jump to navigation

Science Policy Resources August 6, 2015

Posted by admin in : History, Policy and Education (HPE) , add a comment

How Congress Works

How Congress Works: Tying It All Together: Learn about the Legislative Process
Source: OpenCongress.org

How Congress Works
Source: The Center on Congress at Indiana University

Overview of the Authorization-Appropriations Process
Source: Congressional Research Service

Authorization and Appropriation
Source: Paul Jenks, LLRX.com

AAAS Center for Science, Technology and Congress
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Committees in the House and Senate Relevant to Science

House Committee on Science and Technology
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice and Science
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness
Senate Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmospheres, Fisheries and Coast Guard
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

The Federal Science Budget

Introduction to the Federal Budget Process
Source: Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

Budget 101 – A guide to the federal budget-making process
Source: The Washingtonpost.com

AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program
Source: American Association for the Advancement of Science

Podcast on Science Funding
Professor Mike Lubell, Chair and Professor, Department of Physics
City College of the City University of New York
Director of Public Affairs
American Physical Society
Washington, DC
Source: Science Friday with Ira Flatow, January 12, 2007

How to Impact the Policy Process

Communicating with Congress
Source: American Institute of Physics

Congressional Visits Day
Source: Science-Engineering-Technology Working Group

Nonprofits and Lobbying: Yes, They Can!
Source: American Bar Association

NAFEO Advocacy Handbook
Source:National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher Education (NAFEO)

Physicists and Lobbying
Source: American Physical Society

Scientists Must Learn to Lobby
Source: THE SCIENTIST @ 1(12):9, 4 May 1987

Participate in a DC Fellowship Program

AAAS Congressional Fellowship
American Institute of Physics State Department Science Fellowship
American Institute of Physics Congressional Science Fellowship
American Physical Society Congressional Science Fellowship
American Geophysical Union Congressional Science Fellowship
Optical Society of America Congressional Science Fellowships
Jefferson Science Fellowship

The States, Research and Higher Education

State Science and Technology Policy Advice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges: Summary of a National Convocation
Source: National Academies Press

State Policy Issues for Higher Education
Source: American Association of State Colleges and Universities

Grapevine project- An annual compilation of data on state tax support for higher education
Source: Illinois State University

The NCHEMS Information Center for State Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis (The Information Center)
Source: The National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

Bibliography

American Association of Physicists in Medicine – Government Affairs
American Association of Physics Teachers – Public Policy
American Astronomical Association – Public Policy – Bringing policy issues to astronomers
American Geophysical Union – Science Policy
American Institute of Physics – Public Policy Center
American Physical Society – Policy and Advocacy
Association of American Universities – Policy Issues
Materials Research Society – Policy/Advocacy
National Society of Black Physicists – Policy
Optical Society of America – Public Policy
SPIE – Public Policy News
NAFEO Advocacy

Issues of Equity in Physics Access and Enrollment August 6, 2015

Posted by PER Section Chair in : History, Policy and Education (HPE), Physics Education Research (PER) , add a comment

High school physics is a gateway course for post-secondary study in science, medicine, and engineering, as well as an essential component in the formation of students’ scientific literacy.  Yet, despite reports to the contrary, the availability of physics as a course for high school students is not equitably distributed throughout the United States.

While some schools provide physics for all who wish to take it, a more common scenario is limited availability. This is particularly true in urban districts, where physics is not universally available in secondary school.  The existence of policies that restrict science opportunities for secondary students results in diminished outcomes in terms of scientific proficiency.

Recently researchers at Columbia University examined the 316 secondary schools in the New York City Public School system to identify factors related to availability of physics courses.  New York City’s (population 8.1 million) public schools system  is the largest school district in the United States, with approximately 300,000 secondary school students (15.1% White, 33.6% Black, 38.2% Hispanic, 13.0% Asian).

Overall Enrollment

Overall, physics enrollment in the 298 responding surveyed schools totals 14,935 (5.2%) out of 286,862 students. This corresponds to approximately 21% of students graduating having studied physics, which is lower than the state and national average of 31% for public schools. Analysis of the availability of physics in schools shows that access to physics is not equitably distributed – a remarkable 55% (164 of 298) of the surveyed New York City high schools simply do not offer physics as a subject. This translates to approximately 23% of the city student population not having access to any physics course in high school.

Where is Physics Available?

School size strongly influences whether physics is available. The vast majority of large high schools offer physics as a course, while fewer than half of mid-sized schools and only a quarter of the small schools do. Eliminating schools that only have grades 9 or 10 (and thus may offer physics in future years), still only 39% of small schools offer physics. Although small schools present a promising option in many respects, the question of access to advanced science courses needs to be addressed. Student graduation rates are likely to increase, but the city may actually graduate fewer physics students than they do today.

New York State leads the nation in Advanced Placement participation, with 23% of its high school graduates earning a passing score on at least one exam before graduation (the national average is 14%). Despite this prominence, AP Physics is a rarity in New York City’s public high schools, offered in only 20 (6.7%) of the surveyed schools, including all of the magnet schools.

Correlations to Race and Socioeconomic Status

The racial composition of students in schools that do not offer physics is notably different from the city as a whole, with White and Asian students much less likely to be found in these schools.Schools that offer AP Physics also show a much higher percentage representation of Asian and White students.Schools that do offer physics typically have a racial composition of 36% Black, 36% Hispanic, 15% White, and 13% Asian; schools that do not offer physics have 45% Black, 46% Hispanic, 5% White, and 5% Asian.These disparities illustrate large racial inequities in access to physics.

Socioeconomic status, measured by percent eligible for free lunch, displays a similar relationship, with poorer students having restricted access to schools that provide physics as a science option.The average percentage of students who qualified for free lunch in New York City was 69% during 2004-2005; compared with 77.7% at non-physics schools and 53.3% at schools that offer physics.

Both race and socioeconomic status are inherent factors in determining the likelihood that students have access to Advanced Placement physics in NYC. Only 33.5% of students in schools offering AP Physics are eligible for free lunch. The racial breakdown of students showed similar disparities. The percentage of White and Asian students is nearly triple the citywide average in schools that offer AP Physics, while the percentage of underrepresented minorities is 38% lower than the citywide average.Further illustrating this point, the Bronx, the poorest borough in New York City with the largest population of underrepresented minorities, has only two high schools that offer AP Physics (one is a highly selective science magnet school).

Often, students’ addresses, race, or socioeconomic status are major determining factors in whether they have the opportunity to study secondary physics at any level. This inequity in access to physics needs to be addressed in a comprehensive plan to improve science education for students in urban locales if the goal of “science for all” is to be attained. Major changes are required in schools’ structuring of physics course offerings; additionally, keeping an eye on racial and socioeconomic balance is essential in providing socially just opportunities in the study of physics. The evidence presented here is a starting point for identifying the extent of inequities in order to develop long-term reform efforts to improve physics access.

Policy Recommendations

NSBP calls for the following policies to increase access to K-12 physics courses for all students.

  1. States and the NCAA, which collects high school course data, should improve their databases of what schools are offering physics courses.  Each State should have a verifiable system of course offerings and student outcomes.
  2. In the No Child Left Behind Act or its successor, Congress should emphasize opportunity to learn and adequate funding.
  3. Congress, the States, STEM and teacher professional organizations should have mechanisms for meaningful science education standards for all K-12 schools and students.

