ALLEA Joins the European Commission Coalition on Research Assessment Reform

/in , , , , , , /by

ALLEA has joined the European Commission’s core group working on reforming research assessment. The group will support the drafting of an agreement led by the European University Association, Science Europe and the European Commission on key issues and timelines for implementing changes.

The coalition is composed by funding organisations, research performing organisations, national/regional assessment authorities or agencies, associations of research funders, of research performers, of researchers, as well as learned societies and other relevant organisations.

ALLEA is represented by Deborah Oughton, member of the ALLEA Permanent Group Science and Ethics and representative of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters. She is a Professor at the Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management Faculty of the Norwegian University of Life Sciences.

Towards a Research Assessment Reform

In 2021, the European Commission published the scoping report ‘Towards a reform of the research assessment system’. The publication presents the findings from a consultation with European research stakeholders and identifies the goals that should be pursued with a reform of research assessment. The report proposes a coordinated approach based on principles and actions that could be agreed upon by a coalition of research funding and research performing organisations committed to implement changes.

Research assessment reform is one of the topics ALLEA has worked jointly with its Member Academies and partners in recent years. In July 2021, ALLEA and the Global Young Academy (GYA) published a report covering the key takeaways of their webinar ‘Research Assessments that Promote Scholarly Progress and Reinforce the Contract with Society’. The event brought together science and policy stakeholders to rethink current research assessment models.

The key areas for research assessment identified by the stakeholders were how to strike a balance between funding of research to advance scientific progress and public accountability, how to assess the societal relevance of research and who defines the criteria, and how research assessment should be done.

In 2020, ALLEA, the Global Young Academy and STM (International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers) organised a series of workshops about the future of peer review in scholarly communications. A short summary report is available here.

Online Panel: Climate Sustainability in the Academic System

/in , /by

 

The ALLEA online panel ‘Climate Sustainability in the Academic System – the Why and the How’ provided a platform for discussion on the climate impact of the academic system and potential pathways towards more sustainable practices.

Panelists offered an overview of the current levels of CO2-equivalent emissions that can be tied to specific academic work. The discussion focused on the steps that universities, research centres, funding institutions as well as individual students and researchers can take to reduce their climate impact. 

The online event, held on 1 February, was opened with a presentation by Professor Astrid Eichhorn, speaker of Die Junge Akademie and Chair of the ALLEA Working Group Climate Sustainability in the Academic System. Professor Eichhorn introduced the topic drawing from available research data as well as on some of the preliminary results from the upcoming report by the ALLEA Working Group.

Limiting Researchers’ CO2 budget 

Professor Eichhorn set the stage to the discussion with an introduction to the data presented in the 2018 IPCC report, which estimated that there is a “remaining budget” of 420 gigatons of CO2-equivalent emissions for a 66% chance to stay below the 1.5°C of global warming stipulated in the Paris Agreement. This translates to a “budget” of 1.5 tons of CO2-equivalent emission per person per year. Data presented on the impact levels of universities, research institutes, and conference travels show that researchers from across scientific fields far exceed the yearly “budget” necessary to remain under 1.5°C of global warming.

Universities

Some universities have managed to reduce their GHG emissions in electricity and heating by turning to “green” providers or by installing on-campus solar/wind energy sources

In regards to universities, Professor Eichhorn pointed out that the main sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions include electricity and heating, although some universities have managed to reduce their GHG emissions in electricity and heating by turning to “green” providers or by installing on-campus solar/wind energy sources. She also underlined that many universities are now starting to estimate and report their GHG emissions, which is a necessary first step to be able to take meaningful and tailored action against climate impact. However, comparing the different reports from universities reveals that there is still a lack of standardisation in reporting (i.e. different categories are being used and reported), which makes it difficult to compare across institutions.

