View past bulletins

The Research Works Act, a bill introduced by Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Carol Maloney (D-NY), looks to reverse the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) public access policy. This policy, introduced four years ago, requires researchers with NIH funding to submit published manuscripts to Pubmed Central, a publicly accessible database. The new bill would no longer require researchers to make such a submission.

In response to the attempted repeal of NIH’s policy, Michael Eisen, a founder of the open-access Public Library of Science (PLoS), wrote an opinion piece in the New York Times. Eisen argues that because NIH has funded these research projects, there is an obligation for taxpayers to have access. By charging them to view research results through publishers, they’re paying twice. Publishers, on the other hand, argue such fees are necessary for proper compensation, and two publishers have provided a response in the New York Times. The Association of American Publishers (AAP) supports the bill.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and lesser-known Protect IP Act (PIPA) have generated considerable media attention in the past week; with websites like Wikipedia and Google publicly protesting the legislation on January 18, 2012. The two bills essentially deal with intellectual property and copyright protections, but have produced a vast range of reactions and interpretations. Supporters of SOPA claim that it only looks to target foreign websites counterfeiting US property. Opponents of SOPA and PIPA, however, worry that the ambiguous language of the bills could have drastic and unintended consequences for US websites and companies. Because of the recent public backlash towards the bills, both are currently shelved in Congress; with voting being postponed.

Read about current state of SOPA and PIPA in Washington Post.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) posted a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on December 14, 2011. The proposed rule looks to put in place Section 6002 of the Affordable Care Act, also called the Physician Payment Sunshine Provision; making information about transfers (financial and otherwise) between medical suppliers covered by Medicare and Medicaid and physicians publicly available. It would also publicize information about potential conflicts of interest for a given physician, with concerned parties given 45 days to review and correct information prior to being released. The previous deadline for a final ruling on the “Sunshine Act” was October 1, 2011, but CMS has requested public comments prior to implementing the new regulations.

Read and respond to the notice by February 17, 2012.

On January 10, 2012, the US biotechnology company Ion Torrent announced their new sequencing machine, the Ion Proton Sequencer, is able to sequence an entire genome for $1,000. This achievement would mark an important step in genomic research and clinical diagnostics. The machine, which is approximately the size of an office printer, is reported to sequence the genome in a single day, rather than weeks, at a substantially lower cost than current competitors. Furthermore, the Ion Proton Sequencer will be sold for $99,000 to $149,000 – significantly less than many current sequencers; which can cost up to $750,000. Research labs are expected to be the primary clients initially, but the leap in technology is expected to eventually have major clinical significance.

Read more about the implications of this technology.

ScienceInsider reports that the National Science Board made two changes to how the National Science Foundation (NSF) reviews grant applications. Previously, NSF provided applicants with a list of eight examples of a research project’s possible outcomes that could be considered broader impacts; but NSF says this is now mistakenly used as a checklist for funding. Going forward, these examples will no longer available, and applicants are instructed to use the same metrics given to assess a proposal’s intellectual merit. Moreover, NSF will now also assess the broader impact of a project at a higher, aggregated level; recognizing that an individual proposal may not reflect the overall projected impact. These changes are expected to further the debate regarding the evaluation of federally funded research, and possibly influence funding criteria for other agencies.