by encouraging variety and flexibility in food choices over counting total calories or quantifying diet by calories alone. Directing changes to national nutrition in this way will hopefully begin to address the significant need for large changes in American diet required to reduce chronic disease in our population.