Showing posts with label NSF. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NSF. Show all posts

Thursday, June 12, 2025

Budget cuts and canceled grants continue to threaten science and research.

The budget for the fiscal year hasn’t been set, but uncertainty continues to swirl as the proposed budget cuts will deeply affect NASA, the NSF, and other agencies that lead and support physics and astronomy. Canceled grants and research have already disparately affected scientists from underrepresented groups. The NSF had purposefully approved projects designed to broaden participation by scientists in underrepresented groups, including women, Black scientists, and those with disabilities. 

The smallest proposed NASA budget since 1961.
Source: The Planetary Society


According to an article from science.org, “More than half of the 1500 research grants that the National Science Foundation (NSF) has terminated in the past month under orders from President Donald Trump’s administration aimed to bring groups historically underrepresented in science into the mainstream. Ending those grants reversed decades of efforts focused on what the agency calls the “missing millions”: women, racial and ethnic minorities, veterans, and low-income and rural students.”

These grants have been cut for their association with DEI, which the current administration has labelled as exclusionary. In Jeffrey Mervis’s article, several debated that definition. 

“I get that Trump doesn’t like DEI, but we don’t exclude anybody,” says Tammie Visintainer, a science educator at San Jose State University (SJSU) who has lost NSF funding for two projects. One helps local secondary school teachers prepare units and guide student research on the health and environmental effects of urban heat islands, and the second aims to improve introductory undergraduate science courses at SJSU. Visintainer says the work benefits not just minority students at inner-city schools, but also suburban kids from wealthy families who have been turned off by boring lectures and prepackaged lab experiments that don’t reflect real scientific inquiry.

“Remember, white men are still a majority in science,” Handelsman says. “So when we improve how we teach science, the white male students learn more, too.
Read the full article “NSF grant cuts fall heaviest on scientists from underrepresented groups” at science.org
The NSF isn’t the only one dealing with this issue. Science News interviewed Harlan Krumholz, a cardiovascular medicine specialist at Yale School of Medicine, about his work to track which grants were terminated and their impact. 
“…when you look across institutes, the effects weren’t felt uniformly. We found that the National Institutes on Minority Health and Health Disparities … was hit the hardest. About 30 percent of their funding was cut. And that’s tenfold higher than the average cut. That was really striking to us.
Finally, we wanted to characterize not only which grants were cut, but also the career stage [of recipients]. That really kind of caught us off guard. One in 5, or about 20 percent of grants that were terminated, were classified as early career grants. These grants are really critical for early career researchers and the next generation of researchers to become independent investigators.”
Policy and equity researcher Michael Liu of Harvard University also assisted in the research, and both Liu and Krumholz are concerned for the future of science as the current atmosphere of uncertainly lowers morale and makes research less attractive to future scientists.
Read $1.8 billion in NIH grant cuts hit minority health research the hardest at sciencenews.org.
Meanwhile, the unpredictability continues with the current U.S. budget proposal set to tear into NASA’s and the NSF’s budgets. Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society, has done exceptional work to bring to light how devastating these cuts will be. In an article for Scientific American, Dreier says, “This is a profound, generational threat to scientific leadership in the United States.” 
“If implemented, it would fundamentally undermine and potentially devastate the most unique capabilities that the U.S. has built up over a half-century.”

Source: The Planetary Society


The Planetary Society highlights the fact that the proposed budget is the smallest for NASA since 1961. Each of NASA’s four major divisions will be slashed 30 to 65% if passed. It would cancel 19 active missions, including Chandra, Juno, and New Horizons, and invalidate years of research and design, and over $12 billion invested in space science. 
The Planetary Society is running a petition to save NASA science. Visit the action center at planetary.org to sign it. You can also call your representatives and encourage them to support funding for NASA. The Planetary Society offers a script for the calls as well as information on how to prepare, FAQs, and the latest talking points. The calls only take one to two minutes. 
Let’s continue to advocate for science for everyone, by everyone. 





Friday, September 29, 2023

AASWomen Newsletter for September 29, 2023

AAS Committee on the Status of Women           
Issue of September 29, 2023
eds: Jeremy Bailin, Nicolle Zellner, Sethanne Howard, and Hannah Jang-Condell

[We hope you all are taking care of yourselves and each other. --eds.]

This week's issues:

1. NASA's Hubble Fellowship Program
2. NSF supports the Council of Graduate Schools in efforts to broaden participation in the nation’s technology workforce
3. Astronomers push back on new IAU harassment polic
4. Natural Inspiration   
5. How to Submit to the AASWomen Newsletter
6. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWomen Newsletter
7. Access to Past Issues of the AASWomen Newsletter

An online version of this newsletter will be available at http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/ at 3:00 PM ET every Friday.