For more information on the New York City schools study contact
Angela M. Kelly, Ph.D.
Department of Physics & Astronomy
Center for Science & Mathematics Education (CESAME)
CESAME: 094 Life Sciences Building | 631.632.7075 (office)
PHYSICS: A-141B Physics Building | 631.632.8168 (office)
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794-5233
www.stonybrook.edu/cesame

Tribute given at the Memorial Service for Prof Edmund Zingu held on 25 April 2013 at the University of the Western Cape May 18, 2013

Posted by International.Chair in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE) , 1 comment so far

by Prof Patricia Whitelock

I have been asked by Simon Connell, the current President of SAIP to pay tribute to Edmund on behalf of SAIP, but I have also been asked by Ted Williams, the director of the South African Astronomical Observatory to speak on behalf of SAAO. That is important for me as I first met Edmund Zingu in 1995 at the 175th anniversary of the observatory and I came to know him as a personal friend as well as a valued colleague. He was then head of physics at UWC and I had the pleasure of showing him around and was impressed and intrigued by his interest and perceptive questions.  It was the start of a relationship between SAAO and UWC that has gradually strengthened over the years and which will ultimately allow the two organizations to do great things in astrophysics.

You will have your personal memories of Edmund but he was best known to the broader community through his service with SAIP and that is what I want to talk about. As you have already heard Edmund served on the Council of the SAIP for 8 years from 1999 to 2006, as VP from two years while I was President then as President from 2003 to 2004. It would not be an exaggeration to say that when Edmund joined the Council, physics in SA was in crisis. The numbers of undergraduate students enrolling had been dropping for several years, the image of physics among the public and decision makers was poor, finance for physics projects was very limited and the SAIP itself, particularly its leadership, was not representative of the community of physicists in SA,  and people rightly wanted to know what SAIP was going to do.

By the time Edmund left the SAIP council, physics in SA was in a very different place. That was of course due to the combined efforts of a number people, but Edmund was without question was one of the most important. In 2001 Council set up a transformation committee with a very broad mandate to look at all aspects of the SAIP. Edmund and I both served on that committee. The initial driving force for transformation came from Nithaya Chetty, but Edmund, who chaired the committee while he was VP, was absolutely crucial in keeping the debate focused and most importantly keeping us all talking to each other.

These years were particularly exciting as we grappled with the problems in physics at the same time as attempting to restructure the SAIP to play a more relevant role in SA society. My entire experience of working with Edmund was a positive one.  He was someone you could test ideas on and who would tell you very gently and very sympathetically when and why you had got it wrong.  I don’t know if we could have done what we did without him, but I very much doubt it. What I am certain of is that it would have been more difficult and there would have been many more casualties and more blood on the walls. I would like to quote from Jaynie Padayachee, who was secretary of the SAIP during my and Edmund’s presidency and who was also secretary of the transformation committee: “The one thing about Edmund that will always stay with me, is that he personified diplomacy. It was really inspirational (in this world of too many words and opinions) knowing someone who took the time to think about what he was going to say before he said it. “

During my term as President I quickly came to rely on Edmund’s judgment and his support above anything and anyone else.  I suspect that there are many others who must have had similar experiences. He was never heavy handed or unpleasantly forceful, when things were said that he did not agree with he would gently point out that not everyone had the same experience and that there were other ways of looking at issues. It was quiet, it was gentle, it was undemonstrative and it dramatically effective. I quote from Jappie Engelbrecht, who is the treasurer of SAIP, as he was when Edmund and I were President: Japie after reading Simon Connell’s words about Edmund responded “I have nothing to add except my sadness at the passing of a truly great South African, whose impact on my own life enabled me to transform to our new democracy.”His words apply to many of us who worked with Edmund.

Those transformation activities resulted in a revised constitution and by-laws for the SAIP, more involvement of the specialist groups in council, a president who was directly elected by the membership, and a new mindset and symbolism of a new logo to prove it. That of course took several more years.

At roughly the same time that we started the transformation process, in fact really as part of the same initiative we established the process that culminated in an international panel review and the production of a document: “Shaping the future of physics in South Africa”.  This process was lead by Edmund during his presidency and must have taken up a huge amount of his personal time. This led to a new strategy for physics, and among other things establishment of the National Institute of Theoretical Physics (NITheP) and to the increased financial support from government that enabled SAIP to appoint an Executive Officer – which has been so important in allowing SAIP to do things more professionally.

One of the international participants in the shaping the future process, was Jim Gates, who as many of you know is now on USA President’s scientific advisory panel. The following words were written by Jim Gates and express Edmund’s role better than I can:

I am certain now that the Shaping Report has served exceedingly well as a national strategy and planning document for the South African physics community in a manner that none of its authors had foreseen in terms of its scope, duration or effectiveness. Dr. Zingu’s management of the entire Shaping process was a marvelous testament of his dedicated to the health of the physics field in South Africa.   His skills as a manager of personnel were on direct display, from my perspective, in the assembly of the International panel. He chose persons from S.A., from Europe, and the U.S.A. as a reflection of his understanding of the international and global nature of the interaction required for physics to thrive in S.A. in the new millennium. He also saw the International Panel was assembled in such a way as to be a final executive part of the process that lived up to his high expectation and vision.

The Shaping Report is among the greatest of tributes to Dr. Zingu as it continues almost a decade latter to have a substantial impact on thinking about South African physics. The report challenged all of the stake-holding communities to plan on multiple levels. “

He goes on to describe his personal gratitude to Edmund as a mentor for giving him the skills that he has particularly needed and which prepared him for his role as advisor to President Barack Obama

Since leaving the SAIP Council Edmund has continued to serve the community. In particular he has again played the leadership role in the Review of Physics Teaching, which is currently underway – the next big hurdle in the success of physics in SA, or indeed globally. I have no direct experience of his work with this, but Simon Connell tells me that he handled the project magnificently. In fact has been so well constructed by Edmund that neither SAIP nor CHE have any concern about its completion.

There can be no doubt that Physics and South Africa are better off because Edmund Zingu was who he was, when he was. We,as physicists and as friends of Edmund, have every reason to thank his family and to join them in celebration of a life extraordinarily well lived in the service of our community.

In Memoriam: Edmund C. Zingu April 26, 2013

Posted by International.Chair in : Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Physics Education Research (PER), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , 2comments

Zingu
Professor Edmund Zingu served on the South African Institute of Physics (SAIP) Council from 1999 to 2006, and was President of the SAIP from 2003 to 2004.  He was in fact the first black President in the history of the SAIP[1].

He played crucial leadership roles in many projects, particularly in physics related development issues.  He was Vice President of the IUPAP, and Chair of the C13 Commission on Physics for Development.  He was primarily responsible for bringing to South Africa the iconic ‘Physics for Sustainable Development’ conference in 2005[2] as a part of the International Year of Physics.  This conference cast a distinct spotlight on physics as an instrument for development in Africa.

We would like to specifically mention his tremendous contribution to two extremely important projects of the Institute.  The first was the highly successful Shaping the Future of Physics, where he contributed to the design of the project and also served as chair of the Management and Policy Committee that oversaw the international review in 2003.

