A billion dollars for your thoughts!

The governments of high-income countries and private organizations provide billions of dollars to developing countries for health. This type of development assistance can have a critical role in ensuring that life-saving health interventions reach populations in need. To identify the amount of development assistance that countries and organizations provided for health and to determine the health areas that received these funds. Budget, revenue, and expenditure data on the primary agencies and organizations (n = 38) that provided resources to developing countries (n = 146-183, depending on the year) for health from 1990 through 2014 were collected. For each channel (the international agency or organization that directed the resources toward the implementing institution or government), the source and recipient of the development assistance were determined and redundant accounting of the same dollar, which occurs when channels transfer funds among each other, was removed. This research derived the flow of resources from source to intermediary channel to recipient. Development assistance for health (DAH) was divided into 11 mutually exclusive health focus areas, such that every dollar of development assistance was assigned only 1 health focus area. Since 1990, $458.0 billion of development assistance has been provided to maintain or improve health in developing countries. The largest source of funding was the US government, which provided $143.1 billion between 1990 and 2014, including $12.4 billion in 2014. Of resources that originated with the US government, 70.6% were provided through US government agencies, and 41.0% were allocated for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)/AIDS. The second largest source of development assistance for health was private philanthropic donors, including the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and other private foundations, which provided $69.9 billion between 1990 and 2014, including $6.2 billion in 2014. These resources were provided primarily through private foundations and nongovernmental organizations and were allocated for a diverse set of health focus areas. Since 1990, 28.0% of all DAH was allocated for maternal health and newborn and child health; 23.2% for HIV/AIDS, 4.3% for malaria, 2.8% for tuberculosis, and 1.5% for noncommunicable diseases. Between 2000 and 2010, DAH increased 11.3% annually. However, since 2010, total DAH has not increased as substantially. Funding for health in developing countries has increased substantially since 1990, with a focus on HIV/AIDS, maternal health, and newborn and child health. Funding from the US government has played a substantial role in this expansion. Funding for noncommunicable diseases has been limited. Understanding how funding patterns have changed across time and the priorities of sources of international funding across distinct channels, recipients, and health focus areas may help identify where funding gaps persist and where cost-effective interventions could save lives.

“Good luck on your first day as an assistant professor, Dr. Tanner! Have a great class!” On the wall above my desk, these words scream out from an otherwise encouraging note that is adorned with many exclamation points. This note has hung on my wall since my very first day as an Assistant Professor of Biology. As I was charging off to teach my first class, a senior faculty member who had been on my hiring committee slipped this note under my office door. In moments of pause years later, I still stare up at that note and breathe a sigh of relief that I had much more than luck to guide me on my first day as a college-level teacher. Although I continue to have much to learn—as all of us do no matter the number of years of teaching experience—I did arrive at the university with both formal and informal training in science education. I had had plenty of exposure to innovative pedagogical approaches, questioning strategies, and techniques for engaging diverse audiences in learning science. As a scientist educator, I had had the privilege of many years of collaboration with outstanding K–12 educators as well as a postdoctoral fellowship in science education. However, my training has been, to say the least, unconventional compared with that of my fellow junior faculty and unique in its preparation in regard to the teaching and learning of my discipline. It will not be news to anyone reading this article that university and college teaching is to a large extent a profession with no formal training. It’s startling but true that the majority of faculty members—and lecturers who often teach large numbers of students—have no formal training in the teaching and learning of their discipline. In fact, the hiring process in university science departments is structured primarily to evaluate a faculty candidate’s ability to be a productive researcher, with success measured in number of publications and magnitude of grant funds raised. Depending on the type of institution, for example, research university, state-level university, or liberal arts college, there may be a component of the faculty interview process that probes a candidate’s teaching ability, for example, requesting a statement of teaching philosophy and requiring the candidate to teach a sample lecture class. However, this sample lecture often screens for gross inadequacies, rather than looking for stellar innovations or pedagogical skills. This lack of formal, accredited training for university and college instructors stands in stark contrast to the requirements for a high school teacher who is charged with the education of students only a year junior to college freshmen. High school teachers in the United States must be credentialed as a secondary science teacher, demonstrate subject matter competency in every subject that they will be teaching, and must continually engage in professional development in the teaching and learning of their discipline throughout their career as a science teacher. With the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind legislation, the onus is upon each precollege science teacher to become “highly qualified” in terms of formal university-level training in science education. However, no such required professional training or measurable standards for teaching are required in institutions of higher education. Many policy documents have suggested standards of teaching practice in postsecondary science education (National Research Council, 1996, 1997; Siebert and McIntosh, 2001), but the extent of implementation of these ideals is unclear and has gone relatively unstudied, although national and regional accreditation boards do look at outcomes, asking colleges and universities to assess what their students have gained from four years of study at their institutions. Nonetheless, there is a striking reversal of accountability that happens when one crosses the precollege teaching to college-level teaching boundary (Table 1). During the K–12 school years, society expects K–12 teachers to be responsible for student learning. Salaries of teachers in many states are tied to student test scores, and poor student performance can potentially invoke penalties. At a college or university, several variables in the educational universe shift. Students are the ones responsible for learning. The evaluation and compensation of college-level teachers is not DOI: 10.1187/cbe.05–12–0132 Address correspondence to: Kimberly Tanner (kdtanner@sfsu.edu). CBE—Life Sciences Education Vol. 5, 1–6, Spring 2006

