Competitions to Support STEM

Background:There is an urgent need to intentionally develop and expand mentoring for junior faculty from underrepresented communities in the area of HIV research. Such a goal is increasingly recognized as essential across all scientific fields because profound disparities exist regarding which doctorally prepared individuals ultimately end up entering research fields in academic settings. The purpose of this article is to describe a novel inter-Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) program designed to support underrepresented scientists in research to address the HIV epidemic in the Mid-Atlantic region.Methods:Three CFARs in the Mid-Atlantic region (the District of Columbia, Johns Hopkins University CFAR, and University of Pennsylvania CFARs) developed a Scholars program designed for underrepresented minority scholars interested in studying the HIV epidemic in the region. The program provided resources for scholarship as well as cross-institutional mentoring and training.Results:Scholars in the first cohort have been successful in implementing novel research that informs our understanding of the HIV epidemic in the region as well as increasing skills, publications, and grant submissions and funded applications. Lessons learned from the first cohort will inform future years of the MACC Scholars Program.Conclusions:The MACC Scholars Program offers a model for other inter-CFAR collaborations wishing to find novel ways to support the next generation of scientists.

Romolini, M., S. Record, R. Garvoille, Y. Marusenko, and R. Stuart Geiger. 2013. The next generation of scientists: examining the experiences of graduate students in network-level social-ecological science. Ecology and Society 18(3): 42. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05606-180342

