The Power of a Lame Duck

We had an election yesterday, and, as you've no-doubt heard, many members of Congress lost their seats. Interestingly, they haven't yet lost their jobs. The newly elected members of Congress don't take their seats until January 3, 2011, and, because the exiting Congress was unable to finish some important matters on their agenda before leaving for campaign season, they will have to return after the election. This is commonly referred to as a lame duck session.

There is a lot of fear of the lame duck session, particularly of the lame duck members who lost their seats in the election, because they are thought to no longer be accountable. There is whispering that these members might pass bills that wouldn't have been debated during the campaign season or that won't get passed in the next Congress. This fear is especially rampant in years that a congressional house changes party, such as this year.

However, Norman Ornstein argues that many of these fears are unfounded. Besides, it’s perennially the incoming party that is fearful of a lame duck Congress…until it’s their turn. Most of the whispering is just hot air.

In fact, the lame duck session is incredibly important, not something to fear. Any bills that are still pending at the end of this session are considered dead and will have to be reintroduced in the new Congress and go through the whole process all over again—what a waste of time! The lame duck session will allow many of the pending issues one last chance to be debated before going to the graveyard.

An incredibly important piece of legislation that we hope this lame duck Congress will take up is the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act (H.R. 4808 and S. 3766), which would allow federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (ESCR). As we've seen in the past few months, the funding for this important area of investigation is volatile, with a single judge able to gridlock the country’s research.

Fixing this problem is time-sensitive because we cannot afford to have these gridlocks occur over and over again. Research cannot be stopped and started intermittently, particularly when working with sensitive materials like embryonic stem cells. It can take researchers weeks or months to prepare for important experiments--that time is lost when research is halted, and doubled when research is restarted. Furthermore, if these experiments are discontinued prematurely, all the data can be lost.

ESCR legislation has been passed by both houses of Congress twice before, only to be vetoed by President Bush. In addition, Research!America polls show that a majority of Americans think that the government should fund ESCR. So why don’t we have a law to reflect how the people feel?

Please, urge your representative and senator to pass the Stem Cell Research Advancement Act (H.R. 4808 in the House and S. 3766 in the Senate) this year. Let’s put those lame ducks to work.

Know Your Candidates

We've told you about Your Candidates - Your Health before, but with a week to go until the election, we thought we'd let some of our supporters tell you why you should use this great tool as you think about how to make your vote count.

Democracy Poll

Image source: Dictionary.com

It's a government by the people. How are you contributing?

What have you done to contribute to democracy this year?
	Voted
	Paid taxes
	Participated in a community meeting
	Talked to decision makers about policy
	Donated time or money to a campaign
	Prevented imminent societal anarchy
	Tried to influence public opinion
	Run for office
pollcode.com free polls

How To: Understand Survey Methodology

It's pretty common to see polls mentioned on the cover of USAToday or on the evening news, but how reliable is that information? Today we're taking a look at survey methodology and discussing what to look for when you're trying to find credible poll data.

% error
The percent error or sampling error should be 3.5% or less. If a survey is done online, the percent error may be called a theoretical sampling error, but for the most part, percent error is about as theoretical as evolution.

Selection of participants
Whether the poll is done by phone, paper survey, or online, the participants should be randomly selected and demographically equivalent to the population of whatever group the survey is talking about. For national poll data, the U.S. Census provides a good guideline. Census data is also available for each state, which is important because age, race, and gender are not equally represented in every region.

How and when the poll is conducted
Not so long ago, credible public opinion polling was done almost exclusively by phone. Now, online polling can be as statistically significant if the participants are randomly selected. Both types of polling take about a week to reach the 800 to 1,000 respondents necessary for an acceptable percent error. When the poll is conducted can make a big difference in the results, so it is important to remember what major events were happening during the polling time. An election, a natural disaster, or a product recall can quickly change public opinion, and therefore the results of a survey.

Understanding the methodology of a poll can make a big difference in whether or not you trust the data. There are a number of other components to consider, but methodology is a quick and easy place to start. What do you look for when reviewing poll data?

