Haskell Indian Nations University receives $20 million National Science Foundation research award for Indigenous science hub project

Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs Bryan Newland today announced that Haskell Indian Nations University, a Bureau of Indian Education-operated Tribal University in Lawrence, Kansas, is the recipient of a $20 million award from the National Science Foundation for an Indigenous science hub project. Funded under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the award is for five years and is the largest research award ever granted by the NSF to a Tribal college or university.

The project will create The Large Scale CoPe: Rising Voices, Changing Coasts: The National Indigenous and Earth Sciences Convergence Hub, a space for the convergence of disciplines and epistemologies where Indigenous knowledge-holders from diverse coastal regions will work with university-trained social, ecosystem and physical Earth system scientists and students on transformative research to address coastal hazards in the contexts of their communities.

“The Rising Voices, Changing Coasts hub to be located at Haskell Indian Nations University is a tremendous step forward in supporting Tribal communities as they address challenges from a rapidly changing climate,” said Assistant Secretary Newland. “This is an exciting and much-needed opportunity for scientists and Indigenous knowledge keepers to collaborate on how Indigenous people in coastal areas can build resiliency to the dynamic forces resulting from climate change.”

The Rising Voices, Changing Coasts hub’s goals are to improve modeling and prediction of coastal processes to support decision-making by Indigenous communities, develop a framework for cross-cultural collaboration that can be adopted in the future, train the next generation of Indigenous researchers, and increase the infrastructure at Haskell needed to support future large research projects.

The hub will focus on place-based research in four regions: Alaska (Arctic), Louisiana (Gulf of Mexico), Hawai‘i (Pacific Islands), and Puerto Rico (Caribbean Islands). It will combine Indigenous knowledge, modeling capabilities, archeological records, geographic information system techniques, socio-economic analysis and hazards research. Together, these data, transdisciplinary analysis and convergent findings will enhance fundamental understanding of the interconnected physical, cultural, social and economic processes that result in coastal hazards and climate resilience opportunities, and increase the accuracy, relevance and usability of model predictions on multi-decadal timescales.

The Haskell Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit serving the university, secured the project’s funding. “This award is wonderful and critically important today,” said Haskell Foundation Director Aaron Hove. “It cements Haskell’s leadership role in Indigenous Climate Change research and demonstrates what a small institution can accomplish when it builds relationships with internationally known research institutions like the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Scripps Research Institute and large research universities.”

“This research hub is a significant part of the growing recognition that traditional ecological knowledges and Indigenous knowledges should be a part of the science that is being done today regarding global climate change,” noted Dr. Daniel R. Wildcat, Haskell faculty member and the hub’s lead investigator. “It is a game changer for Indigenous peoples. We have been advocating for years that we need a seat at the table in scientific discussions regarding climate. I think the funding for this hub allows Indigenous knowledge holders to build their own table and invite leading academic trained scientists to take a seat.”

In addition to Haskell Indian Nations University, as the lead institution, partners in the hub are: NCAR and its Rising Voices Center for Indigenous and Earth Sciences, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Indigenous Peoples Climate Change Working Group, and community partners in the four targeted regions.

Racial and ethnic disparities persist in NSF funding decisions

Read the full story at Chemical & Engineering News.

Over the past 2 decades, the US National Science Foundation (NSF) has consistently funded White researchers at higher rates than researchers from other racial and ethnic groups, according to a new study that has not yet been peer-reviewed (OSF Preprints 2022, DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/xb57u).

The study also found that White principal investigators (PIs) have secured NSF funding at increasing rates since at least 1999, a finding that contrasts with a common sentiment among White researchers that they have had more difficulty acquiring funding over time, says Christine Chen, a postdoctoral researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, who led the work.

It’s getting harder for scientists to collaborate across borders – that’s bad when the world faces global problems like pandemics and climate change

International scientific collaboration has boomed since the end of the 20th century. Yuichiro Chino/Moment via Getty Images

by Tommy Shih, Lund University

The United Nations and many researchers have emphasized the critical role international collaborative science plays in solving global challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss and pandemics. The rise of non-Western countries as science powers is helping to drive this type of global cooperative research. For example, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa formed a tuberculosis research network in 2017 and are making significant advancements on basic and applied research into the disease.