Specific metrics for the status of US science education indicate that the country is losing its competitive edge on a global scale; among nations, the US ranks 22nd in density of broadband internet penetration and 72nd in density of mobile phone subscriptions, both of which are critical tools for science literacy and likely contribute to our international rank of 48th in quality of math and science education. Even worse, 69% of US public middle-school math students are taught by teachers without degrees or certificates in mathematics, and 93% of public middle-school teachers in physical sciences lack degrees in their subject (NAS 2010). All of these rankings represent indicators of global science leadership. In short, formal science education systems in the US lag behind those of many other countries, and our ability to train the next generation of scientists is at risk (Brewer and Smith 2010). In addition to shortfalls in public schools, US K–12 youth now watch at least 4 hours of television daily, and the average teenager spends a whopping 7.5 recreational hours daily in front of television and gaming screens (NAS 2010) – time that instead could be devoted to doing homework or experiencing the natural world through outdoor engagement. The formal STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) education metrics for US education are not keeping pace with those of other developed countries and are declining over time. Ecology education is experiencing one of the largest deficits: public schools have cut back on field trips and many K–12 students now experience nature virtually, rather than directly (Louv 2008; Lowman and Mourad 2010). Likewise, many undergraduate and graduate programs are eliminating their natural history programs, sometimes referred to as the "extinction of the ologies" (Lowman and Mourad 2010). In contrast, informal science education (ISE) is now providing a larger compensatory component of STEM education to students as well as to citizens and policy makers. Currently, US museums tally approximately 850 million visits annually, which is more than the attendance for all major league sporting events and theme parks combined (483 million in 2011; www.aam-us.org). Along with these visits, museums are also recording a burgeoning virtual visitorship, with an additional 524 million online visitors in 2006 alone, which has escalated during the past 5 years. In the US, there are over 17 000 museums, whose visitors range from several hundred for a rural museum with a local mission to >8 million annually for larger or national museums (www.aam-us.org); many of these ISE experiences bolster shortfalls in formal STEM education. Natural history museums, with their biodiversity collections and interpretive dioramas, serve as focal points to provide ISE about ecological concepts, including biodiversity, ecosystem services, climate change, and landscapes. In many cases, K–12 students become inspired by seeing, touching, and working with collections; and increasingly, virtual technologies and social media are becoming important drivers of science education concepts for youth outside of the formal classroom setting. Both undergraduate and graduate students can gain valuable training in science communication and outreach using the public floor of museums and other ISE platforms (Trautmann and Krasny 2006; Lowman and Mourad 2010). Given the declining competitiveness of US science education on a global scale, ISE has become an important pipeline for engaging the next generation of scientists and for contributing to otherwise declining ecological literacy. Of US adults surveyed nationally, <20% possess an "acceptable" level of scientific literacy and a majority have little knowledge of natural science, the process of research, or the results of contemporary scientific investigations, despite the importance of science to both human and ecological health (Field and Powell 2001; Miller 2004). Many ISE institutions are embracing the urgency of providing visitors with hands-on experiences to understand science and especially ecology; such efforts may translate to a healthy community through an understanding of fresh water, pollinators, clean air, agriculture, carbon sequestration, forest products, and myriad other ecosystem services. Educators often suggest "the best way to help the public understand the research process is to involve them directly through hands-on research" (Ucko 2004). Public Engagement with Science (PES) is a term used in ISE circles that emphasizes the growing importance of providing citizens with a better understanding of science as a driver of economics and health; ecology is often a conduit for science understanding, whereby museums foster a sense of wonder that leads to greater science literacy by getting kids "hooked" on science. But more analyses of PES in museum settings – including theoretically based assessments of activities – are sorely needed (Bonney et al. 2009). In my former home state of North Carolina, 39% of 8th graders report they "never or hardly ever" designed a science experiment, and another 29% report doing hands-on science activities only once or twice a month. Teaching methods that were traditional several decades ago – lectures, textbooks, recipes in laboratory sessions –continue to be the norm in science education despite national outcries calling for radical change (eg Brewer and Smith 2010). Soon, science teachers may face additional pressure to incorporate hands-on experiences into their courses. Like those of many other states, North Carolina's revised science standards call for inquiry-based learning experiences emphasizing the Next Generation Science standards. Historically restricted to museums as an outreach activity, ISE may infiltrate the public school classroom, so that "citizen-science" activities originating in museums can be virtually transmitted to classrooms for dynamic new science activities (eg Project GLOBE, Project BudBurst, and iNaturalist.org; see Trautmann et al. 2012; Zoellick et al. 2012; www.yourwildlife.org). Programs such as the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) have national mandates from Congress to implement citizen science (or some major and transformational capacity of ISE) to reach diverse stakeholders with data streams about North American ecosystems (Lowman et al. 2009). In addition, for states like North Carolina, with large numbers of practicing scientists, the mentoring of K–12 teachers by scientists has the potential to become another pathway for ISE (Lowman and Randle 2009). To keep North Carolina competitive in science (especially given the strength of Research Triangle Park, a huge driver of technology and jobs in the state), public–private partnerships funded a new wing of the North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences that opened in April 2012. Called the Nature Research Center, it proposed to expand citizen science (ie PES) to diverse stakeholders using four innovative platforms of ISE (Dickinson and Bonney 2012). Drawing upon ecology and especially biodiversity as major drivers (since the museum houses a collection of over three million specimens of organisms endemic to the southeastern US), several ecology-based citizen-science programs were launched with marked success. These programs serve as a case study for integrating real nature and virtual technologies, thereby raising the ecological literacy of museum visitors. Researchers from the Friday Institute for Educational Innovation at North Carolina State University initiated visitor evaluations to track the success of the different platforms of informal learning that include: (1) citizen-science programs in partnership with local scientists (eg the Belly-Button Biodiversity program [Hulcr et al. 2012] or the "wild life of our homes" project [www.yourwildlife.org]); (2) virtual theater to connect K–12 students directly to environmental scientists working both in laboratories and in the field; (3) public education labs (called iLabs) that illustrate natural science techniques of "how we know what we know" about ecology and natural sciences; and (4) glass-walled laboratories where scientists work in the public eye and answer questions from onlookers about the scientific process. Will ISE platforms succeed in bolstering STEM education for students and visitors? With its myriad educational programs for diverse audiences, the California Academy of Sciences (CAS) is proving the success of ISE. Located in San Francisco, CAS's ecoliteracy programs are rooted in science learning, but take the next step to reconnect learners to the natural world and equip them with tools to foster healthy communities through environmental action (eg http://spotlight.macfound.org/featured-stories/entry/elizabeth-babcock). For example, the Academy's Teacher Institute on Science and Sustainability engages 3rd- to 5th-grade teachers in a cohort-based, 2-year training program to incorporate sustainability action in their science teaching. Using simple metaphors that make the science accessible, CAS's ocean action programs (hosted near a 200 000-gallon live coral-reef exhibit on the museum floor) acquaint visitors with the causes and mechanisms of ocean acidification, and its impact on coral reefs. Conservation-oriented stories, as well as action steps designed for individuals and families to reduce carbon emissions, are directly woven into the program's message. In addition, CAS has one of the museum world's first glass-walled laboratories, where visitors can "meet a scientist" and children can interact with diverse scientists as role models (Figure 1). Such innovative attempts to strengthen ISE may ultimately inspire the next generation of ecologists. Moreover, expansion of "virtual-plus-real" natural history educational platforms into other ISE institutions – botanical gardens, zoos, parks, and even school playgrounds (eg www.schoolofants.org) – will foster exciting opportunities to improve ecoliteracy, not just for students but also for their parents, for regional policy makers, and for a diverse public who enjoy destinations that offer ecology education in an informal setting. An informal science education (ISE) laboratory at the California Academy of Sciences encourages students and the general public to pose questions to practicing scientists. This interaction also allows visitors to learn how natural history hypotheses are tested by the scientific method. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.