Rethinking the Ph.D. dissertation in botany: Widening the circle.

genesisVolume 28, Issue 2 p. 45-46 Community Message Evolution and development at the National Science Foundation, U.S.A.† Judith Plesset, Corresponding Author Judith Plesset Program Director, Animal Developmental Mechanisms, Evolution of Developmental MechanismsAnimal Developmental Mechanisms, Evolution of Developmental Mechanisms, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230Search for more papers by this authorSamuel Scheiner, Samuel Scheiner Program Director, Population BiologySearch for more papers by this authorSusan Singer, Susan Singer Program Director, Plant and Microbial Developmental Mechanisms, Evolution of Developmental MechanismsSearch for more papers by this author Judith Plesset, Corresponding Author Judith Plesset Program Director, Animal Developmental Mechanisms, Evolution of Developmental MechanismsAnimal Developmental Mechanisms, Evolution of Developmental Mechanisms, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230Search for more papers by this authorSamuel Scheiner, Samuel Scheiner Program Director, Population BiologySearch for more papers by this authorSusan Singer, Susan Singer Program Director, Plant and Microbial Developmental Mechanisms, Evolution of Developmental MechanismsSearch for more papers by this author First published: 01 November 2000 https://doi.org/10.1002/1526-968X(200010)28:2<45::AID-GENE10>3.0.CO;2-Z † This article is a US Government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America. AboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Volume28, Issue2October 2000Pages 45-46 RelatedInformation

Psychiatric and neurological diseases combined represent a considerable social and economic burden in Europe. A recent study conducted by the European Brain Council (EBC) quantified the 'cost and burden' of major brain diseases in Europe, amounting to €386bn per year. Considering that these costs will increase exponentially in the years to come due to ageing of the European population, it is necessary to act now in order to curb this increase and possibly reverse the trend. Thus, establishing a strong European platform supporting basic and clinical research in neuroscience is needed to confront the economic and social challenge posed by management of brain diseases in European countries. To setup a platform for discussion, EBC published in 2006 a Consensus Document on European Brain Research, describing needs and achievements of research in Europe and presenting proposals for future research programs. Since 2006, European research in neuroscience has advanced tremendously. The present document represents an update elaborated to reflect changes in research priorities and advances in brain research that have taken place since 2006. The same approach and format have been used here as in the previous version. Multinational and multidisciplinary teams have once again come together to express their views, not only on the current strengths in European research, but also on what needs to be done in priority, hoping that this update will inspire policy makers and stakeholders in directing funding for research in Europe.

What ethics integration looks like in neuroscience research.

Organization of auditory, somatic sensory, and visual projection to association fields of cerebral cortex in the cat.

A11 neurons are not created equal. Even neighboring nerve cells may be distinct in their electrical properties and exhibit very different patterns of endogenous electrical activity. As we know from the discussion in Part II of this book, these diverse patterns of activity reflect the complement of ion channels that are active under a given set of conditions. The fundamental issue that we address now is the fact that these patterns of electrical activity are not fixed, but are subject to modulation resulting from synaptic or hormonal stimulation. Neurons may undergo long-lasting changes in the shape and amplitude of their action potentials, in the temporal pattern of action potential firing, and in the ways they respond to synaptic stimulation (Fig. 13-1). Such modulation of neuronal electrical properties, mediated by transduction mechanisms, some of which are described in Chapters 11 and 12, not only allow the nervous system to adapt its output in the face of a continually changing environment but also are the basis for many long-lasting changes in behavior. Because neuromodulation underlies the choice of different patterns of behavior at different times, it is of critical importance for the proper functioning of the nervous system.

