NASEM and AAAS discriminate against largest group of scientists
Following is a link to a NASEM announcement of an External Review of Ethical, Legal, Environmental, Safety, Security, and Societal Issues of Engineering Biology Research and Development. It also allows for Comment on Provisional Committee Appointments. Following the link are the comments I made on the committee appointments:
My comments:
“A significant majority of all US scientist work in business or industry and more PhDs, the elite of scientists, work in business/industry, at 47.1%, than in education (including academia), at 43.8%, or government, at 9.1%. This is data that NSF routinely collects (NCSES. NSF 21-319. April 2021). Given this unbiased description of the structure of the US scientific community, it would be valuable to consider how this corresponds to the makeup of the provisional appointments to the Committee for the External Review of Ethical, Legal, Environmental, Safety, Security, and Societal Issues of Engineering Biology Research and Development (SIEBRD, my acronym). In an analysis of the 16 Committee members: 11 are clearly from academia, with 2 sharing positions in other groups; 1 is clearly from industry with 1 sharing a position in another group; 1 shares a position in government; and 2 do not appear to fit into any of the NSF designated groups. Additionally, 15 of 16 have PhDs or equivalent advanced degrees. Thus, 75% of the Committee are from academia, 9% from business/industry, 3% from government, and 13% are unclear. This distribution clearly is not representative of the broader US scientific community. It is also worth recognizing that the “D” in SIEBRD is for Development, which involves the making of a commercial product, and the great majority of products are made by industry scientists. Given this unrepresentative distribution of Committee members, how is it possible that NASEM, in all honesty, could consider any report produced by the Committee a “consensus” report? This is only understandable by being aware of the NASEM Policy on Composition and Balance, Conflicts of Interest, and Independence for Committees Used in the Development of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations. Under section II, Disqualifying Financial Conflicts of Interest, 3., of the Policy, simple “employment” in business/industry, a priori, disqualifies one from being on a Committee. However, for all others, including those in academia, section I,3. Objectivity, of the Policy, allows that “an individual may have strongly held views or biases, or may be closely associated with a group that has taken a strong position, on an issue before the committee. This does not preclude appointment to the committee as long as the individual remains open to new learning that could change his/her views.” The Policy clearly discriminates against industry scientist participation in Committees that produce “consensus” reports.
Another way of analyzing the Committee is to consider the Divisions and Units included in the SIEBRD. The introduction to the request for feedback on the SIEBRD project identifies 5 areas where “innovative solutions” are sought – “health, climate, energy, food and agriculture”; however the NASEM Board of Agriculture and Natural Resources was not among the 3 Units listed nor is there clear food or ag representation among the Divisions. With a 30+ year career in what could be considered Engineering Biology, it is my experience that a significant portion, if not the majority, of research and development in biological engineering has been specifically in food and ag biotechnology.
领英推荐
I plan to distribute this text widely within the food, ag and medical industries to solicit recommendations of industry scientists for membership in this Committee. The work of the SIEBRD Committee is too important to allow it to produce a document that represents the “consensus” of a minor portion of the US scientific community. NASEM should also seriously consider changing its Policy on Composition and Balance, Conflicts of Interest, and Independence for Committees Used in the Development of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, as it unfairly discriminates against the largest segment of the US scientific community, industry scientists.
William Pilacinski, PhD, 7 January 2025”
I urge industry scientists, but also academics, especially NA members, who recognize the inherent inequity in banning industry scientists from committees that write “consensus” reports, to comment. The comment period runs thru 22 Jan. This NASEM policy strikes at the very heart of the scientific process, which in the end requires consensus from the body of scientists working in the area of research, and there simply cannot be TRUE consensus if the largest group of scientists, i.e., industry scientists, are not allowed to participate.
There has been increasing dissociation between academia and industry scientists. I have been a member of AAAS for 40 yrs. It claims it “speaks on behalf of all of science,” “as a unifying voice for science,” “building trust among scientists,” to “foster a diverse, equitable, open and inclusive scientific enterprise”; but I was recently banned from its Community blog for asking about industry scientist membership and for enquiring about promises to increase industry scientist membership made by Editor-in-chief Holden Thorp and CEO Sudip Parikh (see Community blog discussion ‘A New Strategic Vision for AAAS’, started by Wendy Li on 1Nov2022). It was not like this in the past. In 1979, I joined two professors to start an early ag biotech company after an NSF Post-doc. We had many academics as consultants, contracts with academic labs, and were regular visitors on campuses. This began changing in the late ‘90s for reasons not clear, but the present situation is not good for the greater scientific community – academia or industry – or for the broader public interests of the US, and the world.
I welcome all comments.