Podcasts Highlight the Impact of Congressional Wastebooks on Researchers

A recent episode of the new PRI podcast Undiscovered (from the team behind Science Friday) focuses on how the publication of Congressional “wastebooks” affects the researchers whose grants are ridiculed. The episode, entitled “The Wastebook,” features the 2016 event, “Wasteful” Research? Looking Beyond the Abstract, during which researchers whose grants were singled out by wastebooks had the opportunity to more fully explain their researcher to Members of Congress and their staff. The event was hosted by the Coalition to Promote Research (which COSSA co-leads) and the Coalition for National Science Funding (more information is available here). The podcast episode highlights Duke University biologist Sheila Patek, whose National Science Foundation grant was featured in a 2015 wastebook published by Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ). During the “’Wasteful’ Research” event, Patek had the opportunity to explain the value of her research to Sen. Flake himself, and the podcast describes how that meeting went. The episode was also adapted into an episode of the NPR podcast Planet Money.


This article was originally published in the June 27, 2017 issue of the COSSA Washington Update. Click here to subscribe and receive this newsletter every two weeks.

Because Social Science Drives Smart Investments in Public Safety

When I make a new acquaintance and am asked the inevitable question, “What do you do for a living?,” I’m often tempted to fib and reply that I’m a middle school teacher, a real estate agent, or an accountant – professions that most every member of the public knows and understands with little need for additional explanation. Not so when I answer honestly that I’m a criminologist. That response is often met with, “Oh, so you’re a lawyer?” or “You mean like on CSI?” My reply depends on how much time I have – usually not nearly enough!

The short answer is that criminologists are social scientists. The actors on CSI who collect crime scene evidence are playing the role of criminalists, also known as forensic scientists. They answer questions like, “What evidence exists about who was at the crime scene and what transpired there?” Criminologists answer questions like, “How does the collection of DNA at property crime scenes support investigations and case clearance rates?” (The answer might interest you: DNA evidence collection doubles the rate of suspect identification compared to traditional methods.)

Criminology is a social science offshoot of sociology, but it draws its ranks from a diverse array of social science disciplines, from demography to psychology and geography. Yes, there are a few lawyers in our ranks, but while traditional lawyers answer questions like, “What are the elements of the criminal code, and how are they applied at sentencing?” Criminologists answer questions like, “What types of community supervision are effective alternatives to incarceration, and for whom?”

Read More

Because Information Without Meaning Lacks Purpose

At the March for Science in Washington, DC, where I participated on behalf of the National Communication Association, I held a sign that said, “Care about people? Care about Social Science!” As fellow marchers spotted me from a distance, they would weave through the crowds, maneuvering around lab coats, signs with chemical and mathematical formulas, and flyers describing climate change. When they drew near, their faces would break into smiles and they would proclaim, “I’m a social scientist, too! Can I take a picture with you and post it?” In that moment, they found meaning for participating in the March of Science; it gave them purpose.

Each day we search for purpose as we create and consume symbols, messages, and meanings through our conversations with friends, families, and coworkers, and through information disseminated by retailers, healthcare providers, government agencies, and the media. In the past, we searched for information; today, we navigate a deluge of communications as we seek support to care for an aging parent, make choices about our own healthcare, weigh public policy, contribute to the organizations for which we work, and value the diversity of the people around us. Over the course of our lives, we develop scripts for how to communicate and schemes for predicting the likely outcomes. Yet, we often walk away from a conversation, email, meeting, election, scientific report, or newscast asking ourselves, “What does this mean?”

Read More

Because Multilingualism Is an Asset and a Goal Worth Pursuing

In late 2014, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences received two letters from Congress, one from a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators and one from a bipartisan group of Representatives, requesting a new study of the state of language learning in America.  The letters framed the request as a follow-up to the work of the Commission on the Humanities and Social Sciences, which published its influential Heart of the Matter report in 2013. The Heart of the Matter also responded to a request from a bipartisan group, but its charge was broader than the one included in the new letters, which asked the Academy to respond to the following two questions:

  1. How does language learning influence economic growth, cultural diplomacy, the productivity of future generations, and the fulfillment of all Americans?
  2. What actions should the nation take to ensure excellence in all languages as well as international education and research, including how we may more effectively use current resources to advance language attainment?