However, in the past few years, growing tensions among superpowers, increasing nationalism, the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine have contributed to nations’ behaving in more distrustful and insular ways overall. One result is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for researchers to collaborate with scholars in other nations.

The near-global cessation of collaboration with Russian scholars following the invasion of Ukraine – in everything from humanities research to climate science in the Arctic – is one example of science being a victim of – and used as a tool for – international politics. Scientific collaboration between China and the U.S. is also breaking down in fields like microelectronics and quantum computing because of national security concerns on both sides.

I am a policy expert who studies international research collaboration as it relates to global problems and geopolitical polarization. I understand the need for democratic countries to respond to the the growing strength of authoritarian countries such as China and acute crises like the Russian invasion of Ukraine. But reducing or stopping international research comes with its own risks. It slows down the production of knowledge needed to address long-term global problems and reduces the potential for future scientific collaboration.

Growth of non-Western science

Since the 1990s and the collapse of the Soviet Union, global collaboration in science has increased dramatically. There are several reasons for this development.

First, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 led to an increased openness in global scientific exchange. In particular, there was growth in the number of students from developing and non-Western countries going to universities in the West. This movement formed networks of researchers from many countries. Second, massively collaborative scientific efforts – such as the Human Genome Project – as well as the ever-growing importance of expensive, large research laboratories and instruments have fueled international collaboration. Finally, the digital revolution has made it much easier to communicate and share data across borders. This all resulted in collaborative and fruitful research in many fields including gene technology, climate science and artificial intelligence.

While Western countries dominated the scientific landscape of the 20th century, globalization has benefited many non-Western countries.

In the latter half of the 20th century, China, India, Russia, Turkey, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and many other nations all significantly improved their scientific capabilities. In doing so they have greatly contributed to human knowledge. China in particular has invested heavily in its scientific capabilities and today is the world’s largest producer of scientific publications.

The development of scientific capacity in many parts of the world and the building of academic ties is critical when it comes to responding to a new virus or tracking changes in climate. The more countries that share data and coordinate policy responses, the easier it should be to contain a virus or understand global warming.

Western concern of a rising China

Generally speaking, there are three global superpowers competing for scientific and technological leadership today: the U.S., China and the European Union.

The U.S. government and the European Union frame the loss of scientific and technological leadership as not only about diminished economic opportunities, but also as a threat to fundamental values of democracy, free market competition and rule of law.

In May 2022, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said: “China is the only country with both the intent to reshape the international order and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological power to do it. Beijing’s vision would move us away from the universal values that have sustained so much of the world’s progress over the past 75 years.”

China’s rise in science and technology has been met with stern responses from the West. Australia passed legislation in 2020 that gave the federal government veto power over foreign agreements in research. In the U.S., the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 was designed to reduce dependence on China for emerging and foundational technologies.

The International Space Station in space.
Shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and subsequent Western-imposed sanctions, Russia threatened to pull out of the International Space Station. NASA/Flickr

Science as a tool of politics

Given this framing of research as a part of international competition between China and the West, it is not surprising that science is increasingly being used as a political tool.

The U.S. government has taken significant steps to try to limit China’s scientific progress and international influence. In 2018, the U.S. launched a large-scale anti-espionage effort called the China Initiative. Under this initiative, the FBI broadly investigated U.S.-Chinese links within the corporate and academic sectors. The China Initiative failed to find any Chinese spies. But three U.S.-based scholars were convicted for failing to disclose Chinese ties.

Joe Biden and Xi Jinping facing away from each other in a room.
Both the U.S. and Europe have taken steps to slow down China’s scientific rise, and these efforts have dampened research collaboration. AP Photo/Charles Dharapak

The China Initiative has faced heavy criticism from researchers, university leaders and civil rights organizations because of claims of ethnic profiling. The Biden administration officially canceled the initiative in February 2022. But efforts to curtail China’s science and technology industries through trade sanctions on companies like Huawei restrict American companies from doing business with Chinese tech firms. The China Initiative and sanctions have also made researchers on both sides wary of collaboration.