Thursday, January 19, 2023

Cross-post: Researchers blast US agency’s decision not to collect LGBT+ data

By Max Kozlov for Nature

Lockers in a rainbow of colours at the
NSF Ice Core Facility in Colorado.
Credit: Jim West/Alamy (nature.com)

The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has decided not to include a question about sexual orientation on one of its workforce surveys, setting off a social-media firestorm. More than 1,700 researchers have now signed an open letter urging the agency’s director to reconsider the decision. They argue that it is crucial to collect such information to understand the makeup of the scientific community and craft policies that lessen disparities for sexual minorities. 

The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES), a subdivision of the NSF, administers several surveys regularly that provide key data about the US scientific workforce to policymakers and researchers on demographics such as sex, race and ethnicity, scientific discipline and citizenship status. The NCSES has hinted for years that it was considering adding questions about sexual orientation and gender identity to its surveys, but delays have frustrated researchers. 

The decision comes as some studies have suggested that LGBT+ people are underrepresented in the sciences and face more barriers and workplace harassment than non-LGBT+ people.


Read more here.


Related:

AAS Committee for Sexual-Orientation & Gender Minorities in Astronomy (SGMA)



Friday, May 13, 2022

AASWomen Newsletter for May 13, 2022

AAS Committee on the Status of Women
Issue of May 13, 2022
eds: Heather Flewelling, Nicolle Zellner, Alessandra Aloisi, Jeremy Bailin and Sethanne Howard

[We hope you all are taking care of yourselves and each other. --eds.]

This week's issues:

Mae Jemison in her astronaut suit  (NASA)
Mae Jemison (NASA)
1. Crosspost: A Life of Transdisciplinary Science, The Expeditions of Mae Jemison
2. e-book: Mothers in Astronomy
3. Three-part series profiles Women Who Lead the National Science Foundation
4. Zoom event! 4,000 Years of Women in Science
5. The toll of menopause: how universities can help
6. Job Opportunities
7. How to Submit to the AASWomen Newsletter
8. How to Subscribe or Unsubscribe to the AASWomen Newsletter
9. Access to Past Issues of the AASWomen Newsletter


An online version of this newsletter will be available at http://womeninastronomy.blogspot.com/ at 3:00 PM ET every Friday.

Thursday, March 7, 2019

More Women are Earning Doctorates in Science, Engineering, and Health But There’s Still Work To Do

This graph shows the fraction of U.S. doctoral degrees awarded
to women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics
(STEM) fields. The data include both U.S. citizens/residents and
temporary residents. Source: IPEDS and APS.
By Nicolle Zellner and JoEllen McBride

The National Science Foundation released a report this month with the headline “Number of Women with U.S. Doctorates in Science, Engineering, or Health Employed in the United States More Than Doubles since 1997.” The editors of the AASWOMEN Newsletter decided to take a closer look at the numbers and unpack this title to see where women stand in the science, engineering, or health (SEH) doctorate landscape. The short answer: employed women with PhDs are generally still in the minority.

Table 2 of the article reports the data by “broad occupation and sex”. In this table, the actual numbers of “employed U.S.-trained SEH doctorate holders residing in the United States” in both 1997 and 2017 are compared to each other. In short, the percentage of all female PhDs employed in science and engineering (S&E) occupations increased by 10.8% between 1997 and 2017.
  • Females with PhDs in biological, agricultural and other life sciences showing the greatest gain (14%).
  • Females with PhDs employed in the physical and related sciences rose by 10.7%.
  • Females with PhDs employed as computer scientists saw the smallest gain (4%).
Other occupations tell a more promising story. The percentage of employed females with PhDs in S&E related occupations (e.g., health-related occupations, S&E managers, S&E pre-college teachers, and S&E technicians and technologists) rose by 16.5%, with social scientists close behind (16.4%). The percentage of those with PhDs employed as psychologists rose by 12.5%, and women now make up almost 60% of all psychologists, outnumbering the men. According to the article, “female early career doctorate holders were more likely than their comparison group of men to report professional services (e.g., health care, counseling, financial services, legal services) as their primary work activity (12% versus 6%, [Table 4]). Some of these differences in primary work activities between men and women, regardless of career stage, may be associated with differences in their broad occupational categories and sectors of employment.”