Research Institutes

The main sources of GHG emissions at these institutions are very strongly tied to the research activities they perform

As an example for the level of GHG emissions from research institutes, Professor Eichhorn introduced the findings of a study from the Max Planck Institute of Astronomy in Germany, which estimates the CO2-equivalent emissions per researcher per year within the institute at 18.1 tons. In Australia, this number goes up to 41.8 tons per researcher per year, both digits being significantly above the previously mentioned “yearly budget” of 1.5 tons. A considerable fraction of emissions comes from flights, but also from electricity, of which a significant amount derive from the electricity used in scientific computing. The main sources of GHG emissions at these institutions are very strongly tied to the research activities they perform, which makes it challenging to reduce these emissions in ways that do not compromise the research quality.

Conference Travels

In-person conferences can reduce their GHG emissions by up to 20% by optimising the conference location.

Speaking on the climate impact of conference travels, Professor Eichhorn presented data estimating that the CO2-equivalent emissions per conference participant from air travel alone can be as high as 1 ton, with participants taking long-haul flights contributing to the larger share of emissions. She highlighted that switching to virtual meetings has the potential to bring about a reduction between 94% and 98% in GHG emissions compared to in-person meetings. In-person conferences can also reduce their GHG emissions by up to 20% by optimising the conference location. An additional co-benefit of virtual and hybrid events is the higher participation from students and researchers from traditionally underrepresented parts of the world, who usually cannot attend such conferences due to the distance or costs that this would incur. This higher inclusivity can also result in the increase of research quality.

Professor Eichhorn concluded by presenting data that show that an increasing number of individual actors within the academic system are taking a look at their climate impact and taking meaningful steps to reduce it. For instance, more than a 1,000 universities and colleges have made a net-zero pledge across different scopes. The Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany, comprising several research institutions, has pledged to reach climate neutrality by 2035, and there are also numerous initiatives to reduce flying in academia. However, Professor Eichhorn points out that it is necessary to go beyond initiatives by individual actors, but rather start thinking more systemically and initiate a broader dialogue with all of the stakeholders in academia to think about ways to make the academic system more climate sustainable.

Power Structures, Mobility and Academic Freedom

Following her presentation, Professor Eichhorn was joined by a panel of three experts: Dr Nina Marsh, Head of the staff unit Internal Audit & Sustainability Management at the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation; Professor Carly McLachlan, Director of Tyndall Manchester and Associate Director of the ESRC Centre for Climate Change and Social Transformation; and Henriette Stoeber, Policy Analyst at the European University Association’s Higher Education Policy Unit.

(Top-bottom, left-right) The panel was comprised by Dr Nina Marsh, Professor Astrid Eichhorn, Henriette Stoeber, and Professor Carly McLachlan.

Asked about one specific change urgently needed to make the academic system more sustainable, Professor Carly McLachlan spoke of the need for academics with more influence and power within the system to recognise and use their influence to change the current state of affairs within academia. This would entail, for example, a push to include climate sustainability in the requirements for academic promotions, research proposals, and other elements that are embedded within the academic career ladder.

There is a need for establishing criteria to make meetings in person or virtual and allowing for more flexibility for the mobility of researchers.

Speaking on the role of funding organisations in steering the academic system towards a more sustainable path, Dr Nina Marsh emphasised the changes that can be implemented in the area of mobility, particularly for globally-operating research networks that seek to facilitate inter-cultural exchanges. She pointed out alternatives being explored within the Alexander von Humboldt-Foundation, including having criteria as to which meetings are required to be in person and which can be virtual, combining virtual and in-person meetings, and allowing for more flexibility in regards to mobility of research fellows. She also spoke on the need for such organisations to adopt ways to assess their environmental footprint in order to take more tailored steps to reduce their climate impact. Other stakeholders like service providers and organisational partners must also be taken into consideration when analysing the organisation’s climate impact.

Regarding the role of European higher education institutions in advancing climate sustainability in the academic system, Henriette Stoeber introduced a 2021 survey by the European University Association which comprised around 400 European universities. The survey revealed that an area where universities have been particularly active is the area of learning and teaching, for example by revising their curricula and including the topic of sustainability into their courses. In terms of net-zero targets, such as greening university campuses, infrastructure, and research activities, the data shows that universities’ strategies remain much less clear.