New era at the NIH

Science is the engine of prosperity, helping society respond to the important issues it faces. We are presently witnessing a worldwide decline in high school students' interest in science, regardless of gender. To overcome this problem, developing science promotion programs and activities that inspire young people to become the scientists of tomorrow is critical. We strongly believe in the leadership of research centers in creating such programs, which could have a significant impact on the next generation of scientists. Here we present the 'Researcher for a Day' program, which offers senior high school students immersion days in a scientific workplace dedicated to microbiology, as an example for other institutions that would like to implement such a program. Researcher for a Day has already helped more than 4,000 young students who are considering their career choices discover the world of science. Similar approaches could be implemented virtually anywhere to extend these efforts to promote science among young people.

This article shows how the Timepix hybrid silicon pixel detector, developed by the Medipix2 Collaboration, can be used by students and teachers alike to demonstrate some key aspects of any well-rounded physics curriculum with CERN@school. After an overview of the programme, the detector’s capabilities for measuring and visualising ionising radiation are examined. The classification of clusters – groups of adjacent pixels – is discussed with respect to identifying the different types of particles. Three demonstration experiments – background radiation measurements, radiation profiles and the attenuation of radiation – are described; these can used as part of lessons or as inspiration for independent research projects. Results for exemplar data-sets are presented for reference, as well as details of ongoing research projects inspired by these experiments. Interested readers are encouraged to join the CERN@school Collaboration and so contribute to achieving the programme’s aim of inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers.

SmallSats extend the frontiers of astrophysics, and present an opportunity with which to develop the next generation of scientists and engineers. Achieving high-impact research with SmallSats is increasingly feasible due to advances in technologies such as precision pointing, compact sensitive detectors and the miniaturization of propulsion systems. Science cases for SmallSat observatories (including CubeSats) being developed now include the discovery and characterization of exoplanets, stars, black holes and radio transients. SmallSats also represent a fantastic “on-ramp” to bring more people into mission development by providing opportunities for students and new PIs to get hands-on, end-to-end leadership, research and engineering experience. This combination of people development with new technology provides diverse opportunities to advance astrophysics knowledge.

The ability to engage children in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields early in their scholastic years is critical to ensure the success of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Given that 97% of American teens play video games, there is a tremendous opportunity to engage students in STEM concepts within the framework of a multi-player game. Research has shown that eliciting emotional and affective responses in players can actively increase engagement, learning, and creativity, yet surprisingly little attention has been paid to the role of emotion within a collaborative multi-player gaming environment. We propose the design and development of an automatic game master that responds to the emotional states of players based on their in-game dialogue and actions. This research offers insights into affective interfaces that can improve the collaborative engagement of students and has implications for other collaborative learning environments.

SummaryThe rise of the Internet of Things has generated high expectations about the improvement in people's lifestyles. In the last decade, we saw several examples of instrumented cities where different types of data were gathered, processed, and made available to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers. In this framework, sensors and actuators became leading actors of technologically pervasive urban environments. However, in coastal areas, marine data crowdsourcing is difficult to apply due to the challenging operational conditions, extremely unstable network connectivity, and security issues in data movement. To fill this gap, we present a novel version of our DYNAMO transfer protocol (DTP), a platform‐independent data mover framework where data collected on board of vessels are stored locally and then moved from the edge to the cloud when the operating conditions are favorable. We evaluate the performance of DTP in a controlled environment with a private cloud by measuring the time it takes for the clouds ide to process and store a fixed amount of data while varying the number of microservice instances. We show that the time decreases exponentially when the number of microservice instances goes from 1 to 16 and it remains constant above that number.