Table 4, which shows primary work activities, is also interesting. Women report that they are employed in about one-third of all research and development work in 2017, compared to just one-fifth in 1997. Women are also gaining in the areas of teaching: Men used to hold more teaching positions than women, and the numbers are closer now.  Whether or not this translates to tenure-track positions is unknown, but unlikely. According to data compiled by the Chronicle of Higher Education on faculty pay in 2017, women still make up a majority of assistant professors, instructors, and lecturers. Overall, between 1998 and 2016 the number of full-time faculty at postsecondary institutions increased by 38% while the number of part-time faculty increased by 74% between 1998 and 2011, then decreased by 4% between 2011 and 2016. Between 1975 and 2011, part-time faculty went from being 30% of faculty to 51% while full-time tenure and tenure-track faculty saw a 16% and 11% decrease over the same time. A 2009 survey by the National Center for Education Statistics reported that women make up 51% of all adjunct faculty, while a smaller survey (N~20,000) conducted by an adjunct group called the Coalition on the Academic Workforce put the proportion of female adjunct faculty at closer to 61%. So not only are institutions relying more heavily on part-time faculty, it’s possible that women are also more likely to be given those part-time positions.

Despite the gains in S&E PhD employment for women, significant as they are, the percentage of those with PhDs employed in non-S&E occupations rose by 17.5%, more than all of the S&E occupations, related or actual.

We recognize that an increase in the number of women with SEH doctorates employed in the U.S. is progress, but that doesn’t mean our work is done. Women still do not hold as many management positions as men and they make up a larger portion of part-time and non-tenured populations. A shift in culture is necessary to make places of employment more welcoming and supportive of working women including, but not limited to better parental leave policies, changing the assumption that duties requiring “soft skills” are better handled by women, institutions taking steps to eliminate bias in their hiring process, and promoting women to more senior positions. The APS also showed that although the number of women earning doctorates in the sciences was steadily increasing between 1975 and 2009, its leveled off since. We hope that these numbers will encourage institutions to continue to work towards equity and inclusivity until the barriers that prevent women and people diverse in gender, race, sexuality, and ability from making their contributions to SEH fields.

The AASWomen Editors thank Rick Fienberg, AAS Press Officer, for bringing this article to our attention.

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

How Professional Societies are Dealing with Harassment

In a September Science editorial, Margaret Hamburg, Susan Hockfield and Steven Chu, who all hold leadership roles in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), wrote that it's time for change: "The scientific community must act with urgency to create an inclusive organizational culture and professional standards of behavior that will allow all of its members to reach their full potential."

Indeed, professional societies and organizations around the United States are taking a stand to address harassment in effective ways. Here are just a few examples of what organizations are doing:

Monday, February 20, 2017

Women, People of Color and People with Disabilities Still Underrepresented in Science and Engineering

The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics recently released the 2017 Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering report, the federal government's most comprehensive look at the participation of these three demographic groups in science and engineering education and employment.

The report shows the degree to which women, people with disabilities and minorities from three racial and ethnic groups -- black, Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native -- are underrepresented in science and engineering (S&E). Women have reached parity with men in educational attainment but not in S&E employment. Underrepresented minorities account for disproportionately smaller percentages in both S&E education and employment.

Source: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2017/nsf17310/

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Gender Parity in NSF Astronomy Research Programs

 
During my first year as a Program Officer in NSF’s Astronomy Division, I was able to compile data on the success rates of different opportunities in the Individual Investigator Programs. As chair of CSWA, one of my top priorities was to look for gender differences.
 
The results* for Astronomy are summarized in the table. The top line is for the Astronomy and Astrophysics Research Grants (AAG), our main grant program. PIs are mainly (but not exclusively) senior and mid-career scientists. There is both good news and bad news here. The good news is that the percentage of female awards (19 +/- 2%) is equal to the percentage of females in the pool (19 +/- 1%). The bad news is that the percentage of women in astronomy at the senior and mid-career levels is still so low. The next line in the table is for Faculty Early Career Development, the CAREER program, which generally makes less than 10 awards per year. The following line is for the NSF Astronomy and Astrophysics Postdoctoral Fellowships (AAPF), which currently makes 9 awards per year. Although the numbers are smaller and the uncertainties are larger, the results for both of these programs agree with those of the AAG. If we do weighted averages of all three programs, we again find that the percentage of female awards (22 +/- 2%) is equal to the percentage of females in the pool (22 +/- 1%).

Monday, June 30, 2014

NSF Support of Women in Academia Since 1982

Nancy Morrison, The University of Toledo, Department of Physics and Astronomy (retired). Reproduced from the January 2014 Issue of STATUS: A Report on Women in Astronomy

The Boston meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in February, 2013, included a session on twentieth-century women in science. [1] This report, the second of two on this session, is based in part on the presentation by Sue V. Rosser, which was entitled, “Policy-Making for Women in Science: From NSF Visiting Professorship for Women to ADVANCE.”

Rosser is Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at San Francisco State University. Previously, she was professor, then dean at Georgia Tech. According to the introduction to her talk, she has been influential in starting women's studies programs; indeed, she has headed two at other universities. Important for her presentation was her experience as Senior Program Officer for Women's Programs at the National Science Foundation (NSF). [2]