This second question charged us with an astoundingly lofty goal.  Excellence in all languages?!?!  Yet it also led us into territory familiar to a 237-year-old learned society and independent policy research center.  In short, it asked us to initiate a study.  It also helped us identify the ultimate goal of our final report, to teach more languages to more people, and set the agenda for the next 18 months of work, as we gathered scholarship and formulated concrete recommendations to address our nation’s relatively low capacity in international languages.

That first question, on the other hand, was trouble from the start.

Read More

Because Social Science Is Necessary to Achieve Health Equity

Living in an America in which all populations have an equal opportunity to live long, healthy, and productive lives is the vision of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. As we bring National Minority Health Month to a close, it is important to remember that not all groups have obtained health equity. Racial and ethnic minorities, rural residents, people with disadvantaged socioeconomic resources and sexual and gender minorities carry a disproportionate burden of illness and disease. The search to determine the best way to reduce health disparities and to achieve health equity remains challenging for all of us.

The potential to live longer and healthier lives is greater than ever before with the emergence of medical and technical advances in healthcare and the adoption of healthier lifestyles. Despite these advances, health disparities continue to persist. A health disparity, defined as a health difference that adversely affects disadvantaged populations, based on one or more health outcomes, results from a series of complex and interrelated factors. To truly reduce and ultimately eliminate health disparities a framework must be applied that can address the multifaceted underlying causes of the disparity.

Read More

Because All Fields of Science Are Drivers of Freedom and Prosperity

Why Social Science Is Marching for Science

Why Social Science? is a space to talk about the unique contributions the social and behavioral sciences have made to making our society better and improving the lives of people around the world. However, this week, we’re broadening our core question as the upcoming March for Science brings the opportunity for us to join with fellow scientists, researchers, and supporters from across fields, disciplines, professions, and industries to focus on Why Science—all science—is such a fundamental driver of human progress around the world.

Read More

Because It Is in the National Interest, Both in Interdisciplinary Work and on Its Own

As a scientist, it is easy to become absorbed in the field or even subfield you are studying and simply focus on the value of your own research within that area of study. Looking back at my time as a political scientist, I understand how easy it is to have that narrow focus and not look at the broader impacts. But today, as the value of federal funding for scientific research is being challenged in Congress, scientists can no longer afford to do this. This is especially true for social scientists.

I serve on the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and for more than eight years I have been Chairman or Ranking Member of the Research and Technology Subcommittee which has oversight over the National Science Foundation (NSF). I authored the last long-term reauthorization of the NSF and continually fight for increased funding for this top-notch agency, which is emulated around the globe and has helped the U.S. lead the world in scientific research. While NSF funding for all sciences has slowed greatly since 2011, social science research has been specifically targeted for cuts. In the House, we have seen attempts to defund social sciences by eliminating funding for the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate at the NSF. All of my colleagues on the Science Committee can attest to the fact that I have consistently and passionately made the case for the value of social science research by laying out numerous examples of how it has benefitted our nation.

Read More

Because We Need to Understand What Will Motivate People to Take Action

I am not a social scientist, and must confess to having little formal classroom training in the disciplines. However, over the course of my career as a geoscientist, I have acquired a profound respect for the value of the social sciences to the Earth sciences. Social science research helps answer questions such as why are some people open to considering scientific evidence that challenges their own deeply-held biases (e.g., about climate change) while others have closed minds. Is it a function of the message? The messenger? Or the recipient? While all of these factors can be important, new social science research has revealed that having a curious and inquiring nature can promote accepting scientific evidence that is at odds with an individual’s opinions—a characteristic that can open a person’s mind to considering new ideas and viewpoints. This research finding along with the scholarship in science communication synthesized in a new report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine provides us with the knowledge necessary to dramatically improve how we communicate and offers a roadmap for the kinds of future research we need as online information environments and new fields of science with regulatory, moral, or political implications continue to emerge.

