As part of the Undergraduate Research Conference, Alan Leshner, CEO of American Association for the Advancement of Science and Executive Publisher of Science, delivered a keynote address on the evolving relationship between science and society as a whole. Although Americans resoundingly acknowledge the vital role science plays in society, he contended, there are huge gaps in understanding between scientists and non-scientists over what science is, how it functions, and how much money it needs.

He dedicated his talk to two truisms:

Truism #1: The health of the scientific enterprise is embedded in and reflective of the broader society.

An increasing number of scientists (particularly young ones) view their work in terms of its practical considerations, and this is primarily why society supports research. Those who pursue their research only because it is interesting and provocative tend to be funded at similar levels to classical archaeology, Leshner joked. (For the uninitiated, most academic science is funded through federal grants.)

Because science as an institution is coming to terms with its pragmatic role in society, America is increasingly seeing more grants for high-risk/high-rewards research as well as a greater push for diversity in fields.

“The greatest progress in science comes from diversity,” Leshner said, referring to both demographic diversity and varied ways of thinking.

But of course, funding is always an issue, regardless of the field. In the past year, federal grant-giving institutions (e.g. NASA, NIH) are more likely to see less funding in efforts to balance the budget. Last year, almost across the board, science agencies’ budgets didn’t just not increase with inflation, they were cut. To the individual scientist, this translates to a longer interval between graduate school and their first grant (generally held as the measure of when a scientist’s career starts). Leshner said that he received his first grant at 25—now scientists with PhDs are having to wait until their forties to research independently.

However, this is mainly a problem for the individual scientists. From a macro perspective, the rate of publications is still rising, and the arrested development is manifesting in increased collaboration. Leshner said that Science barely receives any single-authored papers, and many of the submissions will have co0authors from different institutions in different countries.

Read the rest of this entry »

We’re Number 111!

The National Science Foundation just released its ranking for university spending on Research and Development for fiscal year 2008, and Georgetown is ranked 111th.  According to the rankings, Georgetown spent $143 million on research and development during fiscal year 2008.

Our ranking is a slight improvement over the previous year, when we came in 113th and spent $132 million on R&D.  In fiscal year 2006 we came in 117th, with $119 million spent on R&D.

Our R&D spending is still dwarfed by several nearby schools, though.  John Hopkins University, which maintained it first place ranking for the 3oth year in a row, spent $1.7 billion on R & D.  We were also beat out by Virginia Tech, University of Maryland at College Park, University of Maryland at Baltimore, University of Virginia, George Washington University and Virginia Commonwealth University.

Georgetown Universities science programs may need a little help, but our country isn’t doing quite so poorly. Of the three Nobel Prizes announced this year—Physics, Chemistry and Medicine—Americans have won all three.

The prize in Economics will be announced Monday, and while we may not win the Peace Prize (10/13), we can at least make it 4 for 5.

Posted by Austin Richardson, Senior Writer