Asked about the impact of imposing more climate sustainable regulations on research and academic freedom, all panellists agreed that requiring research to be more climate-sustainable would not negatively impact the outcome of the research findings. Professor McLachlan asserted that academic freedom is about freedom of thought and freedom to explore the conclusions drawn based on the evidence. She emphasised that there are already restrictions and regulations in place to protect colleagues, research subjects and institutions. Protecting the environment and the people around the world, she argued, would be an extension of those regulations that are already in place.

The panelists concluded that it is not important to get everything right from the beginning, but what is important is that organisations and individuals commit to doing what they can to move towards climate sustainability. As individuals start to reassemble and move away from the pandemic restrictions, there is an opportunity to do things differently.

The panel was followed by an interactive session in which participants were able to join different thematic groups to continue the discussion. The thematic breakout sessions included Universities & University Networks, Students & Individual Researchers, and Funding Organisations. The breakout sessions were led by members of the ALLEA Working Group on Climate Sustainability in the Academic System.

 

 

Download Professor Astrid Eichhorn’s presentation

 

Reducing Health Inequalities Is a Matter of Swimming against the Current

/in , , /by

Reducing health inequalities is very much a matter of “swimming against the current”, says Professor Johan Mackenbach, Chair of the scientific committee of the ALLEA-FEAM report Health Inequalities Research: New Methods, Better Insights? “When societies become more unequal, as they do in many European countries, it is very hard to stop the health consequences of these inequalities from widening”, he explains in this interview with the ALLEA Digital Salon.

As one of the leading experts in public health in Europe, Mackenbach has dedicated a career to understanding the underlying causes of what makes some sicker than others. He has (co-)authored more than 700 papers in international, peer-reviewed scientific journals, as well as a number of books, and is a former editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Public Health. Over the course of his prolific career, he has come to recognise that there are no quick fixes to close the health inequalities gap, but points out that with more advanced research methods now available to understand causal mechanisms, perhaps more effective policy interventions can be developed.

“Only a few countries in Europe have taken serious action to translate scientific insights into policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities.”

Question: In the presentation of the report Health Inequalities Research: New Methods, Better Insights?, you said that health inequalities have no clear tendency to decline, and persist in even the most advanced welfare states.  What are some first steps that we can take to narrow this gap?

Johan Mackenbach: It is indeed disappointing that, despite the growth of scientific knowledge on health inequalities, European countries have not been successful in narrowing the gap in morbidity and mortality between socioeconomically disadvantaged people and their richer or better educated counterparts. This is partly due to lack of effort: unfortunately, only a few countries have taken serious action to translate scientific insights into policies and interventions to reduce health inequalities. However, it is also partly due to the fact that trying to reduce health inequalities is very much a matter of “swimming against the current”: when societies become more unequal, as they do in many European countries, it is very hard to stop the health consequences of these inequalities from widening. While this shows that there is no “quick fix”, a lot can be done to reduce health inequalities. Let me give a few examples: Improve working conditions for people in physically or mentally hazardous jobs. Tackle socio-economic inequalities in smoking by raising the price of cigarettes and by offering free smoking cessation support to disadvantaged smokers. Alleviate poverty, particularly among children. Remove barriers to health care, including primary and preventive health care services, in disadvantaged areas.

“In many European countries, smoking is number 1 among the many factors contributing to health inequalities.”

Q.: The study underlines that there is reasonably strong evidence for a causal effect of the number of years of education on mortality in mid-life. Could you elaborate on why this causal effect happens?

J.M.: This is probably due to a cumulation of various beneficial effects of longer, or more, education. Education in large part determines people’s occupational opportunities, and thereby people’s living conditions throughout life. Education also helps people deal with complex problems, such as coping with financial stress or choosing a balanced diet. In addition to these indirect effects, there is also the more direct effect of education on people’s “health literacy”, which is important for understanding health risks and finding your way in the health system. More highly educated people also tend to marry a highly educated partner, which acts as a flywheel for all these beneficial effects.