The European Union has taken a similar stance. It calls China simultaneously a partner, competitor and systemic rival. The EU has outlined goals of increasing European scientific and technological autonomy to reduce reliance on other countries, especially China, and started to implement the strategy in 2021.

China is also using science, technology and scholarly research generally to serve national interests. The government has explicitly pushed the idea that research shall primarily serve national needs, and Chinese scholars are increasingly under political control. In 2021 there were 18 research centers devoted to studying and promoting Xi Jinping’s ideas on matters such as rule of law, economics and green development.

Global consequences

Many researchers in the U.S., Europe and China have voiced concerns that geopolitical rivalries are curtailing international research collaboration at a time when the world needs it the most.

There is a major risk that the impediments to international scientific collaboration will further increase, further harming data sharing, the quality of research and the ability to disseminate results that contributing to solving problems. I often hear researchers, university leaders and funding agencies in Europe, the U.S. and China vent their frustration with the current situation. Many in the research community would like to see a more open and global science landscape.

It is possible to work toward a future where science is more separate – but not naively isolated – from changing power dynamics. As issues like climate change increase in severity, it will become only more important that researchers build international relationships that are responsible, reciprocal, transparent and equitable.

Tommy Shih, Associate Professor in Business Administration, Lund University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Seven ways the war in Ukraine is changing global science

Read the full story in Nature.

In just five months, Russia’s war on Ukraine has killed thousands of people, displaced millions and ruptured global geopolitics and economics. It is marking science, too. The heaviest impacts are in Ukraine, where researchers have seen their institutions bombed and are facing upheaval and threats to their livelihoods. In Russia, scientists are contending with boycotts and sanctions in response to their country’s actions. More widely, the crisis has created economic and political rifts that have already affected research in physics, space, climate science, food security and energy. A prolonged conflict could foment a significant realignment of scientific-collaboration patterns.

EU science ministers agree on research assessment reform

Read the full story at Science Business.

EU science ministers today signed off an agreement backing research assessment reform in Europe, alongside conclusions on open science, international cooperation and Horizon Europe missions.

In a meeting in Luxembourg, the 27 ministers acknowledged it’s time for the EU to revamp how it evaluates research, putting more weight into the quality of research outcomes rather than qualitative indicators such as journal impact factors and number of citations.

Ministers acknowledged that national research organisations are already taking steps to improve they way they assess research, the reforms do not happen fast enough, and efforts remain fragmented.  

New initiative incentivizes open research

Read the full story at The Scientist.

A large coalition of colleges and universities aims to change hiring, promotion, and tenure practices to reward collaboration.

Research fieldwork comes with safety challenges

by Lisa Sheppard, Prairie Research Institute

Prairie Research Institute (PRI) researchers and technicians may not know exactly which hazards they’ll face when they conduct fieldwork to study the natural world. What they do know is that there are plenty of dangers to prepare for as they start another field season.

“The safety aspects of being in the field are so different from laboratory work, where, for the most part, you can control your environment,” said Shari Effert-Fanta, PRI assistant director for facilities & safety.  “Staff can be working in very challenging environments where the hazards are likely out of their control, so it takes a lot more planning to prepare for fieldwork.”

Mosquito bites, thunderstorms, extreme heat, and rough terrain are just a few of the general threats that anyone can face, but there are also the dangers inherent in the research activities. PRI staff may be working along roadsides and in caves and mines, diving into rivers and lakes, and boating in remote areas.

Effert-Fanta and the PRI Safety Team provide education, research, and tools to help staff plan, prepare, and implement best practices in the field. A safety plan should include such things as the location of the nearest hospital and an alternate communication system besides cell phones. Staff also need the education to be able to adapt and adjust to new challenges that are presented to keep the team safe.

For archaeological field technicians who serve as excavators and surveyors under the direction of a research archaeologist, their primary safety concerns are dehydration, heat stroke, sharp tools, and deep holes, according to Tamira Brennan, curator of the Illinois State Archaeological Survey.

Supervisors hold weekly safety meetings in the field, reminding staff about hazards and how to prevent them. Supervisory staff also receive training in CPR and first aid and Occupational Safety and Health Administration training on trenching and shoring.

