Reimagining STEM doctoral training.

Fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, the percentage of African American students who receive PhDs in natural science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) fields remains disappointingly low. A multifaceted, strengths-based approach to intervention and research that holds great promise for increasing the number of African American students who achieve at the highest levels academically is described. This work began in 1988 with the development of the Meyerhoff Scholars Program for undergraduate minority STEM majors at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC). If current PhD receipt rates of program graduates continue, UMBC will in all likelihood become the leading predominantly White baccalaureate-origin university for Black STEM PhDs in the nation. The program is described and outcome and process findings from its ongoing evaluation are highlighted. The parenting practices that helped these youths to overcome the odds and achieve at the highest levels prior to coming to college are also examined.

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

Mariangela Lisanti, a 17-year-old high-school student from Westport, Connecticut, won first prize in a science competition last December for her project “Conductance Quantization in Gold Nanocontacts,” taking home a $100 000 college scholarship. Then, in March, she did it again.Lisanti received first prize both in the Siemens Westinghouse Science and Technology Competition and in the Intel Science Talent Search—garnering a total of $200 000 in prize money—for a device that measures voltage across nanowires. Her device, which may be useful in the development of miniature electronics, is made largely from parts available at the local electronics store. It cost only $35, much less than similar existing commercial products.Intel has sponsored the 60-year-old science talent search since 1998, when it took over from Westinghouse, the original sponsor of the competition. That same year, Siemens, which bought the Westinghouse power generation business, decided to start a competition of its own. Both contests invite independent original research from US high-school students. But unlike the Intel competition, which is open to all fields, the Siemens competition focuses on the hard sciences, includes team entries, and judges students solely on their projects rather than their overall academic potential.The prize money has risen substantially in the past couple of years—combined, the two competitions now give out more than $1.5 million annually. Top scholarships awarded in the Intel competition have more than quadrupled in value over the past 10 years. In an effort to increase participation—about 2000 students took part in the two competitions—Intel now gives each of its 300 semifinalists and their schools prizes worth $1000. And the 40 finalists in the Intel competition each receive a laptop computer. Lisanti struck it rich with her project measuring the conductance of gold nanowires.JOHN HARRINGTONPPT|High resolution© 2001 American Institute of Physics.

Emeritus Professor of Economics, McGill University. The author has written extensively on human rights, economic development, and Canadian public policy.Barely into the 21st century, we may already have witnessed its defining event. The horrendous terrorist attacks on the United States on 11 September 2001 sparked a war on global terrorism whose end is too distant to predict. This much is certain, however; punishing the leaders of the Taliban and al-Qaeda - and even the most relentless worldwide pursuit of terrorists - will not produce what the United States government has aptly called 'enduring freedom.'It is reasonable to wonder whether a large commitment of coalition ground troops under United States leadership - that is, less reliance on Afghan-rebel proxies - would have shortened the war in Afghanistan, produced less civilian casualties, minimized the escape and release of enemy forces, and captured Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar. Be that as it may, two and a half months of round-the-clock United States air strikes joined with several hundred coalition 'special forces' and thousands of indigenous fighters to produce a stunning military victory in Afghanistan. Despite lingering pockets of resistance, the grossly repressive Taliban regime has been ousted, the al-Qaeda terrorists have been decimated, a representative interim government is in place, and a multinational peacekeeping force has been deployed.Yet this is only the beginning. Widespread lawlessness prevails, tribal warlords retain substantial power, and the Afghan economy is in ruins. The United States and the United Nations, in particular, are providing food and shelter for millions of starving, displaced Afghans. In human terms, one cannot exaggerate the importance of this effort. The blunt truth, however, is that from the perspective of the war on terrorism, it can have little more than band-aid impact.Let us not forget the over-arching objective of the war in Afghanistan: to pull out global terrorism by its roots, virtually eliminating the possibility that it will rise again from the ashes. This means building an Afghan society that will be reasonably stable, equitable, and - most of all - free. If there is any enduring antidote to Afghan-based terrorism, it is gender-sensitive freedom of opportunity, freedom of expression, religious freedom, and freedom from grinding poverty - in short, freedom to hope.Pursuing, capturing, and killing global terrorists and those who support them, and increasing domestic security, are the first lines of defence against attacks on freedom; they do not promote freedom, a delicate seed that must often be planted and must be nourished and renourished. Free societies - with their emphasis on the dignity of every individual - are not good breeding grounds for terrorists. By and large, terrorism thrives in weakly governed countries and in those that grossly violate human rights; Pinochet's Chile, China, Colombia, Haiti, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, and Zimbabwe are vivid examples. The war on terror is not a matter of clashing Judeo-Christian and Islamic civilizations. Muslims are split between those who cry jihad and the great majority who wish to live in peace. This new war may well evolve as a titanic struggle between free societies and those (of whatever faith) that terrorize their own people and/or spawn fanatics engaged in global terrorism. In the long run, the link from freedom to minimal terrorism will be more significant than the reverse relationship.Even the administration of President George W. Bush, implacably opposed to 'nation building' before (and for sometime after) 11 September, has come to recognize that a free Afghanistan is the best hope for rooting out Afghan-based terrorism. Whether the international community is prepared to pay the full price of helping to achieve a free and stable Afghanistan - tentatively estimated at $15 billion over ten years - is another issue. …