“If smoking would not be more prevalent among the low educated than among the high educated, inequalities in life expectancy would be reduced by a quarter to a third.”

Q.: What is it not widely known about the causes of health inequalities that we should make people more aware of?

J.M.: In many European countries, smoking is number 1 among the many factors contributing to health inequalities. If smoking would not be more prevalent among the low educated than among the high educated, inequalities in life expectancy would be reduced by a quarter to a third, particularly in North-western Europe where smoking has become highly concentrated in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. However, what people need to be made more aware of is not this simple fact, but the brutal reality underlying these numbers. The reality of going to school in a poor neighbourhood, where social norms are often pro-smoking and where the likelihood of starting smoking at a young age and thereby getting addicted to nicotine, is much higher. The reality of living in socioeconomic disadvantage makes smoking cessation as an adult much more difficult. And the brutal reality of a tobacco industry which continues to sell its deadly products to people who already have a lower expectancy and deserve to be better protected. If you do not understand these underlying factors, you could be misled to think that health inequalities are mainly a matter of individual responsibility.

“New methods can take advantage of “natural experiments” in which socioeconomic conditions change as a result of non-health-related changes in legislation.”

Q.: The ALLEA-FEAM report provides a review of a new generation of quantitative methods and assesses their contributions in comparison with “conventional” methods. What are the most important takeaways of this evaluation?

J.M.: These new methods can help us answer a number of unanswered questions on the explanation of health inequalities. Scientists are pretty sure that smoking causes lung cancer and other health problems, but they are less certain about causality in the case of education and income versus health, because conventional research methods are more suitable for investigating the health effects of easily identifiable factors like smoking, than for investigating the health effects of socioeconomic conditions. These new methods can help to fill some of these gaps in knowledge, for example by taking advantage of “natural experiments” in which socioeconomic conditions change as a result of non-health-related changes in legislation. This is nicely illustrated by studies looking at the long-term mortality experience of people going to school before and after a change in legislation, which increased compulsory school leaving age by one year. Those who, in this “natural experiment”, went to school longer, simply because they were born later, turned out to live longer as well.

“While there can be no doubt that people living in poverty on average live shorter lives, and suffer from more illnesses during their lives, it is less clear whether this reflects a causal effect of low income on health, or perhaps has other explanations, such as differences in cognitive ability or personality characteristics.”

Q.: As these new methods are being applied, to what extent are they contradicting or shedding light on previous findings regarding the causes of heath inequalities? Could you give an example?

J.M.: An important “contradictory” finding relates to the health effects of low income. While there can be no doubt that people living in poverty on average live shorter lives, and suffer from more illnesses during their lives, it is less clear whether this reflects a causal effect of low income on health, or perhaps has other explanations, such as differences in cognitive ability or personality characteristics. Ideally, one would like to study this by conducting a true experiment in which people are randomized into groups with a higher and a lower monthly income. However, this is only rarely feasible, and these new methods now help scientists take advantage of “natural experiments” in which people receive a higher or lower income as a result of, e.g., a sudden change in welfare benefits or winning a prize in a lottery. Results from these studies have found some evidence for a causal effect of higher or lower income on children’s health and on mental health in adulthood, but surprisingly little evidence for a causal effect of higher or lower income on physical health in adulthood. Because of its policy relevance, this is clearly an area for further research.

“It is essential to include an inequalities perspective in climate change mitigation and adaptation policies, and to make sure that these policies duly protect those who need it most.”

Q.: In your book A History of Population Health: Rise and Fall of Disease in Europe, you argue that the rise of so many diseases indicates that their ultimate cause is not to be sought within the body, but in the interaction between humans and their environment. What does the increasing degradation of the environment and the worsening climate crisis mean for the emergence of new diseases?

