Public perceptions of federal science advisory boards depend on their composition.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides expert advice to inform agency decision-making. Recent regulations have decreased the representation of academic scientists on the EPA SAB and increased the representation of industry scientists. In an experiment, we asked how the US public views the goals and legitimacy of the board as a function of its composition. Respondents perceived SABs with a majority of industry scientists to be more likely to promote business interests than SABs with a majority of academic scientists. Liberals were less likely than conservatives to perceive industry-majority SABs as promoting human health and the environment, and making unbiased and evidence-based decisions. Our findings underscore the potential for politicization of scientific advice to the government.

Scientists' political behaviors are not driven by individual-level government benefits.

Is it appropriate for scientists to engage in political advocacy? Some political critics of scientists argue that scientists have become partisan political actors with self-serving financial agendas. However, most scientists strongly reject this view. While social scientists have explored the effects of science politicization on public trust in science, little empirical work directly examines the drivers of scientists' interest in and willingness to engage in political advocacy. Using a natural experiment involving the U.S. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship (NSF-GRF), we causally estimate for the first time whether scientists who have received federal science funding are more likely to engage in both science-related and non-science-related political behaviors. Comparing otherwise similar individuals who received or did not receive NSF support, we find that scientists' preferences for political advocacy are not shaped by receiving government benefits. Government funding did not impact scientists' support of the 2017 March for Science nor did it shape the likelihood that scientists donated to either Republican or Democratic political groups. Our results offer empirical evidence that scientists' political behaviors are not motivated by self-serving financial agendas. They also highlight the limited capacity of even generous government support programs to increase civic participation by their beneficiaries.

Researchers' And Medical Student' Experience in Reference Management Software in a Low-Income Country.

INTRODUCTION: Although the use of Reference Management Software (RMS) is increasing in developed countries, they seem to be unknown and less used in low-income countries. AIM: To discover the major trends in the use of RMS among researchers and Ph.D. students in Tunisia, as a low-income country. METHODS: A hardcopy survey was filled out by researchers and Ph.D. students during an educational seminar at the faculty of medicine of Sfax in 2016 with the aim to collect qualitative data to determine the participants' knowledge and use of RMS. RESULTS: The survey collected 121 participants, among them, 53.7% know RMS. Mendeley proved to be the best-known software (41.5%), followed by Zotero (35.3%) and Endnote (23%). Training sessions in RMS were taken by 5% of participants. Among the 121 participants, 26.5%of them use RMS., Mendeley was the most used (46.9%), followed by EndNote (28.1%) and Zotero (25%). The most commonly popular feature in RMS is inserting citations (66.9%). Therefore, the analysis, of the reasons behind the choice of RMS proves that the software was used because it is convenient (38.4%),  most known (38.4%),  easy (30.7%), or suggested by colleagues (30.7%). The free and open-source software was preferred by 81% of the participants. g. However, 50.4% ignore the fact that Zotero is free. Several types and sources of captured citations were unknown by 53.8% and 59% of the rest of the participants. CONCLUSION: The results clearly show that the lack of awareness about RMS in Tunisia is due to the absence of a formal training. As a result, the need for such training is highly important for researchers to be able to benefit from the different advantages of RMS while conducting their academic medical education.

The credibility crisis in research: Can economics tools help?

The issue of nonreplicable evidence has attracted considerable attention across biomedical and other sciences. This concern is accompanied by an increasing interest in reforming research incentives and practices. How to optimally perform these reforms is a scientific problem in itself, and economics has several scientific methods that can help evaluate research reforms. Here, we review these methods and show their potential. Prominent among them are mathematical modeling and laboratory experiments that constitute affordable ways to approximate the effects of policies with wide-ranging implications.

The Einstein-Brazil Fogarty: A decade of synergy.

A rich, collaborative program funded by the US NIH Fogarty program in 2004 has provided for a decade of remarkable opportunities for scientific advancement through the training of Brazilian undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students from the Federal University and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation systems at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. The focus of the program has been on the development of trainees in the broad field of Infectious Diseases, with a particular focus on diseases of importance to the Brazilian population. Talented trainees from various regions in Brazil came to Einstein to learn techniques and study fungal, parasitic and bacterial pathogens. In total, 43 trainees enthusiastically participated in the program. In addition to laboratory work, these students took a variety of courses at Einstein, presented their results at local, national and international meetings, and productively published their findings. This program has led to a remarkable synergy of scientific discovery for the participants during a time of rapid acceleration of the scientific growth in Brazil. This collaboration between Brazilian and US scientists has benefitted both countries and serves as a model for future training programs between these countries.

The Einstein-Brazil Fogarty: A decade of synergy

Abstract A rich, collaborative program funded by the US NIH Fogarty program in 2004 has provided for a decade of remarkable opportunities for scientific advancement through the training of Brazilian undergraduate, graduate and postdoctoral students from the Federal University and Oswaldo Cruz Foundation systems at Albert Einstein College of Medicine. The focus of the program has been on the development of trainees in the broad field of Infectious Diseases, with a particular focus on diseases of importance to the Brazilian population. Talented trainees from various regions in Brazil came to Einstein to learn techniques and study fungal, parasitic and bacterial pathogens. In total, 43 trainees enthusiastically participated in the program. In addition to laboratory work, these students took a variety of courses at Einstein, presented their results at local, national and international meetings, and productively published their findings. This program has led to a remarkable synergy of scientific discovery for the participants during a time of rapid acceleration of the scientific growth in Brazil. This collaboration between Brazilian and US scientists has benefitted both countries and serves as a model for future training programs between these countries.

[Assessing the correlation between international collaboration and academic influence in parasitic diseases: a case study of National Institute of Parasitic Diseases, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention].

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the activity of scientific research and international collaboration in National Institute of Parasitic Diseases (NIPD), Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) from 2002 to 2012, and assess the relationship between international collaboration and academic influence at an individual level. METHODS: Non-bibliometric indicators including number and structure of scientific research personnel, number of projects and funds, visiting frequency, etc, were used to assess the activity of scientific research and international collaboration, and bibliometric indicators including publications and h index, were employed to estimate the academic influence of senior professionals in NIPD, China CDC. The relationship between the international collaboration and international academic influence in the control and research of parasitic diseases was evaluated by using analysis of covariance and generalized linear models. RESULTS: There was an increase tendency of the number of projects, funds and visiting frequency in NIPD, China CDC since the foundation of the institute in 2002, notably after 2011. The h2 index of NIPD, China was 7. Analysis of covariance and generalized linear model analysis revealed that the number of international partners (F = 81.75, P < 0.0001) , number of international projects (F = 22.81, P < 0.0001) , number of national projects (F = 7.30, P = 0.0110), and academic degree (F = 3.80, P = 0.0330) contributed greatly to individual academic influence, while visiting frequency, professional title and length of service had no significant association with h index. CONCLUSION: Elevation of international collaboration projects and development of long-term, stable international partnership may enhance the institutional and individual international academic influence in the field of parasitic diseases.