While the debate over funding the federal government in 2011 is over, budget battles for 2012 and following years are now heating up. To demonstrate the importance of basic research funding, AGU collaborated with 28 other scientific and engineering societies to host 250 scientists at the sixteenth annual Science‐Engineering‐Technology Congressional Visits Day (SET‐CVD). Twenty‐four Earth and space scientists, from space physicists to hydrologists, came to Washington, D. C., on 6–7 April. Their mission was to remind lawmakers that federally supported science research drives America's economic engine; protects lives, property, and the environment; and helps keep America competitive by training the next generation of scientists, engineers, and science educators.

Historically black institutions play a pivotal role in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers as well as promoting scientific literacy among all of its students. Students would like to have more culturally relevant assignments that reflect their life experiences as it relates to course content. We used the HeLa documentary film, "The Way of All Flesh Film," as an effective teaching tool in the first survey course of general biology to supplement our discussion on the cell cycle and ethics in scientific studies. Over 90% of our students preferred this additional teaching method compared to a traditional lecture only. Furthermore, the exercise enhanced the students' writing, research, and critical thinking skills through the ethical implications of the film.

Challenges regarding population growth, global warming, resource scarcity, globalization, and environmental degradation have led to an increasing awareness that engineering design and policy strategies can more effectively advance sustainability. From a design perspective, this requires a fundamental conceptual shift from current “cradle to grave” industrial system designs toward more sustainable systems based on efficient use of benign materials and energy. One of the most powerful approaches to advancing sustainability is ensuring that the next generation of scientists, engineers, and policymakers has the intellectual tools necessary to design effective products, processes, and systems. I hope that EPA’s P3 Award program remains central to this important and urgent effort.

Elastomeric optics exploit light transparent, variable translucent, and reflective stretchable polymers to create novel strain-tunable optical elements and flexible multifunctional optical sheets. Optical sheets are thin, large-area polymer light guide structures that can be used to create a wide variety of passive light harvesting and illumination systems. The book introduces the theoretical principles of elastomeric optics and explores how simple and complex mechanically deformable optical devices can be designed and fabricated. The transmission of light through these optical components or waveguides depends on the selected materials, surface interface, geometric design, optical coupling of embedded micro-structures, and degree of device deformation. In addition to providing a technical foundation for building adaptable optics, the book seeks to inspire the next generation of scientists and engineers to develop innovative solutions far beyond anything imagined today.