The Shaping the Future of Physics in South Africa report was written by a body designated as the ‘International Panel’ or IP.  The IP was composed of M. A. Hellberg (convenor), M. Ducloy, K. Bharuth-Ram, K. Evans-Lutterodt, I. Gledhill, G. X. Tessema, A.W. Wolfendale, and S. J Gates.  The report has served exceedingly well as a national strategy and planning document for the South African physics community in a manner that none of its authors had foreseen in terms of its scope, duration or effectiveness.

Dr. Zingu’s management of the entire Shaping process was a marvelous testament of his dedication to the health of the physics field in South Africa.  His skills as a manager of personnel were on direct display in the assembly of the IP.  He advocated for selection of representatives from South Africa (Bharuth-Ram, Gledhill, and Hellberg), from Europe (Ducloy, and Wolfendale), and the USA (Evans-Lutterodt, Gates, and Tessema) as a reflection of his understanding of the global nature of the interactions required for physics to thrive in South Africa in the new millennium.  He also saw to it that the IP was assembled in such a way as to be a final executive part of the process that lived up to his high expectation and vision.

The Shaping Report is among the greatest of tributes to Dr. Zingu as it continues almost a decade later to have a substantial impact on thinking about South African physics.  The report challenged all of the stake-holding communities to plan on multiple levels.  Projects like the projects like the SAIP Executive Office, National Institute for Theoretical Physics (NiTheP), South African National Research Network (SANReN), SA-CERN, and SKA-Africa have become a reality.  The report called also for the possibility of other ‘flagship’ projects such as a South African synchrotron, to drive the large scale development of the field, and there has been significant encouraging progress here.  At the more granular level there was a call for transformation so that the field would be open to all citizens of the country.  Physics in South Africa has grown significantly since then, largely because of the implementation of many of the recommendations from the Review.  Also during this time Dr. Zingu authored the very influential article, Promoting Physics and Development in Africa, which appeared in Physics Today[3].

For one of us (Gates), the Shaping Report was preparation for service as a policy advisor for both the Governor of Maryland (via my role on the Maryland State Board of Education) and for President Barack Obama (via my role on the U.S. President’s Council of Advisors on Science & Technology – PCAST).  These accomplishments are due in part to Edmund’s confidence in me and his abilities as a mentor.  I owe this great South African an enormous debt of gratitude for how he challenged me to grow professionally.

The second project was the Review of Undergraduate Physics Education.  Once again he contributed to the design of the Review and chaired the Management and Policy Committee.  He led the development of the South Africa Draft Benchmark Statement for Physics Training, and guided the Review process, including the partnership with the Council for Higher Education.  The Review of Physics Training is well advanced but still in progress.

Professor Zingu began his physics career at the University of the Western Cape (UWC).  He was a materials physicist, and with his collaborators at Cornell University invented a new method to study atomic diffusion by transmission electron microscopy[4].  Later he studied diffusion phase transitions in thin films due to induced thermal stress[5].  He had a period of employment at Turfloop, QwaQwa Campus, then as Head of the Physics Department and later Dean of Basic Sciences (1990-1993) at MEDUNSA.  He later returned to UWC and served as Head of the Physics Department (1994-1998), and finally Vice Rector of Mangosuthu University of Technology in Umlazi, Durban until the time of his retirement.

Edmund was a pioneer for physics in post-apartheid South Africa, a visionary, a tireless campaigner for strengthening the discipline of physics* and, above all, a true gentleman.  His leadership and contributions were characterized by sensitivity, perceptiveness, vision, ethics, wisdom, global standards and great industry.  He will be sorely missed.

Simon Connell
President, South African Institute of Physics (2012-2014)

Nithaya Chetty
President, South African Institute of Physics (2007-2009)

S. James Gates, Jr.
President, National Society of Black Physicists (1996-1998)

More comments from Dr. Zingu’s friends and colleagues

Professor Zingu was a dear friend and professional colleague over the past ten years.  He was extremely helpful during the deliberations of the 2004 Review of iThemba LABS that I chaired for the National Research Foundation.  During that time, Professor Zingu was President of the South African Institute of Physics.  In another effort, he was one of the main drivers in working with Professor Alfred Msezane of Clark Atlanta University and a number of us at the African Laser Centre to organize the 1st US-Africa Advanced Studies Institute on Photon Interactions with Atoms and Molecules.  That institute convened in Durban during November 2005, just after the World Conference on Physics and Sustainable Development, which was part of the United Nation’s International Year of Physics.  Professor Zingu leaves a tremendous legacy for all African and other peoples to emulate.  We will miss his kind demeanor and tremendous insights into the future.
Sekazi K. Mtingwa

I met Prof. Edmund Zingu nearly 20-years ago in November 1995 at the University of the Western Cape, in Cape Town, where he was Chair of the Physics Department. Edmund invited me on my first travel to South Africa for nearly two-weeks to  lecture on Ultrafast Optical Phenomena at several institutions — U. of Port Elizabeth, the National Accelerator Centre, U. of Cape Town, U. of Witwatersrand, U. of the Western Cape and the Foundation for Research Development (analog of the US National Science Foundation). This was the first and only time that I spent time away from my family during Thanksgiving, and Edmund provided a warm and inviting environment for my visit. I spent several days with Edmund’s wonderful family and learned a great deal about South Africa and its people. Arriving not long after the release of Nelson Mandela and the official end of Apartheid, Edmund with his gentle, soft-spoken and brilliant nature alleviated my natural apprehension of visiting South Africa at that time. I had a truly wonderful visit and scientific exchange orchestrated by Prof. Edmund Zingu and I am truly saddened by the loss of this extraordinary individual — my deepest condolences go out to his family.
Anthony M. Johnson

Two weeks ago, at a diaspora gathering for STEM in Africa, the challenge that African scientists face on the continent was discussed. The critical question was “How can academics in Africa get the attention of the leaders?”  The idea of international advisory panels modeled after the 2004 Shaping panel was received with much enthusiasm. The composition of the panel, the charge to the panel, and the implementation was such a testimony of the high quality of the leadership of SAIP under Edmond Zingu. May he rest in peace.
Tessema G.X.