In the Havana, Illinois area, technicians from the Forbes Biological Station contribute to studies on the relationship of migratory birds to their habitats. Some of the primary safety concerns technicians face in the field are the weather—extreme temperatures and wind when staff are on the water—and the use of boats, ATVs, and large trucks, said Auriel Fournier, station director.

Principal investigators or team leaders ensure that technicians are trained on the equipment they’ll use and can use it safely. Technicians are also trained on spotting the signs of weather-related distress in themselves and in other field staff.

“We make it clear how they can raise concerns if they don’t feel safe, either in terms of their own comfort with a tool, or because of someone else,” Fournier said. “Sadly, safety issues aren’t just limited to boats and ATVs, but include people, both on the team and in the community.”

Preparation for fieldwork includes contacting law enforcement and conservation officers to let them know where and when technicians will be working, especially when night work is expected or in remote areas. Technicians also have permits to authorize their work in efforts to reduce the potential for negative interactions.

—-

Media contacts: Shari Effert-Fanta, sfanta@illinois.edu, 217-244-2192; Tamira Brennan, tbrennan@illinois.edu, 217-244-8965; Auriel Fournier, auriel@illinois.edu, 217-300-8698
news@prairie.illinois.edu

This story first appeared on the Prairie Research Institute News Blog. Read the original story.

Research Futures 2.0: A new look at the drivers and scenarios that will define the decade

Download the document from Elsevier.

Since early 2020, the pandemic has transformed every aspect of researchers’ work. We felt the time was ripe to revisit our first report and consider how the themes and scenarios we identified two years earlier were playing out, particularly in light of COVID-19. During 2020 and 2021, we conducted two separate
researcher surveys asking questions on a broad range of topics, from collaboration to education and from
open science to public engagement. We reviewed the world of research through the changes of the past two years. We also asked researchers to help us understand the impact of the pandemic on their work. In total, 1,066 researchers in 2020 and 1,173 in 2021 from a multitude of disciplines and locations responded to our surveys…

Looking at the three scenarios identified in our 2019 report, we see that elements of each is coming true. We have flagged these elements in the essays – look out for the “scenario match” boxes. That only some aspects are materializing is not surprising: as we noted in the original report, no single scenario has to be correct; aspects of just one could become reality or they might combine in any variety of ways. We have also flagged progress on the drivers of change identified in our original study that allowed us to formulate the scenarios. We used a traffic light system to convey whether or not we feel a driver is evolving in the way we anticipated: red for no progress, amber for some progress, and green for clear signs of progression.

Importantly, this latest study has confirmed one of the key findings of our original report, which is that we are at a tipping point and the shifts to come would be transformative. If we are to ensure that this change is sustainable, action will be needed in unison across all the areas we’ve examined. This study underlines that all of us who work in the world of research share responsibility for creating a new environment in which research can flourish. None of us can do it alone, particularly now.

New funding effort will deploy a corps of scientist ‘scouts’ to spot innovative ideas

Read the full story in Science.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology chemical engineer Kristala Prather is relishing the chance to present her work in person at scientific meetings now that the pandemic has eased. But starting this month, she will head to the airport with an added goal in mind: to serve as a “scout” for an unusual new funding program.

Prather’s mission is to spot colleagues with an intriguing research idea so embryonic it has no chance of surviving traditional peer review—and, on her own, decide to provide some funding. “I’m looking forward to giving it a try,” she says. “I’m a people person, and I like learning new things.”

Prather’s new task comes thanks to the Hypothesis Fund, a nonprofit launched today that has an intriguing approach to funding climate change and health studies. Instead of inviting scientists to submit proposals, the fund will find recipients through 17 scouts—scientists, including Prather, chosen for their curiosity, creativity, diversity, and interest in the work of others. Each will get 12 months to award a total of $300,000 to fellow researchers with promising early-stage ideas.

To know if citizen science is successful, measure it

Read the full story in Horizon.

It’s never been easy to accurately measure the impact of any scientific research, but it’s even harder for citizen science projects, which don’t follow traditional methods. Public involvement places citizen science in a new era of data collection, one that requires a new measurement plan.