J.M.: I am very concerned about the effect of climate change, biodiversity loss, wide-spread chemical pollution and other environmental changes on human health. New health problems are emerging on the horizon before we have solved the problems of the past, such as the tobacco epidemic or, indeed, health inequalities. Unfortunately, health inequalities are likely to become even wider in the future if we do not take effective countermeasures. Climate change is already affecting the health of people in many low-income countries, and when serious effects of climate change reach high-income countries, they will certainly also affect disadvantaged groups more than the rich and high educated. It is therefore essential to include an inequalities perspective in climate change mitigation and adaptation policies, and to make sure that these policies duly protect those who need it most.

About Johan Mackenbach

Johan Mackenbach is Professor Emeritus of Public Health and former chair of the Department of Public Health at Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, the Netherlands. His research interests are in social epidemiology, medical demography, and health policy. He has (co-)authored more than 700 papers in international, peer-reviewed scientific journals, as well as a number of books, including Health inequalities: persistence and change in European welfare states (Oxford University Press, 2019). He is a former editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Public Health, and has been actively engaged in exchanges between research and policy, among others as a member of the Health Council of the Netherlands and the Council for Public Health and Health Care. He is also a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Academia Europaea.

Registration for the Symposium ‘Transforming Science’ Is Now Open

/in /by

We are pleased to announce that the registration for the symposium ‘Transforming Science: Pathways Towards Sustainability and Trustworthiness’ is now open. The event will take place in Brussels and online on 11-12 May 2022. Scientists, policymakers and professionals from across Europe will join to discuss current trends pressing science in light of the transformations occurred during the Covid-19 pandemic.

The symposium is part of the ALLEA General Assembly and hosted by ALLEA’s Member Academies, the Royal Academy of Sciences, Letters and Arts of Belgium and the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts. Speakers include Mariya Gabriel, European Commissioner for Innovation, Research, Culture, Education and Youth, Marion Koopmans, Director of the WHO Collaborating Centre for Emerging Infectious Diseases at Erasmus MC, and Maria Leptin, President of the European Research Council, among others.

The event will explore how scientific institutions can transform research cultures, trust-building strategies and science advice mechanisms. The consequences of this transformation can be seen as two-sided: from an inspiration to tackle complex global emergencies such as climate change or future pandemics, to a rise of societal expectations and demands towards research. The symposium will tackle the central question: Are we ready to transform science for the future?

The full programme and further details can be found on our symposium website. The symposium is expected to be held in person. The organisers will fully implement the official Covid-19 measures and follow current best practices for public events and international travel. The symposium will also be livestreamed for those who wish to participate digitally. Register now to not miss your spot!

About the ALLEA General Assembly

The General Assembly annually convenes academies of sciences and humanities from 40 countries across the Council of Europe region. General Assemblies are hosted by ALLEA Member Academies and the programme typically consists of the internal business meeting of academy delegates, and a scientific symposium open to the public.

The symposium explores pressing topics from the fields of science, society and policy, and provides a platform for international, interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral debate.

The business meeting addresses governance, strategy and policy matters and is restricted to Member Academies’ delegates.

 

Call for Early/Mid-Career Researchers: European Crucible 2022

/in /by

The European Crucible is a leadership and development programme for early/mid-career researchers from Scotland and Europe. The call for applications to participate in the 2022 European Crucible is now open to applicants from European institutions until 21st February 2022.

The European Crucible was established to stimulate new international opportunities for early/mid-career researchers. Developed from the national ‘Scottish Crucible’ programme and working with the Scottish Research Pools, European Crucible seeks to establish new networks for aspiring research leaders, and to facilitate international collaborations for interdisciplinary research initiatives and innovations.

Who should apply

The call is open to early/mid-career researchers employed in Scotland or Europe, and carrying out research in science, engineering, technology, medicine, healthcare, arts, design, humanities, business, or social and political science. Ambitious university lecturers and readers (i.e. assistant and associate professors), research fellows and equivalents in research institutes and industry with experience of managing their own research, are encouraged to apply.