To this excellent tribute, I would like to add my personal sadness at the passing of a truly great South African, whose impact on my own life enabled me to transform to our new democracy.
Japie Engelbrecht

 


[1] Physics Today, Vol 54 (9) Sept 2001, p 27, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1420507

[2] Physics World, October 2005, pp 12-13, http://physicsworld.com/cws/archive/print/18/10

[3] Physics Today, Vol 57 (1) Jan 2004, p 37, http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.1650068

[4] Chen, S. H., L. R. Zheng, J. C. Barbour, E. C. Zingu, L. S. Hung, C. B. Carter, and J. W. Mayer. “Lateral-diffusion couples studied by transmission electron microscopy.” Materials Letters 2, no. 6 (1984): 469-476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-577X(84)90075-2

Zingu, E. C., J. W. Mayer, C. Comrie, and R. Pretorius. “Mobility of Pd and Si in Pd2Si.” Physical Review B 30, no. 10 (1984): 5916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.30.5916

[5] Zingu, E. C., and B. T. Mofokeng. “Diffusional Phase Transformation under Induced Thermal Stress.” In MRS Proceedings, vol. 230, no. 1. Cambridge University Press, 1991. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/PROC-230-145

Zingu, E. C., and B. T. Mofokeng. “Stress Relaxation During Diffusional Phase Transformation Under Induced Thermal Stress.” In Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, vol. 308, pp. 85-85. Materials Research Society, 1994. http://dx.doi.org/10.1557/PROC-308-85

Diale, M., C. Challens, and E. C. Zingu. “Cobalt self‐diffusion during cobalt silicide growth.” Applied Physics Letters, vol. 62, no. 9 (1993): pp 943-945. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.108527

[6] P. Whitelock,  Tribute given at the Memorial Service for Prof Edmund Zingu held on 25 April 2013 at the University of the Western Cape

NSBP members visit South Africa to strengthen ties March 15, 2013

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Cosmology, Gravitation, and Relativity (CGR), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

NSBP members Kartik Sheth and Eric Wilcots along with National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) astronomer Scott Ransom have been in South Africa to cement linkages for a NRAO’s faculty bridge program. NSBP, the South African Institute of Physics (SAIP), NRAO and others are working together on the science dimension of the US-South Africa Bilateral Strategic Dialogue.

The visit is intended to foster partnerships in multi-wavelength astronomy research.  Last week they had meetings with astronomers and cosmologists at University of Cape Town, University of Western Cape, SAAO, the SKA Africa Project Office and the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences (AIMS).  This week they will also meet with high energy astrophysicists at the Potchefstroom campus of North-West University, University of Johannesburg, and University of Witswatersrand, as well as astronomers at the North-West University campus in Mafikeng, and the Hartebeesthoek Radio Astronomy Observatory (HartRAO).

As South Africa builds a second NASSP site, teaching and research partnerships with NRAO will be beneficial on both sides of the Atlantic. NRAO currently operates four premier radio astronomy observatories: ALMA, JVLA, GBT and the VLBA.  NRAO is likely to also be a partner in helping to train scientists across the continent to be operators and users of the African VLBI Network (AVN). The AVN project consists of converting large, redundant telecommunications dishes across Africa for radio astronomy. The AVN will become part of the global VLBI network.

In addition to major radio astronomy successes, South Africa’s strategic plan for astronomy calls for its institutions to be active in multiple wavelengths including radio, optical, gamma/x-ray, and near IR. South Africa is the host of the Southern Africa Large Telescope (SALT), the largest optical telescope in the southern hemisphere. Wilcots is a member of the SALT board. South Africa is also supporting the Namibian bid to host the Cherenkov Telescope Array (CTA), the next generation success to the H.E.S.S telescope that has been in Namibia since 2002. Following an exchange at the 2011 NSBP conference, South Africa and the LIGO Collaboration have begun exploring opportunities in gravitational wave astronomy. Already LIGO and SAIP have convened a faculty workshop and a student summer school, both in Pretoria.

In a separate but simultaneous visit, Jim Gates participated in South Africa’s National Science Festival (SciFest), giving talks at several venues around the country on science policy and supersymmetry.  ScieFest was established in 1996 to promote the public awareness, understanding and appreciation of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and innovation. The main event in Grahamstown, held in March every year, attracts 72,000 visitors from South Africa, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Several government departments, listed companies, museums, NGOs, research facilities, science centers, science councils, universities, as well as small, medium and micro enterprises, both from South Africa and abroad contribute to the success of the event.

Gates was on the same program as South Africa’s Minister of Science and Technology, Derek Hanekom.  Each discussed science and innovation policy and gave their perspectives on aligning science with national priorities. Additionally Gates participated in three formal policy meetings, including one with Simphiwe Duma, CEO of the Technology Innovation Agency, and two more informal policy meetings.  In a lecture at the University of South Africa (UNISA) he and Dr. Rob Adam, former head to South Africa’s National Research Foundation, spoke on the efficacy of policy-formation surrounding STEM fields and the innovation cycle.

In other events around the country Gates met 45 students spanning the 8th through 11th grade levels at the Mae Jemison Science Reading Room in the Mamelodi township.  At Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University and the University of Johannesburg he gave talks on the strange mathematical objects found in the equations of supersymmetry.

These meetings and exchanges involving NSBP and South African colleagues are all part of the evolution from ideas put into motion by the Nobel Laureate, Abdus Salaam, and the founders of the Edward Bouchet-Abdus Salaam Institute (EBASI). Over a decade ago former NSBP president, Charles McGruder, traveled to South Africa to explore possible linkages between astronomers.  That visit led to Khotso Mokhele’s participation in the 2004 NSBP conference.  At the time he was the head of South Africa’s National Research Foundation. Later NSBP won a grant from the WK Kellogg Foundation to support NSBP’s participation the NASSP program. In the year’s since, NSBP has partnered with SAIP on a number of projects, and the relationship was codified in at MOU signed at the 2011 NSBP conference and witnessed by Minister Naledi Pandor.  The relationships between NSBP, SAIP as well as colleagues across the entire continent continue to evolve and vistas are opening up in the realms of geophysics, biophysics and medical physics, nuclear and particle physics, mathematical and computational physics, as well as physics education at all levels.

NSBP members descend upon Australia for more than just a total solar eclipse November 2, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Cosmology, Gravitation, and Relativity (CGR), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), History, Policy and Education (HPE) , add a comment

The Total Solar Eclipse is just days away and will cut a path through the South Pacific. This week sees the start of NSBP members traveling to exotic locations to do more than bask in the unique environment of totality. NSBP members will meet in Cairns, Australia, which is predicted to have the best eclipse viewing. Dr. Hakeem Oluseyi of the Florida Institute of Technology will be using the eclipse to study the lower atmosphere of the Sun. He will be working with a group of students and telescopes and cameras to capture scientific images that will inform his research. Dr. Alphonse Sterling, who has yet to attend an NSBP meeting, of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center will be flying in from his assignment in Tokyo, Japan. He too will be taking images of the lower atmosphere of the Sun for his scientific research.

The opportunity to see two African American astrophysicists leading research teams and doing their science was too much for NSBP member Dr. Jarita Holbrook.  She is making a film, Black Sun, to chronicle this event. After a successful Kickstarter campaign, Dr. Holbrook and her documentary film team from KZP Productions began by filming Dr. Sterling during the May annular eclipse in Tokyo. After an amazing experience, an 8-minute short film was made chronicling the event. Now it is time to bring Hakeem into the picture!

Black Sun is still seeking funding to complete this ground-breaking film project. Donations are tax deductable via . Help Jarita to inspire the next generation of African American astrophysicists by donating today – no donation is too small!  Jarita is on her way today to lay the groundwork for the documentary. Follow her tweets @astroholbrook.