Are you a scientist? Good, take this survey.

We're trying to find out more about scientists' views on communicating science to the public and their perspectives on the policy process. We want to know what you think, and what experience you have with each. How can you tell us?

Take the survey.

Come on, you know you want to. We're less than a dozen responses from statistical significance (though obviously the more respondents, the more useful the data). The only thing standing between us and that reliable data is your response.

That's right, you have the power to help make this survey of scientists a success. All it takes is about 10 minutes of your time and access to the Internet. You've already got the Internet part down if you're reading this, so please give us just ten minutes of your time. You'll be glad you did.


More information about the survey is available here.

Share the Survey

Thank you to the many of you who have already taken the scientist survey.

As you know, for all of the data to be useful, we have to have a significant number of responses. So please help Ilse (who has been working diligently on this project for months) by sharing the link to her survey with anyone you know who has some level of scientific training.

It only takes a moment to share in your Reader, add the link to your Facebook profile, or to email it to a friend. Please help us get the word out about this survey!

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=cyqeCib8QxZO2Dj6a5OvSw_3d_3d

We Want You for the New Voices Scientist Survey

We're in the final weeks of the New Voices Scientist Survey and have already received responses from scientists across the country. The question is: are you one of them?

By distributing this survey, we're trying to find out more about scientists' views toward communicating science to the public and their perspectives on the policy process. We want to know what you think, and what experience you have with each. The results will provide vital and timely insight and help guide the New Voices for Research Initiative.

The more people that complete the survey, the more representative our results will be of the national scientific community. Anyone who has completed at least some master's study (or higher) and intends to complete their degree in any of the scientific or medical fields is eligible to participate.

Thanks to everyone who has completed our survey. If you haven't yet, please take 10 minutes now to do so. Your individual responses will not be associated with you personally, and any identifying information will remain confidential.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at ipeterson (at) researchamerica.org. To read the original post and find out more about this survey, click here. Thank you!!


*Image based on Creative Commons content from theunicyclegirl

The Scientist Survey (A Reprise)

As some of you may already know, we are currently surveying scientists about their attitudes toward and experiences with science communication and policy. This is a friendly reminder (or suggestion if you didn't see our original post) to all of the scientists out there take part.

The study that we are conducting will provide vital and timely insight into how scientists view communication and policy. However, for the information to be useful, we need as many scientists as we can reach to complete the survey.

This means that we need your help. If you have completed at least some master's study (or higher) and intend to complete your degree in any of the scientific or medical fields and have not yet taken our survey, please do so now. And if you know any other scientists who would be willing to participate, please pass this on to them. By forwarding this to your friends and colleagues, you will enable us to reach a much broader network than we could on our own.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at ipeterson (at) researchamerica.org. Thank you!!

The Scientist Survey

Today I’d like to announce an opportunity for the scientists out there: the chance to take part in the New Voices Scientist Survey.

As part of the New Voices initiative—which we hope will empower scientists to become strong communicators and spokespersons for research—we are investigating scientists’ attitudes toward public communication and the policy process. I would like to invite you to participate in this initiative by completing a brief survey about these issues. The entire process takes approximately 10 minutes.

The purpose of this project is to gain a better understanding of how scientists perceive science communication and the policy process. The results will be used to guide our efforts with the New Voices and will be available here on the New Voices blog in November.

Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. Any identifying information will remain confidential and your responses will not be associated with you personally. To complete the survey, click here.

We want to reach as many scientists as possible, and your participation would be greatly appreciated! Also, it would be most helpful if you would pass this on to any scientists you know who might be interested in taking part.

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at ipeterson (at) researchamerica.org. Thanks!

The Importance of STEM Education

Recently, my co-blogger Heather wrote about the fact that most Americans can’t name a living scientist. Today I’m going to write about something that can help change that statistic: science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education.