How it works 

The Crucible is an intensive, interactive, programme comprising four virtual workshops, or ‘labs’, held over three weeks. The labs will be facilitated by experienced science journalists, Vivienne Parry and Quentin Cooper, and will include contributions from a range of experts from research-related sectors. Crucible participants will be asked to present a mini-poster of their research areas and interests, and there will be networking sessions and pitching practice before a mock panel of real funding experts.

The 2022 European Crucible is a virtual programme supported by the Scottish Government via the Scottish Funding Council. Once awarded a place on the European Crucible Event, all training, networking and administration costs for participants will be covered.

For more information on how to apply, please refer to the programme’s website.

Breakthrough Prize Opens Public Nominations for 2023

/in /by

The public nomination period for the 2023 Breakthrough Prizes in Fundamental Physics, Life Sciences and Mathematics is now open. Nominations can be submitted online today through April 1, 2022. While self-nominations are prohibited, anyone may nominate another person. The nomination forms and rules are available at breakthroughprize.org.

For the 11th year, the Breakthrough Prize, recognized as the world’s largest science prize, will honor top scientists, handing out three prizes in Life Sciences, one in Fundamental Physics and one in Mathematics. Each prize comes with a $3 million award. In addition, six New Horizons Prizes, each for $100,000, will be available to promising early-career researchers in the fields of Physics and Mathematics. Nominations will also be taken for the Maryam Mirzakhani New Frontiers Prize, an annual $50,000 award presented to early-career women mathematicians who have completed their PhDs within the previous two years.

The Breakthrough Prize, dubbed ‘The Oscars of Science,’ hosts an annual live, globally televised gala awards ceremony to celebrate the laureates’ achievements and to foster broad popular support for scientific endeavors and inspire the next generation of scientists. Due to the pandemic, the ceremonies to honor the 2021 and 2022 laureates were postponed. The next ceremony is scheduled for late 2022. The cohort of 2022 laureates was announced in September 2021.

For the sixth year, the Breakthrough Prize will partner with two prestigious institutions – the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA) and ResearchGate – to directly engage with researchers and the science community.

ALLEA brings together more than 50 academies from over 40 countries, with members leading scholarly enquiry across all fields of the natural sciences, social sciences, and humanities.

ResearchGate is the professional network for researchers. Over 20 million researchers use researchgate.net to share and discover research, build their networks, and advance their careers. Based in Berlin, ResearchGate was founded in 2008. Its mission is to connect the world of science and make research open to all. ResearchGate members are encouraged to nominate their peers for the 2023 prizes in Fundamental Physics, Life Sciences, and Mathematics.

Selection Committees are composed of previous Breakthrough Prize laureates, who select the winners from the list of candidates generated during the nomination period.

 

New Chair of Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences

Meanwhile, after eight years of exceptional leadership, Cori Bargmann is stepping down as Chair of the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences. One of the inaugural winners of the Prize in 2013, Bargmann has played a pivotal role in its establishment and development. She is succeeded by Huda Yahya Zoghbi, winner of the Prize in 2017 and Founding Director of the Jan and Dan Duncan Neurological Research Institute in Houston.

 

Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics

One 2023 Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics ($3 million) will recognize an individual or individuals who have made profound contributions to human knowledge. It is open to all physicists – theoretical and experimental – working on the deepest mysteries of the Universe. The prize can be shared among any number of scientists. Nominations are also open for the New Horizons in Physics Prize, which will include up to three $100,000 awards for early-career researchers who have already produced important work in their fields.

The Selection Committee for the 2023 physics prizes includes: Eric Adelberger, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Jocelyn Bell Burnell, Charles Bennett, Sheperd Doeleman, Michael Green, Jens Gundlach, Alan Guth, Blayne Heckel, Joseph Incandela, Charles Kane, Hidetoshi Katori, Alexei Kitaev, Andrei Linde, Arthur McDonald, Juan Maldacena, Eugene Mele, Lyman Page, Saul Perlmutter, Alexander Polyakov, Adam Riess, John Schwarz, Nathan Seiberg, Ashoke Sen, Eva Silverstein, David Spergel, Andrew Strominger, Kip Thorne, Cumrun Vafa, Ewine F. van Dishoeck, Yifang Wang, Rainer Weiss, Edward Witten, and Jun Ye.