Dr. Alphonse Sterling making observations

Dr. Alphonse Sterling analyzing data

8 Policy Issues that Every Physicist Should Follow October 5, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics (AMO), Chemical and Biological Physics (CBP), Condensed Matter and Materials Physics (CMMP), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Medical Physics (MED), Nuclear and Particle Physics (NPP), Photonics and Optics (POP), Physics Education Research (PER), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

#1. Federal Science Budget and Sequestration
The issue of funding for science is always with us.  With few exceptions everyone seems to agree that investment in science, technology and innovation is fundamentally necessary for America’s national and economic security.  Successive Administrations and Congresses have rhetorically praised science, and have declared that federal science agencies, particular NSF, DOE Office of Science and NIH should see their respective budgets doubled.  Where the rhetoric has met with action in the last decade, recent flat-lined budget increases, and the projections for the next decade erode these increases in real terms, and in fact in the next few years the federal R&D budget could regress back to 2002 levels and in several cases to historic lows in terms of real spending power.

What is sequestration?
Last year Congress passed the Budget Control Act with the goal of cutting federal spending by $1.2T relative to the Congressional Budget Office baseline from 2010 over 10 years.  The broad policy issues in the Budget Control Act follow from the fact that the total amount and the rate of growth of the federal public debt is on an unsustainable path.  The Budget Control Act would only reduce the rate of growth but not reduce the debt itself.  The basic choices are to increase taxes and/or to decrease spending.

The Budget Control Act also established the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, which was to produce a plan to reach the goal.  If the committee did not agree on a plan, the legislation provided for large, automatic – starting in January 2013 (already one quarter through FY13), across-the-board cuts to federal spending.  This is called sequestration.  The committee could not come to an agreement, and as a result the federal government faces what has been termed a ‘fiscal cliff’ where simultaneously several tax provisions will expire (resulting in tax increases) in addition to the sharp spending cuts.  This will most certainly plunge the economy into a recession.

Sequestration would require at least 8% budget cuts immediately in FY13 (the current year).  In the political lexicon on this topic federal spending is divided into defense and non-defense.  The current formula would put somewhat slightly more of the cuts on non-defense programs, but there is talk of putting all burden of sequestration on non-defense programs.  If the burden is borne only by non-defense programs, some agencies could lose as much as 17%.

It is important to emphasize that these would be immediate cuts starting with FY13 budgets, so a $100K grant for this year would suddenly become $92K, or possibly $83K.  Then from the sequestration budgets, the Budget Control Act would require flat budgets for the subsequent 5 years.  While it would generally be up to the agencies to figure out how to distribute the immediate cuts, it is instructive to see how the cuts would impact agencies that are important overall to physics and astronomy research.

How does it impact physics?
The R&D Budget and Policy Program at AAAS has done a masterful job at analyzing sequestration and its impact on science agencies. The cases of DOD and NIH provide some general indications of the effects of sequestration.  DOD is the single largest supporter of R&D amongst the federal agencies, and NIH is the second largest.  Under sequestration they would lose $7B and $2.5B, respectively.  Inside the DOD number is funding for basic and applied science, including DARPA programs.  These accounts would lose a combined $1.5B.  But there is an important dichotomy between DOD and NIH.  IF the Congress and Administration decide to apply the cuts only to non-defense programs, the cuts at NIH would have to be deeper (to meet the overall targets), while the cuts at DOD would remain unchanged.

At NSF, if the cuts are applied truly across the board, $500M would immediately be eliminated from the agency’s FY13 budget.  In a scenario where the cuts are applied only to non-defense spending the NSF cuts could be just over $1B.  It would be as if the NSF budget had regressed back to 2002 levels, basically wiping out a decade of growth.  To further put these cuts into context, NSF’s total FY13 budget request for research and related activities is $5.7B, including $1.345B for the entire Math and Physical Sciences Directorate.  One billion dollars is what the agency spends on major equipment and facilities construction and on education and human resources combined.  It is by far larger than the Faculty Early Career Development and the Graduate Research Fellowship programs.  And put one last way, the cuts would mean at least 2500 fewer grants awarded.

Under the sequestration scenario where defense and non-defense program bear the brunt of cuts equally, the DOE Office of Science could lose $362M immediately in FY13, while NNSA which funds Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia national labs, would lose at least $300M.  Again these cuts would be deeper if the Congress votes, and the President agrees to subject the cuts only to non-defense programs.  The Office of Science cut is nearly equivalent to the requested FY13 budget for fusion energy research ($398M).  The Office of Science had enjoyed a fair level of support in the past decade, but sequestration would take the agency back to FY08 spending levels or to FY00 if the cuts are applied to non-defense programs only.

NASA would immediately lose at least $763M with the Science Directorate losing nearly $250M.  Again these cuts would be much deeper if distributed only to non-defense programs.  In that scenario NASA would immediately lose $1.7B in FY13, more than the FY13 budget for James Webb Space Telescope ($627M) or the Astrophysics Division ($659M).

What should you do?
In summary, the overall objective of the Budget Control Act is to reduce the federal deficit by $1.2T over the next decade.  This would slow the rate of increase of the overall federal debt.  The Act was resolution of political gamesmanship over raising debt ceiling, which has to be increased from time to time to authorize the federal government to make outlays encumbered in part by prior year obligations.  The sticky issue was taxes.  The GOP, which generally desires more spending cuts than Democrats, was not willing to agree to anything that involved a tax increase.

Besides wanting to preserve more investments in discretionary programs, President Obama was not willing to push too hard on increasing taxes given the weak economy, and probably wanting to avoid the adverse politics of increasing taxes before the election.  Subsequently because the Congress could not agree on a way to produce $1.2T in deficit reduction over 10 years, the law requires sequestration of FY13 budgets, i.e., immediate and draconian cuts (8-17%), the mechanics of which would have serious adverse effects to the entire US economy.

Both before the election and after you should contact the President, your Senators and Representative, and urge them act urgently to steer the federal government away from sequestration and the fiscal cliff.


#2. Timeliness of Appropriations
What is the issue?
The US Constitution requires that “No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” Each year the federal budget process begins on the first Tuesday in February when the President sends the Administration’s budget request to Congress.  In a two-step process Congress authorizes programs and top-line budgets; then it specifically appropriates spending authority to the Administration for those programs.  The federal fiscal year begins on October 1st, and when Congress does not complete their two-step process, operations of the federal government are held in limbo.  Essentially the government is not authorized to spend money.  This is overcome by passing “continuing resolutions” that basically continue the government’s programs at the prior year programmatic and obligating authorities.

How does it affect physics?
Continuing resolutions wreak havoc for the Administration, i.e, for funding agencies, and consequently for federal science programs.  They prevent new programs from coming online and the planned shutdown of programs.  Because federal program directors cannot know what their final obligating authority will ultimately be, they have to be very careful with how much they spend.  The consequences of over-spending obligating authority are unpleasant.  Keeping a science program going under the uncertainty of the continuing resolution is hard, and in some cases impossible.

What should you do?
Physicists would be well advised to tune into the status of appropriations for agencies from which they get funding, plan accordingly, and use their voices to pressure Congress to finish the appropriations process by October 1st.

#3. Availability of Critical Materials: Helium, Mo-99 and Minerals
Helium shortage?
Helium is not only an inordinately important substance in physics research, but also in several other industrial and consumer marketplaces.  But despite its natural abundance, it is difficult to make helium available and usable at a reasonable cost.  Usable helium supplies are actually dwindling at a troubling rate, and price fluctuations are having very undesirable effects in scientific research and other sectors.