According to Research!America’s 2009 Your Congress-Your Health poll, 76% of Americans think that STEM education is “very important” to U.S. competitiveness and economic prosperity. Another 21% consider STEM education “somewhat important,” and only a very small percentage—3%--think it is “not important.” In fact, there is little question as to whether STEM education is important to our society: it provides numerous benefits in addition to making the U.S. more competitive and is therefore crucial to support, promote, and encourage.

Science, technology, engineering, and math education have several economic benefits for society. Undergraduate and graduate programs in these fields provide highly skilled workers and researchers who can make constructive contributions in their field of employment.

The success of the institutions or industries in which these people are employed generates revenue and additional funding that has a huge regional and national impact. One example: according to the 2007 study In Your Own Backyard, NIH funding for Illinois generated 11,914 new jobs and $1,848,000,000 worth of business activity. (Read more about the economic impact of research here).

Educating students in the sciences, technology, engineering, and math also creates people who are capable of finding solutions to the problems faced by the world today. Locally and globally, people with STEM degrees are helping create treatments and cures for diseases, generating ideas for sources of energy, and finding ways to deal with global warming. Their work improves all of our lives.

Since STEM education is so significant to our society, it is crucial for each of us to support. This is a multi-fold endeavor.

A significant aspect of this is ensuring the availability of STEM opportunities to students of all ages. Interest in these areas should be encouraged at a young age and must be sustained; we need challenging and engaging programs that nurture innovative thinkers. If you have a personal connection to science, you can help with this by working to make internships, educational outreach, or other programs available in your lab, classroom, or company. Or you could write to your Members of Congress in support of STEM education.

Ensuring that society is aware of these opportunities is another must. If you are aware of a great STEM program, tell people who might be interested! I wouldn’t have found out about Research!America or this internship if it hadn't been mentioned by a post-doc that I interviewed for information about careers in science policy and public health.

Finally, it is absolutely necessary to foster enthusiasm for the sciences and research. We need to create a culture of excitement and interest in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math. We need science ambassadors (to borrow Chris and Sheril's term) on all levels and in all fields to demonstrate how cool science is.

Tell your friends. Get involved. And if you have any ideas or know of any STEM opportunities that New Voices might be interested in, please leave a comment!

Photo credit: Chemical Heritage Foundation

This is Part 3 in our series highlighting data from the Your Congress-Your Health poll.
Part 1 - Can you name a living scientist?
Part 2 - Poll Methodology

Poll Methodology

Photo credit: Adam Tinworth

There's been an excellent discussion going on over at The Intersection about a piece of poll data that we posted last week regarding how many Americans could name a living scientist.

We released that single slide from the data set as a preview of more data that will be coming out from our June 2009 survey. When the rest of the data is officially released, we'll be able to discuss it in more detail.

In the meantime, however, we wanted to share a little about the methodology of the polling, which seemed to be the cause of some concern.

Research!America has been commissioning public opinion research for 17 years, including both national and state polls (in 45 states!). The polls have been conducted both by telephone and online with well-established firms such as Charlton Research and Harris Interactive.

Here's a look at the general methodology for this polling:

Telephone (random digit dialing) polls are conducted with a sample size of 800 to 1000 American adults for a sampling error of +/- 3.5%. Data are demographically representative of adult U.S. residents.

Online polls are conducted with a sample size of 1000 to 2000 from a randomly generated pool of American adults for a theoretical sampling error of +/- 3.1%. Data are demographically representative of adult U.S. residents.

We've asked "Can you name a living scientist?" and other similar questions throughout the years, and therefore have multiple "glimpses of public opinion in time" on this subject, so we feel confident that the 65%/35% split is a good representation.

For those who are concerned about the presentation of the data, the graphic indicated 278 total mentions and not the total number of respondents to the survey. Those 278 represent the total number of responses of the 35% of Americans who said they could name a living scientist.

The commenters brought up a number of other interesting points, and we are energized by this conversation. When we get the greenlight to share the rest of the polling data, we'll have more to say about how and why questions like this are asked in national polls, and some analysis of the data.