 

Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences

Three 2023 Breakthrough Prizes in Life Sciences ($3 million each) will be awarded to individuals who have made transformative advances in understanding living systems and extending human life. One of the prizes is designated for work contributing to the understanding of Parkinson’s disease or other neurodegenerative disorders.

The Selection Committee for the 2023 Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences includes: David Allis, James Allison, Victor Ambros, David Baker, Shankar Balasubramanian, Cornelia I. Bargmann, Alim Louis Benabid, Frank Bennett, David Botstein, Edward Boyden, Lewis Cantley, Emmanuelle Charpentier, Zhijian “James” Chen, Joanne Chory, Don Cleveland, Hans Clevers, Karl Deisseroth, Titia de Lange, Mahlon DeLong, Jennifer Doudna, Catherine Dulac, Stephen Elledge, Napoleone Ferrara, Jeffrey Friedman, Michael Hall, John Hardy, Ulrich Hartl, Helen Hobbs, Arthur Horwich, David Julius, Katalin Karikó, Jeffery W. Kelly, David Klenerman, Adrian Krainer, Eric Lander, Robert Langer, Virginia Lee, Richard Lifton, Dennis Lo, Pascal Mayer, Kazutoshi Mori, Kim Nasmyth, Harry Noller, Roeland Nusse, Yoshinori Ohsumi, Svante Pääbo, Gary Ruvkun, Charles Sawyers, Alexander Varshavsky, Bert Vogelstein, Peter Walter, Robert Weinberg, Drew Weissman, Shinya Yamanaka, Richard Youle, Xiaowei Zhuang, and Huda Zoghbi.

 

Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics

One 2023 Breakthrough Prize in Mathematics ($3 million) will be awarded to an individual who has made outstanding contributions to the field of mathematics. Nominations are also open for the New Horizons in Mathematics Prize, which will include up to three $100,000 awards for early-career researchers who have already produced important work in their fields. In addition, up to three $50,000 Maryam Mirzakhani New Frontiers Prizes will be presented to early-career women mathematicians who have completed their PhDs within the previous two years (2019, 2020).

The Selection Committee for the 2023 mathematics prizes includes: Ian Agol, Alex Eskin, Simon Donaldson, Martin Hairer, Maxim Kontsevich, Christopher Hacon, Vincent Lafforgue, Jacob Lurie, James McKernan, Takuro Mochizuki, Terence Tao, and Richard Taylor.

Information on the Breakthrough Prizes is available at breakthroughprize.org.

Final Conference: ‘Health Inequalities: New Methods, Better Insights?’

/in , /by

Hosted virtually by the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences (KNAW) on 8 December, the conference served as the official presentation of the final report produced within the cross-disciplinary ALLEA-FEAM Health Inequalities project.

 

The ALLEA-FEAM report presented at the conference highlights new analytic methods that can help the scientific community to better understand the causal relationship of certain social determinants, such as education, occupational class, and income level, in generating and reproducing health inequalities in Europe. Examples of such new methods include “counterfactual” approaches to assess the causal effect of socio-economic conditions on health, and “natural experiments” to evaluate the to evaluate the impact of policy interventions on health inequalities.

The conference was chaired by Professor Johannes Siegrist, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf and member of the ALLEA-FEAM Scientific Committee on Health Inequalities. Speakers included Professor Johan Mackenbach, Director of the Department of Public Health at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam and Chair of the ALLEA-FEAM Scientific Committee; Professor Sjaak Neefjes, Professor of Chemical Immunology at Leiden University Medical Center and KNAW Board Member; and Professor Ana Diez Roux, Professor of Epidemiology at Drexel University, among other experts.

Professor Annette Grüters-Kieslich delivers the closing remarks on behalf of ALLEA.