Most usable helium is produced as a by-product in natural gas production.  Gas fields in the United States have a higher concentration of helium than those found in other countries.  Those facts, combined with decades of recognition of helium’s value to military and space operations, scientific research and industrial processes, Congress enacted legislation to create the Federal Helium Program, which has the largest reserve of available helium in the world.

Enter the policy issues.  In an effort to downsize the government in 1996, Congress enacted legislation to eliminate the helium reserve by 2015 and to privatize helium production.  But the pricing structure required by the 1996 legislation led to price suppression, and thus private companies have been slow to come into the industry as producers, even as demand has been steadily increasing.  So with the federal government’s looming exit from helium production, it does not seem that there is another entity with the capacity to meet the growing demand of helium at a reasonable price.  The few other sources of usable helium available from other countries have nowhere near the US government’s production capacity.

To address this problem Senator Bingaman of New Mexico introduced the Helium Stewardship Act of 2012.  This is a bipartisan bill sponsored by two Democratic and two Republican Senators.  This legislation would authorize operation of the Federal Helium Program beyond 2015.  It would maintain a roughly 15-year supply for federal users, including the holders of research grants.  This should guarantee federal users, including research grant holders, a supply of helium until about 2030.  It would also set conditions for private corporations to more easily enter the helium production business.

But since no action was taken in this Congress, it will have to be reintroduced in January 2013 when the new Congress convenes, and it will have to be taken up in the House after being passed in the Senate.

[Update] On March 20, 2013 the House Natural Resources Committee unanimously approved legislation that would significantly reform how one-half of the nation’s domestic helium supply is managed and sold. H.R. 527, the Responsible Helium Administration and Stewardship Act would maintain the reserve’s operation, require semi-annual helium auctions, and provide access to pipeline infrastructure for pre-approved bidders, in addition to other provisions on matters such as refining and minimum pricing. The bill now moves to the House floor. On the Senate side, Senators Wyden and Murkowski have released a draft of their legislation addressing this issue.

Mo-99 is in short supply too.
There are other critical materials for which Congressional action is pending.  Molybdenum-99 is used to produce technetium-99m, which is used in 30 million medical imaging procedures every year.  But the global supply of molybdenum-99 is not keeping up with the global demand.  There are no production facilities located in the United States, but legislation pending in Congress would authorize funding to establish a DOE program that supports industry and universities in the domestic production of Mo-99 using low enriched uranium.  Highly enriched uranium is exported from the US to support medical isotope production, but this is considered to be a grave global security risk.  The legislation would prohibit exports of highly enriched uranium.

Again this legislation passed the Senate in the last Congress but was not taken up in the House.  It will have to be reintroduced in the next Congress, which convenes in January 2013.  But a technical solution announced by scientists in Canada and another by a team from Los Alamos, Brookhaven and Oak Ridge national laboratories may change the landscape for this particular problem.

Another piece of legislation called the Critical Minerals Policy Act sought to revitalize US supply chain of so-called critical minerals, ranging from rare earth elements, cobalt, thorium and several others.  It was opposed by several environmental groups, and the economics of some mineral markets are attracting some private investment in American sources.

What should you do?
Urge the Senators and Representatives on the relevant committees to reintroduce the Helium Stewardship Act, the Critical Minerals Policy Act as well as legislation that authorizes and appropriates funding for Mo-99 production in the US.

#4. K-12 Education: Common Core Standards and the Next Generation Science Standards
What are the Common Core Standards Initiative and the Next Generation Science Standards?
In 2009 49 states and territories elected to join the Common Core Standards Initiative, a state-led effort to establish a shared set of clear educational standards for English language arts and mathematics.  The initiative is led jointly by the Council of Chief State School Officers and the National Governors Association.  In 2012 the ‘Common Core’ standards were augmented with the Next Generation Science Standards.

How does this affect physics?
The National Research Council released A Framework for K-12 Science Education that focused on the integration of science and engineering practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary core ideas that together constitute rigorous scientific literacy for all students.  The NGSS were developed with this framework in mind.  The goal of the NGSS is to produce students with the capacity to discuss and think critically about science related issues as well asbe well prepared for college-level science courses.

Setting and adopting the Common Core and NGSS are not federal matters.  The federal government has a very small footprint in the overall initiative.  Rather the policy action on adopting these standards will at the state, school district, and maybe even the individual school levels.

What should you do?
Physicists in particular should be collaborative with K-12 teachers and help where appropriate to implement the curriculum strategies that best position students for STEM careers.  Physicist-teacher collaborations are also very necessary to ensure that the content of physical science courses cover the fundamentals but also incorporate the forefront of scientific knowledge.

#5. State Funding for Education
National Science Board signals the problem
The National Science Board, the oversight body of the National Science Foundation, recently released report on the declining support for public universities by the various governors and state legislatures.  According to the report, state support for public research universities fell 20 percent between 2002 and 2010, after accounting for inflation and increased enrollment of about 320,000 students nationally.  In the state of Colorado, the home of JILA, between 2002 and 2010 state support for public universities fell 30 percent.

Public research universities perform the majority of academic science and engineering research that is funded by the federal government, as well as train and educate a disproportionate share of science students.  But government financial support for public universities has been eroding for decades actually.

The issue is not so much the movement of the best students and faculty from public institutions and private institutions.  All institutions of higher education are federally tax-exempt organizations, thus in some sense they all are public institutions.  Rather the issue is support for the infrastructure that supports innovation, economic prosperity, national security, rational thought, liberty and freedom.

How does this impact physics?
In physics we saw the effects of declining support of higher education in Texas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Florida where physics programs where closed.  In other states budget driven realities have meant physics departments being subsumed by large math or chemistry departments.

What should you do?
Public and private universities will have to find efficiencies and yield to greater scrutiny as they always have.  But physicists will have to stand up and remind their state governors and legislators of their value to institutions of higher education in terms of educating a science-literate populace as well as producing new knowledge and knowledge workers needed for innovation and economic growth.

#6. College Student Enrollment and Retention
Earlier this year the Presidential Council of Science and Technology Advisors released a report entitled Engage to Excel: Producing One Million Additional College Graduates with Degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics.

Economic projections point to a need for approximately 1 million more STEM professionals than the U.S.  will produce at the current rate over the next decade if the country is to retain its historical preeminence in science and technology.  To meet this goal, the United States will need to increase the number of students who receive undergraduate STEM degrees by about 34% annually over current rates.  Currently the United States graduates about 300,000 bachelor and associate degrees in STEM fields annually.

The problem is low retention rates for STEM students
Fewer than 40% of students who enter college intending to major in a STEM field complete a STEM degree.  Increasing the retention of STEM majors from 40% to 50% would, alone, generate three quarters of the targeted 1 million additional STEM degrees over the next decade.  The PCAST report focuses much on retention.  It proposes five “overarching recommendations to transform undergraduate STEM education during the transition from high school to college” and during the first two undergraduate years, (1) catalyze widespread adoption of empirically validated teaching practices, (2) advocate and provide support for replacing standard laboratory courses with discovery-based research courses, (3) launch a national experiment in postsecondary mathematics education to address the mathematics preparation gap, (4) encourage partnerships among stakeholders to diversify pathways to STEM careers, and (5) create a Presidential Council on STEM Education with leadership from the academic and business communities to provide strategic leadership for transformative and sustainable change in STEM undergraduate education.