This chapter applauds the growing move toward social science collaboration with colleagues in other fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Drawing on several decades of experience in working with biophysical scientists and engineers, as well as on prior literature, I offer three main observations. First, STEM colleagues will often expect social scientists to play the role of public relations specialists, helping to “educate” the public, or to convince people that our STEM colleagues already have the right answers. Second, part of our job is a different kind of “science education” – educating STEM colleagues about basic principles of democratic governance. Third, we have an opportunity and an obligation to ask not just what social science can contribute to STEM, but also, what working with STEM colleagues can contribute to the social sciences. There appear to be particularly important opportunities for gaining insights into some of the less visible or obvious dynamics of power and privilege.

The article analyzes the transformation of the approaches adopted by the U.S. authorities to the content and instruments of education diplomacy in the context of broader changes in the domestic and foreign policy of the United States. The author emphasizes that education diplomacy has traditionally been one of the key areas of public diplomacy, serving as an important tool of American “soft power” in contemporary world politics. The United States has played a leading role in organizing academic exchanges, modernizing foreign educational systems, and introducing new curricula and teaching methods. Despite increasing competition in the global market for educational services, the United States remains an educational Mecca for international students. However, the revision of White House policy during Donald Trump’s second presidency also affected the sphere of international education and education diplomacy. A review of Ukrainian and foreign scholarly literature makes it possible to conclude that most Western researchers do not single out education diplomacy as an independent field of study, and that specialized works on this topic remain extremely limited. Therefore, it is particularly relevant to analyze the conceptual foundations of education diplomacy, taking into account the diversity of theoretical approaches to this phenomenon in global academic discourse. At the same time, there is a lack of targeted research on U.S. policies aimed at exporting educational services and standards. Nevertheless, the study of the American experience in this field is especially important, as the United States is a pioneer and the most influential actor in leveraging education to promote its interests and values in the international arena. The author concludes that the Trump administration has effectively abandoned the strategy of U.S. global leadership in international education in favor of educational isolationism. This shift will inevitably lead to a decline in the attractiveness of American higher education for global talent and, consequently, to a reduction in U.S. competitiveness in science, technology, and innovation.

PurposeIn this article, the authors explore the emotional dimension of the strategies that researchers carry out to foster collaboration within research groups in science.Design/methodology/approachThe authors have carried out fieldwork based on semi-structured interviews with members of high-performance research groups, supported by the analysis of ethnographic observations in the local work contexts of several of these groups.FindingsAs a result, the authors start from the representations of the principal investigators interviewed about collaboration, as a dynamic between the individuals involved and the group, to describe two forms of leadership strategies: ego-centered or group. Hence, the authors highlight that the emotional work of IPs consists of combining both strategies by activating and deactivating affection, warmth and spontaneity in interactions. The authors conclude by reviewing the contributions and some potential lines of study.Research limitations/implicationsThe main contributions and conclusions must be regarded considering several limitations of our work. First, the authors have focused on high-performance groups, so it would be expected that the research groups that do not have the support of European Research Council (ERC) do not present the observed dynamics. Concerning the analysis, the authors have focused on the link between situational (personal interaction) and organizational scales. Although the authors have attended social factors that imply the structure and changes of the professional sector of science (Whitley, 2000, 2014), future publications will allow the authors to delve into relationships on a broader scale, associating collaboration patterns and discursive positions. The authors will focus on (1) roles and social profiles and (2) features of scientific culture and its recent configuration.Practical implicationsThe authors affirm that the emotional field is key to understanding how groups and individuals respond to these profound changes. In their work, scientific professionals do not only act based on rational and instrumental criteria but also driven by habits, affective networks and inertia of their organizational cultures. In this paper, the authors provide theoretical and practical keys to understand the complexity that collaboration creates within research groups as a contradictory reality that consists of a constant movement of individuals and the group.Social implicationsAs many of the interviewees expressed, there are no adequate spaces to learn and reflect on leadership and collaboration in science. The authors are science workers who are responsible for imagining and deciding how the authors want their research groups to function. Institutions must ensure the means so that this task can be carried out. Hopefully, this article will contribute to this irrevocable project.Originality/valueThe authors’ aim is to understand how well-known groups operate in their field, with a high level of resources and productivity, in order to identify and promote cutting-edge strategies in different scientific branches. Moreover, the authors want to recognize the importance of institutional infrastructures. For this reason, giving them a place in the framework of management studies allows to submit this issue to public debate for a wide audience of social scientists. Moreover, this permits to inquire about cross-disciplinary subjects, such as social and organizational psychology, sociology of work, studies about science and management studies.