Read More

Because Small Tweaks to Behavior Can Be the Difference Between Life and Death

As a psychologist specializing in habits, decision-making, and behavior change and advisor to numerous health organizations and private companies, David Neal, Founder and Managing Partner of Catalyst Behavioral Sciences, LLC and Executive-in-Residence at Duke University’s Center for Advanced Hindsight, uses behavioral science to help people improve their lives by changing their actions. Neal defines his field as “the science of understanding nonobvious pathways to help people achieve greater health and well-being then help them to stick with those healthier, happier choices and behaviors over time.”

While his expertise runs the gamut from consumer decision-making to trademark litigation, Neal’s most recent project delves into a particularly timely issue of global importance: the Zika virus.

Read More

Because It Makes the World Safe for Cultural Differences

They are cracking the culture codes of consumers and corporations (Intel, Pepsico, Target, Hormel), studying human-machine interactions (driverless cars anyone?), and unlocking the mysteries behind “superspreaders” – the people responsible for accelerating infectious disease epidemics. This week’s Anthropology Day celebration (Thursday, February 16th) provides persuasive answers to the question “why anthropology?”

Anthropology is a social science discipline that makes the world safe for cultural differences and is arguably more essential now than ever as it produces insight into the human component of many of this century’s most pressing problems.

Read More

Because the Social and Behavioral Sciences Contribute to Improving the Health of the Population

While waiting in line for a Broadway play, the couple behind us asked why we were in New York, and I told them that I was at a meeting on medication adherence. “Oh, you’re a doctor?” they asked. “Technically, yes, but I’m a psychologist” I said. They responded, “What does psychology have to do with medication adherence?” It struck me at that moment that most people do not understand that social and behavioral factors are the primary contributors to health and illness, and that when ill, these factors also play a significant role in disease management and healthcare delivery, including the relatively simple behavior of taking a pill.

It is understandable why so many people underestimate the importance of social and behavioral determinants of health.  The airwaves are saturated with commercials touting various medications, devices, and healthcare facilities, as well as for legal assistance should you have been injured by any of these products and services. In contrast, social and behavioral contributions to health and disease management are not so well advertised and often blend into the background of daily life. 

Read More

Why Social Science?

We are excited to launch a new blog series we are calling Why Social Science? Through it, we will tell stories showcasing the impact the social sciences have on our lives. We will feature diverse voices, all with important perspectives on why social science is important. You will hear from researchers, government officials, industry, and a variety of stakeholders who depend on reliable social science research findings. Check out our first issue.

Read More

COSSA Releases State Funding Fact Sheets for 2017

The Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA) has released the 2017 edition of its state funding fact sheets with a new look. These one-pagers showcase the amount of federal social science research funding that goes to each state, and includes information on the leading recipient institutions and sources of funding. The fact sheets are helpful for articulating to policy makers the local economic impact of social science research funding. The fact sheets are available on the COSSA website at http://www.cossa.org/resources/state-fact-sheets


This article was originally published in the January 10, 2017 issue of the COSSA Washington Update. Click here to subscribe and receive this newsletter every two weeks.

Social and Behavioral Scientists Among New National Academy of Medicine Inductees

The National Academy of Medicine announced the election of 79 new members, including 70 regular members and nine international members. The newly elected cohort includes several members who work in the social and behavioral sciences. They include Anita Allen, Henry R. Silverman Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania; Cheryl Ann Marie Anderson, Associate Professor of Family Medicine and Public Health, at the University of California, San Diego; Peter Brian Bach, Director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center; Laura L. Carstensen, Fairleigh S. Dickinson Jr. Professor in Public Policy, Professor of Psychology, and Director of the Stanford Center on Longevity at Stanford University; Martin Gaynor, E.J. Barone Professor of Economics and Health Policy at Carnegie Mellon University; Maureen Lichtveld, Professor and Chair of the Department of Global Environmental Health Sciences at Tulane University; Bernice A. Pescosolido, Distinguished Professor of Sociology at Indiana University, Bloomington; and Prabhat Jha, Professor of Global Health and Epidemiology at the University of Toronto.

COSSA congratulates all of the newly elected members of the Academy.


This article was originally published in the November 1, 2016 issue of the COSSA Washington Update. Click here to subscribe and receive this newsletter every two weeks.