How is physics impacted?
The New Physics Faculty Workshops put on by APS and AAPT were mentioned in the report for changing the participants’ teaching methods and having had positive effects on student achievement and engagement.  The report also explicitly calls for NSF to create a “STEM Institutional Transformation Awards” competitive grants program.  But the delegation that met with the Texas Board of Higher Education was confronted with student retention data in physics compared to other STEM fields, and was

This all ties together with federal budgets for STEM education and research, and to the issue of state support for public education.  The lesson from Texas in particular is that physics must do a better job of retaining students in the major or face relative extinction in the academe.

What should you do?
PCAST would say engage your students to excel.  Everyone involved in physics instruction should continually assess their teaching methods and student outcomes.  Every thing from textbooks and labs used to the social environment of the department should be on the table for improvement.


#7. Attacks on Political Science and Other Social Sciences
When science is politicized, caricatured and ridiculed we all lose
In May 2012 the US House of Representatives voted to eliminate the political science program at the National Science Foundation.  The effort was spearheaded by Arizona Republican Jeff Flake.

Congressman, now Senator, Flake was ostensibly concerned about Federal spending and wants to make the point there are some government programs that we must learn to do without.  But the concern for scientists is the approach of singling out individual projects and programs and subjecting them to ridicule only based on their titles.  This rhetorical and political device is used quite a bit, even in biomedical science.  And when it is, it diminishes science everywhere.

More recently, Representative Cantor and others have spoken out against funding social science research, targeting specifically political science research by saying that taxpayers should not fund research on “politics”.  It is important to understand the difference between political science and politics.  Political science research is necessary knowledge for citizens to enjoy the fullness of freedom.  Moreover political science research is especially a hedge against tyranny and deception by politicians.

Attacks on NSF funding of the social science are not new.  NSF funding for the social sciences was slated to be zeroed out during the Reagan administration.  One result was a spirited defense of the importance of such work by the National Science Board that appeared in its annual report provocatively titled, “Only One Science.”  The Board was then chaired by Lewis Branscomb, a distinguished physicist, who led the effort to build the case for the social sciences.

Physicists today need to channel Dr. Branscomb and be more learned and active on policy matters.  Particle physics, astronomy and cosmology are not immune from the same kind of attacks being waged against political science.   There are of course many tales of even the most esoteric results of physics research from yesterday having an profound impact in our economy today.  Generally it seems politicians judge the utility of a funded research project from the project name or maybe its brief project summary.  That in itself tends to ridicule science and scientists in ways that are quite destructive.   So all scientists should advocate for intellectual inquiry and its innate public benefits.  Golden Fleece attacks against science may focus on genetic analysis in Drosophila melanogaster one day, political dynamics in a small foreign country another day, but it could be cold atoms on an optical lattice the next.

[UPDATE] On March 20, 2013 the bill to fund the government for the rest of FY13 passed the Senate contained an amendment to bar NSF from funding political science research unless the director can certify that the research would promote “the national security or economic interests of the United States.”  The House passed the same bill the next day.  President Obama is expected to sign it.  So for the next few months at least certain political scientists may be frozen out of NSF funding.

The Colburn amendment probably could not have made it through in regular order, i.e., the normal process of budget legislating consisting of the President’s request, Congressional authorization followed by appropriation, and final action by the President.   But in a situation where time becomes a critical element, and there is “must-pass” legislation actively under consideration, these things can happen.  This underscores the need for political knowledge and information, as well as vigilant, persistent and nimble activism.

What should you do?

The bill eliminating NSF’s political science program has only passed the House.  It was never taken up in the Senate.  But in 2011 Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn advocated for the elimination of the entire NSF Social, Behavioral and Economics Directorate.  If either measure was to become law it would have to be reintroduced in the next Congress.  Physicists should stay abreast of attacks on other intellectual disciplines, because one day those attacks will be directed at physics and astronomy research.

[Update March 27, 2013]  Political scientists suffered a setback in the continuing resolution for FY-13.  Both the House and Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Coburn that would bar NSF from awarding any grants in political science unless the director can certify that the research would promote “the national security or economic interests of the United States.” The political science programs at NSF have a combined budget of $13 million. The legislation requires the NSF director to move the uncertified amount to other programs. President Barack Obama as signed the legislation. This kind of action against social science research is not new, but this is the first time in a long while that such a measure actually has become law.

Given the exact wording of the Coburn amendment, it is only valid until September 30, 2013, when the continuing resolution expires.  As a distinct point of lawmaking it may or may not survive the regular order of budgeting, authorizing and appropriating.

#8. Open Access to Research Literature
There is much public concern about having access to the output (manifest as journal articles) from publicly funded research.  And scientists worldwide are of course very concerned about rising journals subscription prices.

Last December the Research Works Act (RWA) was introduced in the U.S.  Congress.  The bill contains provisions to prohibit open-access mandates for federally funded research, and severely restrict the sharing of scientific data.  Had it passed it would have gutted the NIH Public Access Policy.  Many scientists considered the RWA antithetical to the principle of openness and free information flow in science.  Perhaps owing to much public outcry, the proposed legislation was abandoned by its original sponsors.

The United Kingdom and the EU have just adopted a policy where all research papers from government funded research will be open-access to the public.  To support this policy financing for journals will sourced from author payments instead of subscriber payments.  This is a major change that will require much transition in marketing, management and finance.

Open-access policy should balance the interests of the public, the practitioners of the scholarly field, as well as commercial and professional association publishers that add value to the process of communicating and archiving research results.  Scholarly publishing is a complex, dynamic and global marketplace.  It is not likely that one solution will be satisfactory for all consumers and producers (which in this marketplace are sometimes one in the same).  New business models, new communication strategies and realizations what the true demand for scholarly articles will likely be more helpful than precipitous government action.

Multi-Agency Research Understanding Hurricane Genesis and Intensification Captured in a TV Documentary August 30, 2012

Posted by admin in : Chemical and Biological Physics (CBP), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), Fluid and Plasma Physics (FPP), History, Policy and Education (HPE) , add a comment

As Hurricane Isaac battered the greater New Orleans area on the anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, scientists flying in NOAA aircraft took important data that will be used to increase the knowledge of these storms that threaten coastal and island populations. With support from NOAA, NASA and several other agencies, Howard University researchers also take storm data that they combine with field data taken in Senegal and Cape Verde on African Easterly Waves (AEWs) to build a complete understanding of the genesis and intensification of hurricanes. The majority of Atlantic forming hurricanes evolve AEWs, which are elongated areas of relatively low atmospheric pressure that are convectively transported as an extended wave train.

During 2010, NOAA aircraft took part in a multi-agency field campaign to study the processes of hurricane genesis and intensification. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Intensity Forecasting Experiment (IFEX), the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Pre-Depression Investigation of Cloud Systems in the Tropics (PREDICT) and The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Genesis and Intensification Processes (GRIP) worked in a coordinated manner with bases in Tampa and Fort Lauderdale, FL, Barbados and St. Croix, Virgin Islands. Aircraft measurements included: two P3 and G-IV, the DC-8, G-V, WB-57 and Global Hawk with additional data from the Air Force hurricane hunters during the months of August and September.