Currently, there remains a shortage of women in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) fields despite recent efforts to increase numbers. The Department of Commerce is predicting that STEM job openings will grow 17% by 2018, which is a much faster rate than most other careers. These are among the highest-paying fields, in part because of the rising demand. Educational institutions in the United States will have to address this issue in order to compete economic leadership globally. High schools, community colleges, and four year institutions must increase awareness and efforts to recruit and retain more women in STEM majors. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences of female transfer engineering students at Midwestern University. Participants were asked what were their experiences as female engineering students at both the community college and the four-year institution? They were also asked to share about the community college transfer process, student involvement, relationship with faculty and advisors, sense of belonging, interaction with Faculty and staff/mentorship, peer interactions, and academic performance. Qualitative methods were used provide in-depth information regarding each student’s negative and positive experiences at both the community college and Midwestern University as a female transfer engineering student to provide a better understanding the different experiences of being an female engineering student at Midwestern University after transferring from a community college. Students reported how their interest in STEM was discovered early in their educational journey. They shared how their interest in STEM was

HE MIDDLE EASTERN AND HUNGARIAN crises in the fall of 1956 caught the United States off guard.' When reports of the Anglo-French military action in Suez reached Washington, Mr. Dulles felt personally affronted, and President Eisenhower used barracksroom language not heard in the White House since the days of General Grant. In the Eastern European debacle, the Hungarian freedom radio appealed for some tangible support of the Dulles policy of liberating the satellites. These cries for help elicited generous offers of relief supplies and a haven for thousands of refugees, but those fighting in Hungary to liberate the land also heard the United States deny that it had ever urged unarmed persons to attempt an open rebellion against superior forces.3 Here the United States had three knotty problems in foreign policy: the country was temporarily estranged from its British and French allies, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was shaken to it foundations, and a desperate situation was developing in Hungary. In its predicament, the United States turned to the United Nations first through the Security Council, then through the General Assembly when vetoes (by Britain and France in the Middle Eastern debates and by Russia in the Hungarian situation) prevented the Council from acting.4 The United States joined a majority of United Nations members in calling for a cease-fire in the Middle East; British, French, and Israeli withdrawal from the territory they had occupied; a United Nations Emergency Force to help restore the status quo; condemnation of Russia's role in Hungary's plight; and permission for observers to enter the satellite to see what was actually happening there.5 It was clear throughout November, 1956, that the best policy for the United States was to work through the United Nations; and that by so doing, it earned the support and respect of a majority of states and many thinking individuals throughout the world. What lessons the United States learned from this experience, it is still too early to say. There were those

Cyprus used to be under occupation of the foreign states for many centuries and sovereignty usually with few exceptions was not transferred peacefully. As it is well known, in the 19th century, use of force in international relations was seen as normal. In the 1878 however, transformation of sovereignty in Cyprus from the Ottoman Empire to the United Kingdom (UK) was by peaceful means. The UK ruled Cyprus mostly in peace until the uprising in 1931. The upheaval of the Greek Cypriots against the UK was to unite Cyprus with Greece (Enosis). The uprising was settled by violence and the constitutional rights suspended immediately. In 1955 when the riot of the Greek Cypriots occurred again this time the UK was successful to get support of Türkiye and the Turkish Cypriots and converted the anti-colonial struggle to the ethnic strife. Clearly, the occurrence of violence in Cyprus in 20th Century begun during the British period but it continued after the colonial period. Although the United States (US) refrained direct involvement to Cyprus problem it assisted to the formation of the Republic of Cyprus by 1960s. During the Cold War conditions, the US had to involve to the Cyprus problem because of two reasons: Firstly, in order to prevent a war between Türkiye and Greece, the two “motherlands” of the Turkish and Greek Cypriots; secondly to stop the violence between two local communities. In Washington DC the US leadership met with Greek and Turkish prime ministers in 1964 and they decided to solve the Cyprus problem forever. In Geneva the US representative had several meetings with the officials of Greece and Türkiye. There, the US former secretary of state offered his plan that included the use of violence for the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus. The US plan could not be implemented at the time but after 10 years, its spirit became the source of the violence in Cyprus. In this study mainly the role of the US in occurrence of violence in the island will be studied.