During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. During the 2000 presidential election, in that time before the September 11th terrorist attacks, the stump speeches of George W. Bush and his Democratic opponent, Al Gore, focused on protecting Social Security, saving American education, expanding Medicare, raising or lowering taxes, and readying the military. If science was mentioned at all, it was usually in the context of missile defense, global warming, or Gore’s role in creating the internet. With the exception of the debate over stem-cell research, science remains a background topic in the current campaign. Democratic candidate John Kerry has occasionally highlighted US science policy and used it against President Bush, charging that the administration has put politics and ideology ahead of science. “Let scientists do science again,” a headline on the Kerry election website says.Bush has responded, primarily through his science adviser, John Marburger, by pointing to the 44% increase in federal R&D since fiscal year 2001 and the record $132 billion in the administration’s FY 2005 R&D budget. “Kerry ignores President Bush’s record science investments,” reads a headline on the Bush reelection website.Kerry answers by noting that most of the R&D money is going for weapons systems and defense spending related to the war in Iraq, not basic science programs. Marburger and other administration officials point to several R&D initiatives, including new nanotechnology centers, the Moon/Mars space initiative, and the program to develop hydrogen fuel technology. In an effort to get the candidates to specifically address questions of interest to the science community, Physics Today has continued a tradition begun in 1976; it asked Bush and Kerry nine questions covering a range of science topics. Their answers, sometimes direct and sometimes vague, show fundamental differences on several key issues.On missile defense, Bush says his request of $10 billion in FY 2005 for development and deployment of such a system fulfills a pledge he made to the American people. Kerry says we should not be “falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system.”On global warming, Kerry talks of both near- and long-term programs to deal with the problem. Bush promotes his “comprehensive climate change strategy.” The candidates also address a host of other issues ranging from space exploration to energy policy. 1Section:ChooseTop of page1 <<BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Missile defense: The present administration is requesting more than $10 billion this year for development and deployment of a missile defense system. Many scientists say the system, given current and foreseeable technology, cannot be effective. What proof of effectiveness should be required before the system is fully deployed? Given the low-tech nature of terrorist attacks and the limited missile capabilities of North Korea and other hostile nations, does missile defense continue to be a wise investment? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1Bush <<Kerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryOur policy is to develop and deploy, at the earliest possible date, a weapons system that would defend the United States homeland against nuclear attack, including ballistic missile defenses drawing on the best technologies available. Early in my administration, I called for the examination of the full range of available technologies and basing modes for missile defenses that could protect the United States, our deployed forces, and our friends and allies.The FY 2005 Defense Appropriations Act provides $10 billion that I requested for systems to defend against the threat from ballistic missiles. Later this year, the first components of America’s missile defense system will become operational, and we are on schedule for the next stages of the project. My administration will develop and deploy the technologies necessary to protect our people, fulfilling a pledge I made to the American people more than four years ago.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry <<2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryA missile defense that works is a wise investment, but one that pours money into defenses at the expense of other immediate national security needs is not. And that’s what this administration has done. Missile defense should be one element of a comprehensive national security strategy. But a single-minded focus on this technology and the threat it is designed to meet ignores the very real danger of terrorism and our greatest danger—terrorists with weapons of mass destruction.John Edwards and I will be committed to developing a missile defense system that works, is fully tested, and geared to the threats we face. But I will refocus our efforts on preventing the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and dramatically accelerating the security of nuclear weapons and material in Russia and around the world. We will not sit by, falsely comforted by an untested and unproven defense system, while these threats continue to fester.2Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2 <<BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Climate change: Virtually all reputable research in recent years has reinforced the scientific conclusion that global warming is a real and growing crisis caused, at least in part, by the burning of fossil fuels. Do you accept that scientific consensus? Under what circumstances would you regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2Bush <<Kerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryGlobal climate change is a serious long-term issue. In 2001, I asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to provide the most up-to-date information about the science of climate change. The academy found that considerable uncertainty remains about the effect of natural fluctuations on climate and the future effects climate change will have on our environment.My administration is now well along in implementing a comprehensive climate change strategy to advance the science, expand the use of transformational energy and carbon sequestration technologies, and mitigate the growth of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States and in partnership with other nations. I created the new US Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to refocus the federal government’s climate research programs, for which my 2005 budget seeks nearly $2 billion to fund research across the federal government. The NAS endorsed the CCSP strategic plan, noting that it “articulates a guiding vision, is appropriately ambitious, and is broad in scope.”I also committed the nation to a goal of reducing American greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years, which would prevent more than 500 million tons of carbon emissions through 2012. To help achieve this goal, I created the Climate Vision program in 2003 to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions by energy-intensive industrial sectors. Participants in the Climate Vision program account for between 40 and 45% of US greenhouse gas emissions. I have strongly supported over $4 billion in tax incentives for renewable and energy-efficient technologies, including wind and solar energy and hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles. Also, in April 2003, my administration raised the fuel economy standards for light trucks and SUVs [sport utility vehicles] for the first time since 1996, saving 3.6 billion gallons of gasoline. And in my 2003 State of the Union [address], I announced a $1.7 billion hydrogen fuel initiative to accelerate research that could lead to hydrogen-powered, no-emission vehicles within a generation.Additionally, my administration is participating in robust international partnerships to promote clean, renewable, commercially available fusion energy and to construct the $1 billion FutureGen project, which will test the latest technologies to generate electricity, produce hydrogen, and sequester greenhouse gas emissions from coal. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry <<3BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryI recognize the risk of climate change, and I have outlined a balanced set of programs that will have impact both in the near term and over the long term. My plan will also provide balanced support for technology that can increase the efficiency and cut greenhouse emissions in transportation systems, buildings, and industry that are attractive to consumers and US producers. Our programs will encourage the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol and renewable electric generation that produce little or no net greenhouse gases. I will expand the production tax credit for wind and biomass energy to cover the full array of renewable energy sources and increase Department of Energy (DOE) research into renewable energy sources and their applications. And I will propose an aggressive program of research, standards, and incentives to accelerate electric generation from renewable energy. Clean coal technology can play a critical role, given technology to cut carbon dioxide emissions.My plan would encourage energy efficiency with programs such as updated fuel efficiency standards, new tax incentives for automakers to build the new, more efficient automobiles of the future, and tax incentives for families to purchase more energy-efficient cars, trucks, and SUVs.3Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3 <<BushKerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Science investment: There is concern in the science and economic communities that the US is losing its world leadership in the sciences, which they say bodes ill for future economic growth and global competitive-ness. To address that concern, should the US increase funding for basic science, and should the administration fully fund the 2001 bill, signed by the president, to double NSF’s budget? How would you reinvigorate science education for US-born students? What is the role of foreign scientists and students in the US scientific enterprise? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3Bush <<Kerry4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryIncluding my FY 2005 budget request, total federal R&D investment during the first term will have increased 44% to a record $132 billion in 2005. My FY 2005 budget request commits 13.5% of total discretionary outlays to R&D, the highest level in 37 years. In the context of the overall economy, federal R&D spending in the FY 2005 budget is the greatest share of GDP [gross domestic product] in over 10 years. Funding for basic research, the fuel for future technology development, is at an all-time high of $26.8 billion in FY 2005, a 26% increase over FY 2001. Funding for NSF during the four years of my administration has increased 30% over FY 2001 to $5.7 billion in FY 2005. NSF’s broad support for basic research, particularly at US academic institutions, provides not only a central source for discovery in many fields but also encourages and supports development of the next generation of scientists and engineers. Moreover, in fulfilling its mission, NSF has used its funding efficiently and effectively.As for the American scientific enterprise, it is important in this information and technological age that our students receive a first-rate science education, just as they receive quality instruction in reading, writing, and math. The federal government has no control over local curricula, and it is not my job to tell states and local boards of education what they should teach in the classroom. Nevertheless, the No Child Left Behind Act, one of my proudest legislative achievements this term, is improving our schools and, consequently, the teaching of science. NCLB requires, for the first time, assessments in science to give us better information about how our students are performing and how to improve instruction in science. I have also proposed creating the Presidential Math and Science Scholars Fund to provide $100 million in grants to low-income students who study math or science. This will ensure that America’s graduates have the training they need to compete for the best jobs of the 21st century.I also value the contributions that foreign scientists and students make to our nation’s scientific enterprise, while recognizing the importance of safeguarding our security. We will continue to welcome international students and scientists while implementing balanced measures to end abuses of the student visa system. My administration has already achieved several notable successes in reducing delays now being experienced by some visa seekers. We have increased security while speeding up the clearance process; approximately 1000 back-logged applications have already been cleared out.KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry <<4BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryFor three years, the Bush administration has squandered America’s leadership in the world, putting politics before science and doing nothing to create jobs while our workers fall further behind. The administration has proposed cuts for scientific research and grossly distorted and politicized science on issues from mercury pollution to stem-cell research. This approach not only limits the research that our scientists are doing today, it undermines important discoveries of tomorrow and threatens America’s critical edge in innovation. I will reverse this course by restoring America’s scientific leadership, helping find new cures, moderating healthcare costs, and developing new technologies that will create good jobs. I will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as NSF, the National Institutes of Health, DOE, NIST, and NASA. This funding will help with the broad areas of science and technology that will provide the foundations for economic growth and prosperity in the 21st century.4Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4 <<BushKerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerry Nuclear weapons: Does the US need to develop a new class of nuclear weapons to deal with the changing threats of the 21st century? Is there any circumstance in which you would support the resumption of nuclear testing? BushSection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4Bush <<Kerry5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryThe Nuclear Posture Review, released by my administration in January 2002, noted that the nation’s nuclear infrastructure had atrophied since the end of the cold war and that the evolving security environment requires a flexible and responsive weapons complex infrastructure. To that end, my FY 2005 budget reflects an increase over the 2004 enacted level in the weapons activities account, which encompasses the stockpile stewardship programs. There is no current need for testing due to the sophistication of computer modeling and other new technologies, but we must maintain the capability to test in case such testing becomes necessary in the future to ensure the safety and reliability of our defensive arsenal. We have not identified any need for developing new nuclear weapons. KerrySection:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry <<5BushKerry6BushKerry7BushKerry8BushKerry9BushKerryNo, and a Kerry–Edwards administration will stop this administration’s program to develop a new class of nuclear weapons. This is a weapon we don’t need, and it undermines our ability to persuade other nations to forego development of these weapons.5Section:ChooseTop of page1BushKerry2BushKerry3BushKerry4BushKerry5 Nuclear There is serious concern many that could or a nuclear in a US Do you the US is doing to and control of nuclear weapons and material both in the US and BushSection:ChooseTop of administration in has more to and control nuclear weapons and material than US weapons and are and both the Department of Defense and are to make more My administration has increased funding