Co-simulation of software and hardware provides a more realistic testing and evaluation environment to some extent, improving the efficiency of test and evaluation. But it is still different from the real test environment. Therefore, a real hardware test platform and the environment are essential to the process of developing new technology. On July 15, 2016, the US government announced that 400 million US dollars will be invested to the Advanced Wireless Research Initiative (AWRI) led by National Science Foundation (NSF), which will build four city-scale experimental test platforms and deploy advanced future wireless research projects. The program will use two models: (1) 85 million US dollars will be invested through public-private partnership to deploy and establish an advanced wireless experimental test platform. Each platform will deploy software defined wireless networks in the urban area, allowing academics, entrepreneurs and wireless companies to test, evaluate and improve their technology and software algorithms in real-world environment. (2) The NSF will invest US$ 350 million to support advanced wireless communications theory and technology research. These wireless experimental test platforms and fundamental researches will support academic and business to develop and test advanced wireless communication technologies.

Brain- and neuroscience-related diseases and research are an important aspect to be discussed and explored at public interest. International Brain Research Organization (IBRO) is an international organization that is involved in spearheading both these activities. Brain Awareness Week (BAW) was never organized in a city which gave rise to the foundation of “Indian Academy of Neurosciences (IAN).” Stalwarts like Professor P. N. Saxena, Professor Om Chandra, Professor Mahdi Hasan, Professor K. C. Singhal, etc. did some significant efforts to promote neuroscience and brain research in Aligarh. They also established “Interdisciplinary Brain Research Centre” at Aligarh Muslim University and organized many scientific events including the Fifth Annual Conference of the IAN from December 7 to December 9, 1986. They also established “Interdisciplinary Brain Research Centre” at Aligarh Muslim University. Likewise, Ibn Sina Academy of Medieval Medicine and Sciences is another institution where a large number of publications on neuroscience exist. With this background, BAW with a theme, “Neuroscience through the ages to modern times” was organized by the courtesy of IBRO-APRC Brain Awareness Week Grant. The exhibition of publications extant at Ibn Sina Academy (depicting history of neuroscience since medieval era specially the works of medieval Arabs who played a significant role in the growth of neurosurgery) and public awareness lectures on importance of neuroscience research helped in some extent to increase public awareness, foster public enthusiasm and interest in the younger generation. Students of all science disciplines including Unani medicine were invited to participate at various events such as presentation of postal stamps on neuroscience, paintings, essay writing competition, and poetry on brain and neuroscience.

The International Technology Education (ITEA), in partnership with the Eisenhower National Clearinghouse (ENC) and funded by the National Science Foundation has created a comprehensive digital library collection for K-12 technological literacy in an accessible virtual environment. ICON, or the innovation curriculum online network, is a central source for information dealing with technology and innovation. ICON serves as a national electronic roadmap to connect users, such as teachers, professors, students, museum staff, and parents with information about our human built and innovated world. Users may use the digital library to access resources ranked according to technological literacy content and pedagogy, interact with quality instructional resources, and to enhance online search capabilities relevant to the needs of the user population.

For the last fifteen years, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) along with other federal agencies, private foundations, and universities have invested close to $100 million in the development of the Global Seismographic Network (GSN) (Butler, 1994) and its associated data collection facilities. The GSN has resulted in a bonanza of new discoveries for the scientific research community. We now exploit this scientific resource also for educational purposes, by making data from the GSN accessible (both mechanically and conceptually) to the general public through museum exhibits. Most people are amazed to learn that an earthquake occurred today, and they are astonished to discover that earthquakes are continually occurring. In general, the public views earthquakes as unusual events that result in cataclysmic destruction. We develop exhibits that are designed to change the public perception of earthquakes and present earthquakes not as destructive events but rather as signals of the geological forces that build our mountains and create our ocean basins. In other words, we are using earthquakes to introduce the concepts of plate tectonics and a dynamic Earth to museum visitors. In preliminary meetings with several museums, we found a strong interest in displaying real-time seismic data. Our discussions led to the development of prototype exhibit concepts (Hutt et al., 1997; Hennet, 1998; Hennet, 1999; Hennet, 2000; Hennet et al., 2002) that combine electronic and mechanical data-recording systems for displaying earthquake information in real-time. We also developed interactive displays that allow museum visitors to “create their own earthquakes” as a means of introducing them to the concept of recorded ground motion and the principles of how a seismometer works. By bringing live seismic data over the Internet and broadcasting them in museums, we provide visitors with direct evidence that the Earth's surface is …

More than 10 years ago, our team—consisting of instructional designers, game developers, science education experts, and researchers—began work on a set of four digital science games and instructional materials for middle-school educators. Collectively called Possible Worlds, with funding from the US Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (Award # R305C080022), and later the National Science Foundation (DRL-1252382), we were motivated by the desire to provide teachers with engaging and easy-to-use resources to help students overcome persistent science misconceptions and gain a deeper understanding of abstract science concepts that can be difficult to visualize. For example, students often struggle to understand the concept that a solid material like plant matter can be made from a liquid (water) and a gas (carbon dioxide). Students (and adults) who cannot imagine processes that take place at the molecular level are likely to hold the misconception that plants “eat” a solid material such as soil and transform that into plant matter, another solid material.