Researchers at Howard University took additional dynamic, thermodynamic and chemical ground measurements in Sao Vicente, Cape Verde, Dakar, Senegal and Barbados in collaboration with the Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia e Geofisica (INMG), Cheikh Anta Diop University (UCAD) and Caribbean Institute for Meteorology and Hydrology (CIMH). In addition graduate students and former graduates participated in the aircraft field programs.

Funding from NSF to document the 2010 field campaign was secured to provide the public with a first hand experience on aircraft and ground measurements. The documentary includes a subset of more than 20 hours of interviews with scientists, students, pilots and emergency managers. The documentary also includes a flight into the eye of Hurricane Earl, which reached a peak intensity of Category 4 (125 knots) and paralleled the US east coast.

Howard University scientist and students followed African Easterly Waves from West Africa (Senegal) and the Eastern Atlantic (Cape Verde) downstream to the Caribbean (Barbados). Ozone measurements were also gathered to examine how intensifying hurricanes produce ozone (O3) naturally from lightning.

Related Links:
Hurricane Season Brings Focus on Howard University Researchers
Hurricanes: Science and Society
Hurricane Irene: Using physics to forecast
Did warm waters fuel Hurricane Katrina?
Howard University NOAA Center for Atmospheric Sciences

The documentary was produced and narrated by Dr. Aziza Baccouche will air in August of 2012 on Howard University’s WHUT-TV Public Television Station.

Texas Tech PhD Student Amber Reynolds stands next to the Global Hawk in preparation for NASA GRIP flight.Texas Tech PhD Student Amber Reynolds stands next to the Global Hawk in preparation for NASA GRIP flight.

Howard University PhD student Yaitza Luna-Cruz aboard the DC-8 taking cloud microphysics measurements.Howard University PhD student Yaitza Luna-Cruz aboard the DC-8 taking cloud microphysics measurements.

The eye of Hurricane Earl as viewed from the NASA DC-8 aircraft. The eye of Hurricane Earl as viewed from the NASA DC-8 aircraft.

Students Ashford Reyes and Adriel Valentine prepare to release a ozonesondes from Barbados.Students Ashford Reyes and Adriel Valentine prepare to release a ozonesondes from Barbados.

Interview with Tony Beasley: New director of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory August 17, 2012

Posted by admin in : Astronomy and Astrophysics (ASTRO), Earth and Planetary Systems Sciences (EPSS), History, Policy and Education (HPE), Technology Transfer, Business Development and Entrepreneurism (TBE) , add a comment

Last February the Associated Universities, Inc. appointed Dr. Anthony Beasley as the next NRAO director. Originally from Australia, Beasley has had a distinguished career in radio astronomy. He has played a key role in the planning and commissioning of several major instruments and facilities. In his most recent appointment his skills were used in ecological research, where those colleagues too have large networks of major scientific facilities. In a wide-ranging interview with Waves and Packets, Beasley discusses the future of NRAO and of radio astronomy in general, global collaborations like the Square Kilometer Array and VLBI, the U.S. astronomy portfolio in tough budgetary times and the promise of citizen-science in making profound discoveries.

Listen to interview

What does Physics First mean to you? April 29, 2012

Posted by admin in : History, Policy and Education (HPE) , add a comment

Did you know that in today’s economy, where millions cannot find a job, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs for which employers cannot find qualified U.S. born workers?

What does physics education have to do with putting your child in position to be among those who can qualify for the jobs of tomorrow in advanced manufacturing and traditional STEM fields?

• Physics is a gateway course for post-secondary study in science, medicine, and engineering, as well as an essential component in the formation of students’ scientific literacy.
• Physics classes hone thinking skills.
• An understanding of physics leads to a better understanding of other science disciplines. Physics classes help polish the skills needed to score well on the SAT and ACT.
• College recruiters recognize the value of taking high school physics.
• College success for virtually all science, computing, engineering, and premedical majors depends in part on passing physics.
• The job market for people with skills in physics is strong.
• Knowledge of physics is helpful for understanding the arts, politics, history, and culture.
Ref: Ten Reasons Why No Student Should Go Through High School Without Taking Physics

Currently only 25% of Black and Hispanic high school students take any course in physics. Thus many do not even get to the gateway. The availability of physics as a course for high school students is not equitably distributed throughout the U.S. While some schools provide physics for all who wish to take it, a more common scenario, particularly for urban schools, is limited availability. The existence of policies that restrict science opportunities for secondary students results in diminished outcomes in terms of scientific proficiency, and lack of diversity in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics professions.

Reforming the system and Physics First
In most high schools the science course sequence is chemistry first, biology second and physics last. This sequence was born many decades ago before people knew a lot of the fundamental scientific principles of chemistry and biology (Shepard and Robbins, 2003). We now understand that physics is at the foundational roots of all that we know and can learn about the other sciences. So it makes sense to first learn the fundamental concepts of physics before proceeding to learn chemistry, biology and Earth sciences. This is called logical development of scientific cognition, and it is imperative that in the 21st century that our education system catches up to this idea.

Physics First is the educational strategy that sequences high school science courses beginning with physics in the 9th or 10th grade, chemistry in 10th or 11th grade, culminating with biology and earth science in the 12th; while developing proficiency in mathematics and computing in lock-step over the entire 4 years. Schools that have adopted Physics First have shown much higher student appreciation for science, more science course taking in subsequent grades, and higher test scores. But also, when a school commits to Physics First, in many cases they are reforming the system from “physics not at all”. And that reform of providing a formal opportunity to learn physics allows students to pass through an important gateway to higher achievement and prosperity.

A first course in physics need not be overly saddled with advanced mathematics. The emphasis should be focused on conceptual understanding rather than mathematical manipulation. In fact conceptual understanding of physics need not wait until high school. Even middle school students can profit from a conceptual physics course. Conceptual understanding of physics taps into students’ natural curiosities of how and why the world the world works around them. That conceptual understanding, not its mathematical expression, is what will improve performance in later courses in other disciplines. As mathematical maturity is further developed, students can revisit the advanced mathematical expression of physics.

Richard Hake has suggested that Physics First could be the opening battle in the war on science/math illiteracy  as envisaged by the AAAS ‘Project 2061.  This is because a widespread first physics course for ALL ninth graders might (a)
help to overcome some systemic roadblocks to science/math literacy of the general population – most importantly the severe dearth of effective pre-college science/math teachers, (b) enhance the numbers of physics major and graduate students, through programs designed to provide a large corps of teachers capable of EFFECTIVELY teaching physics to vast numbers of students in the Physics First schools: ninth-graders plus those taking high school honors and AP physics courses.

What can you do?
Every child deserves the opportunity to learn physics. This is a message you must make to your teachers, principals, and district administrators. Physics First works out very well for high school students and should be vigorously supported as an important opening battle in the full scale war on science/math illiteracy.  But learning physics does not have to wait until high school. With the availability of all kinds of smart phone apps, even middle grade students can do experiments in motion, sound and light, which are bedrock principles in physics. And in the primary grades, learning physics comes when teachers tap into young kids’ natural curiosity about how and why things work. The key to developing kids of today for jobs of the future is to foster curiosity, encourage discovery, and provide opportunities to learn concepts and principles.