to weapons and material in the Union and has by years the schedule the administration for security in We are with Russia to end the production of and to weapons for of weapons. the my administration the to or and material We have already weapons material from several our in its for nuclear weapons. To against we the international in a global effort to account and of sources that could be used in such We activities in over 40 on this as well as with international the Energy the the and the of Defense we have dramatically our ability to that could be a threat to us and to our friends and my administration the billion initiative to support and nuclear safety in the This of the international is to a more of nation’s highest must be preventing from to nuclear weapons and the material to make We must in a global partnership with other nations to prevent the spread of these weapons. the Bush administration’s have in the have the we need to advance our security. September they have not nearly to and on the while the nuclear from and North Korea have Our security requires an immediate change of I have proposed a comprehensive strategy to of weapons and including an of programs to all nuclear weapons and within the and at research in the within four production of new material for nuclear weapons by a global on production of new of nuclear weapons and by development of the new generation of nuclear accelerating in US and nuclear and reducing of in nuclear weapons programs in hostile including by with North Korea to ensure the and of its nuclear weapons program and a global effort to prevent from the necessary to build nuclear weapons. international efforts to by and and as well as improving the security a presidential to prevent nuclear terrorism who will focus on a effort to all nuclear weapons and around the world and prevent a nuclear terrorist of Energy than of and have not in a comprehensive US energy policy. years into the future, what do you the US energy should How would you the US in that BushSection:ChooseTop of and energy is critical to America’s and homeland security. We will be more and more we are on foreign sources of energy. The of a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy has been one of my During my first in I proposed a national energy policy that would our energy production and systems, reduce our on foreign promote efficiency and increase domestic production from all of energy including renewable energy and continue to our economy and create new jobs. We will continue to with on the energy to the administration has nearly all of the more than in the comprehensive national energy policy that not as increasing reliability R&D to help prevent and the to its of million to provide energy security in case of of have proposed an program of research, and standards that would increase the efficiency of energy use and use of new energy sources that can ensure a and while reducing the risk of climate change. The program would be supported in by a billion energy security and from federal and gas the in by I have to around the and a of that can meet US needs both in the term and for in the Given the long time required to over energy investments such as of and trucks, industrial and we must a broad set of new technologies as as possible we have any of US energy use in the near term, many of the most control systems, and other technologies to improve the energy of buildings, and industrial that the US to reduce its on from the and I will set for fuels such as I will support research and incentives that will dramatically increase use of from wind and other renewable And I will encourage development of technology and nuclear generation with high standards for stewardship and of Nuclear recent by that nuclear is the best energy source to meet the US while protecting the renewable energy can be deployed on a Do you increasing the use of nuclear If what would you do with the BushSection:ChooseTop of support the further development of nuclear technologies as a clean, and to meet this nation’s future energy Nuclear for of our This which no pollution or greenhouse gas can play an expanding role in our energy future while the we with energy national energy policy several to encourage increased use of nuclear and to the that through the Nuclear my administration is with industry to the for an of a new US nuclear within the next years. through the the United States is with around the to develop a next generation of more and more nuclear that can also produce hydrogen and my administration has made a to the nuclear and the of a long-term at We are ahead with the of a to the Nuclear at the end of this administration is also committed to and in new technologies that will change the we generate I committed the United States to the international fusion energy as in is a important to test the of nuclear fusion as a source of and the of a nearly source of energy the that long-term of Nuclear can play an role in energy while reducing the risk of climate key such as nuclear nuclear and security must be John Edwards and I will ensure safety and science We George Bush’s plan to over the of a Kerry–Edwards administration will on science. John Edwards and I do not support as a nuclear and will that nuclear and transportation only on the of science and that to and the John Edwards and I will George Bush and to from a for an NAS study to is the as to long-term and or some other technology. an international to scientific for nuclear and nuclear from terrorist John Edwards and I will improve and security at nuclear In we will nuclear to to improve including measures to reduce to the an of National National Nuclear the national weapons continue to be with security spending and What would you to improve at the Does the current plan of the to the risk of the in the of the war on BushSection:ChooseTop of national are doing to deal with the threats of the 21st are a in our efforts to improve homeland are the source of technological and are helping the war on With their at the highest level in years, National National and National are also on the edge of defense research, protecting the nation’s infrastructure from terrorist attacks, and developing a that the of a nuclear This is we billion on weapons research and production in FY 2004 and I for billion for We must and security My administration has made effort to improve the the weapons do and one of efforts is that in all areas of central to the war on we can use our more and focus on his or of national play a critical role in our nuclear weapons stockpile and that our nation’s nuclear weapons are and The national also have an important role in preventing the spread of weapons of mass and in science for our nation’s have a of our nation’s but this record has been by and security at the has been John Edwards and I are committed to and and restoring the at these critical national of is being to the long-term of to the and Many scientists the will money from science How do you the importance of science exploration What is the funding between the BushSection:ChooseTop of I announced my for the future of America’s space exploration this will the of both and science will as to the and other vehicles continue to their and of to we have systems on and around a system and one on its to the for cannot be by the most or the most We need to and and for And only are of to the by space we our on the we are developing a new exploration to our This will be by and its first no than will to the as as and no than and use it as a for the We will with to the and for future will with the goal of and there for of Edwards and I will continue America’s long tradition of leadership in and space exploration as of a program to broad for this will not to programs such as the Bush administration’s Program that from in the with no or will in new programs to set by scientific in and other Our administration will on the of the scientific to the most for research and the most for these the of or are most to the 2004 American of