The U.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Council of Chief State School Officer, and nearly all individual states have efforts under way to create educational indicators. Federal agencies view indicators as essential for monitoring the status of the nation's educational system and for tracking how it changes over time. At the state level, policy makers hope that indicators will provide information they can use to hold local districts and schools accountable for their performance. State policy makers also seek indicator data that can inform new improvement efforts. At the heart of each of these national and state efforts is a fundamental question: What indicators will be most valid and useful [22]? Introduction Indicators come in many forms, but all are descriptive data (for example, frequencies, percentages, ranks, means, rates, ratings) serving as proxies for conditions in education that policy makers wish to monitor. While imprecise and not without flaws, they were powerful numbers, capable of triggering important decisions relating to resource allocation, student admissions, staffing, curriculum, and other matters. What began in 1867 as simple record-keeping of enrollment statistics by the federal government [20] has since become big business [24], as evidenced by the multitude of studies and projects begin conducted. Today's activity results in part from twenty-five years of growing concern for student performance and the effectiveness of our schools. This study was prompted by the author's concern for the rigor with which indicators are developed or selected and for the validity of certain indicators that are being used today to evaluate institutions of higher education. This concern stems from the observation that indicators have the potential to be both technically inaccurate (for example, the numbers are calculated incorrectly or contain various sources of error) and conceptually invalid (that is, they are poor proxies for the concepts or conditions in education we wish to measure). The statistics we identify as indicators of quality of excellence require special justification because the inferences we draw from them extend beyond recorded facts (for example, student enrollment, cost-per-student) to constructs which are difficult to define or isolate. Additionally, many of us in the research and policy communities have, at best a fuzzy understanding about what it means to have a valid indicator. How does one go about testing the validity of an indicator or indicator system? Unlike the known standards for conducting validity studies on tests, there are no agreed-upon procedures for assuring that the indicators measure, or represent, that which we assume they measure. This lack of agreement is not limited to policy users, as de Nuefville [13] wrote in her treatise on a social indicators, but extends to developers of indicator systems, as a review of indicator literature revealed. This lack of a systematic method or conceptual framework lead to confusion as to which types of evidence might be gathered to support the interpretation and use of indicators. The same lack explains, perhaps, why virtually all indicator systems proposed or in place in education todat have no self-evaluate component. Although the practical requirements of good indicators (for example, cost effective, understood by lay audiences, feasible to collect) have been amply listed [for example, 21, 23, 26], most current developers fail to explain how their indicators should be tested or assessed other than by a largely subjective process of literature review, review by committee, and affirmation over time by the public [13, 26, 27]. The validity of current indicators might be less in question had they been developed systematically, beginning with careful definition of an underlying construct (for example, curriculum quality, ethic discrimination) and proceeding to the development and testing of standardized measures. …

Despite decades of efforts to increase the participation of women and people from underrepresented minority groups (URM) in science and math majors and careers, and despite the increasing diversification of the US population as a whole (Planty et al in National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC, 2008), participation in STEM majors and STEM careers (including STEM teaching) remains stubbornly male and white (Landivar in American Community Survey Reports, ACS-24, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, 2013; National Science Foundation and National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics in Special Report NSF 15-311, Arlington, VA, 2015). This paper describes a project with two central goals: (1) to provide opportunities for URM high school students to engage in authentic science and math inquiry with the support of skilled college undergraduate mentors in the hope that these experiences will encourage these high school students to choose and persist in pursuing careers in STEM fields and, even if they do not choose those careers, to feel confident making complex, science or math-based decisions in their everyday lives and (2) to help the mentors (young people, mostly STEM majors) see teaching as a vital, intellectually challenging career that can provide them the opportunity to work for social justice in their communities. While it is unlikely that any one experience will help young people overcome the long odds that face them as they consider either path, our analysis suggests that projects of this kind can make a meaningful contribution to the effort.