Many American authors expressed their concern that US competitiveness in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) is losing ground. Using the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2007 data, this study investigated how academic self-concept and instrumental motivation influence science test performance among East Asian and American students. Jackknife regression modelling indicated that in East Asia science competency is not tied to enjoying science or estimated ability while in the US both variables are negatively correlated with performance. Additionally, the test performance of the East Asian students does not seem to be boosted by the perception of the role of science in career advancement, but this perception could significantly predict the test performance of their American counterparts. It is the conviction of the author that these findings related to student-level factors could lead to practical implications for educational policies and pedagogical strategies, such as placing emphasis on daily applications of science.

A gender gap persists in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although females constitute half the total workforce in the United States, they make up just greater than a quarter of employees in STEM fields. In recent years, one approach to addressing the gender gap in STEM has involved middle grades science teachers helping young adolescent females view themselves as potential scientists from a young age. Through a variety of targeted strategies, science teachers have supported female students in building STEM self-efficacy by encouraging their participation in varied initiatives. This qualitative multi-case study investigated how two middle grades science teachers build STEM self-efficacy in female students both during and outside of formal instruction. Data sources included surveys, interviews, and classroom artifacts. Findings featured specific examples of classroom initiatives that participants believed built female students’ self-efficacy as well as participants’ reasoning for the initiatives’ use and perceived outcomes of their utility. Our findings also indicated that participants’ efforts to build female students’ STEM self-efficacy were hampered by participants’ lack of clarity regarding the meanings of STEM education and STEM self-efficacy. Implications for middle grades teacher education and STEM-focused professional development are included.

The fields of Science, Technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) have advanced significantly in Education. In various research in the world of education, STEM growth is frequently associated with project-based learning (PjBL). Combining STEM learning with PjBL is worth researching. This study’s objective is to comprehensively investigate the link between STEM and PjBL, which covers the most advanced PjBL-STEM idea in academic units, implementation in various nations and educational levels, and the impact of STEM and PjBL relationships on the caliber of students. This analysis identified up to 168 Scopus-recognized papers between 2007 and 2022. This study used a systematic review with a four-step PRISMA-P. Finally, there were 35 articles included in this research. The analysis’s findings demonstrate that STEM PjBL has successfully fostered active learning and student-centered instruction while enhancing 21st-century abilities (creativity, collaboration, problem-solving, creative use of technology, and higher-order thinking). The notion of STEM Subject, or the incorporation of STEM PjBL into activities, is the one that is researched the most in schools. The country that used PjBL STEM learning the most was the United States. In 2018, mixed research methodologies were used to study STEM-PjBL research the most. Secondary education STEM-PjBL studies and teachers are critical for children to become more interested in a STEM profession.

The fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) drive economies worldwide. In such knowledge-based economies, no nation can afford to use its human resources inefficiently and ineffectively. Faculties exert a great deal of influence on the science and engineering (S&amp;E) enterprise insofar as they conduct cutting-edge research as well as educate and train the S&amp;E labor forces. This article focuses on the dynamics of the intersections of race/ethnicity and gender on diversifying S&amp;E faculties in colleges and universities in the United States, and the criticality of disaggregating data to better understand these dynamics. Failure to disaggregate race/ethnicity data by gender, and gender data by race/ethnicity, masks important distinctions among groups. Failure to systematically take into account these distinctions results in policy, programs, practices, and institutions that are both inefficient and ineffective in developing and enhancing the S&amp;E labor forces.

Formal organizations like firms are excellent at promoting cooperation, but knowledge communities - intellectually cohesive, organic interorganizational forms - are superior at fostering collaboration, arguably the most important process in innovation. Rather than focusing on what encourages performance in formal organizations, we study what characteristics encourage aggregate superior performance in informal knowledge communities in the technical field of computer science. To understand why some knowledge communities function better than others, we pioneer a methodology to identify key clusters that represent successful knowledge communities and explore the way breakout areas draw on past knowledge and use rhetoric. We find that successful knowledge communities in computer science draw from a broad range of sources and are extremely flexible in changing and adapting. In marked contrast, when using rhetoric, successful knowledge communities in computer science tend to use very similar vocabularies and language that does not move or adapt over time and is not unique or esoteric compared to the vocabulary of other communities. A better understanding of how interorganizational collaborative network structures encourage innovation is important to understanding what drives innovation and how to promote it.