The study of unstable nuclei with unusual ratios of protons to neutrons is one of the frontiers of science. Investigating these rare isotopes is critical for understanding the synthesis of the chemical elements in stellar explosions as well as the fundamental nature of the nuclear forces that bind atomic nuclei together. Scientific progress in this field is driven by the development of exotic beams in present and next-generation rare-isotope beam facilities including the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams (FRIB). Nuclear physics is a broad discipline, influencing our knowledge on subjects as diverse as weakly-bound nuclei, many-body quantum theory, the super heavy elements, and the inner structure of neutron stars. Applications based on nuclear science and technologies include medical diagnostics and therapies, materials science, and national security. The major goal achieved in this project was to hold Exotic Beam Summer School 2023 (EBSS2023), the twentieth installment of EBSS series, July 9-15, 2023 at the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams on the campus of Michigan State University to educate and train the next generation of scientists that will drive research with rare-isotope beams. FRIB became operational in 2022 and is now providing beams of exotic nuclei that will ramp up to unmatched intensities, exceeding what is available today by orders of magnitude. Beams available at FRIB are facilitating a wide variety of studies in nuclear structure, astrophysics, fundamental symmetries and societal applications. There is a large community of scientists interested in working with rare isotope beams; for example, the FRIB User Organization currently has over 1,700 members. In order to maximize the scientific output of FRIB, there must be a workforce continuously trained in both the physics of exotic beams and in the practical techniques of carrying out an experiment. This summer school series is designed to specifically address this need - to ensure that new generations of scientists from a broad range of institutions and backgrounds is trained, motivated, and equipped to push the field forward to new and important breakthroughs.