The closing remarks were delivered by Professor Emeritus of Pediatrics at Charité and ALLEA Vice Pre-sident, Annette Grüters-Kieslich. Professor Grüters-Kieslich praised the interdisciplinary nature of the study and called for a rethinking of research into health inequalities not only at a national level, but also at a European level, as the mechanisms and consequences of inequalities in health transcend political borders. On the value of the report, Professor Grüters-Kieslich remarked:

I am confident that if stakeholders from research, policy, and the wider society come together, there is a potential to see a timely change for the better. The valuable report certainly delivers the necessary data to facilitate immediate actions.

This conference represents the conclusion of the joint ALLEA-FEAM-KNAW project on the topic of health inequalities. You can watch the full conference below or on the KNAW website.

 

 

Read the ALLEA-FEAM report ‘Health Inequalities Research: New methods, better insights?’: Short version / Full report.

Learn more about the ALLEA-FEAM-KNAW joint project on health inequalities here.

 

A Patent Waiver Is Not a Silver Bullet in the Pursuit of Vaccine Equity

/in , /by

Rather than a World Trade Organization patent waiver, Covid-19 vaccine equity requires measures with immediate effect on the manufacturing and distribution of vaccines in the Global South and improved compulsory licensing mechanisms.

The low level of Covid-19 vaccination in the Global South is ethically unacceptable and risks prolonging the pandemic. The patent waiver in discussion since 2020 within the World Trade Organization (WTO) will not solve these vaccination bottlenecks in the short-term. Instead, additional measures should be adopted to accelerate local manufacturing and distribution of vaccines in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), ramp up investment in vaccination campaigns, and facilitate the compulsory licensing of patents and transfer of know-how.

ALLEA, the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, released a statement today assessing the legal hurdles of the current patent waiver proposal for Covid-19 vaccines within the WTO. It also proposes alternative mechanisms to achieve vaccine equity and speed up the transfer of technology and know-how for vaccine roll-out across LMICs.

In particular, the statement advocates for (i) practical measures that could accelerate the production, export, distribution, and administration of vaccines worldwide and ii) an international mechanism affording additional scrutiny of the manufacturing bottlenecks combined with new measures in the intellectual property (IP) framework such as flexibility for the compulsory licensing of patents.

According to the experts, the current co-sponsored waiver proposal at the WTO is “not well-tailored to the urgent vaccine problem” and would require further national legislation to have any effect in practice. The statement upholds that a WTO waiver would only remove the obligation for WTO Member States to grant IP protection, but would not ensure that stakeholders can effectively benefit from the invention and related know-how.

“A waiver (in the sense of the co-sponsored proposal at the WTO) of IP protection, including of trade secrets, would never make this know how publicly accessible, but only remove the possibility for companies enjoying confidentiality protection to sue for trade secret infringement”, the experts argue.

There are other IPR measures to be considered instead. The WTO waiver debate has opened the floor to other IP fixes that are needed in the field of health. The WTO rules on compulsory licensing of health-related patents should be amended. Important adjustments to patents and trade secret protections should also be adopted by the EU, its Member States, and other countries. In particular, improved procedures and institutional design should help to streamline the process for compulsory licensing on pharmaceutical products, including vaccines.

Read the ALLEA Statement

About this Statement

This ALLEA statement has been prepared by ALLEA’s Permanent Working Group Intellectual Property Rights (PWGIPR) with Professor Alain Strowel as principal author. Through its working groups, ALLEA provides input on behalf of European academies of sciences and humanities to pressing societal, scientific and science-policy debates and their underlying legislation. With its work, ALLEA seeks to ensure that science and research in Europe can excel and serve the interests of society.

 

UN Proclaims 2022 as the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development

/in /by

We need more basic sciences to achieve the Agenda 2030 and its 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This is the message sent to the world by the United Nations General Assembly on 2 December 2021. Member States approved by consensus the resolution 76/A/L.12 promulgating the year 2022 as the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development (IYBSSD 2022).

With this resolution, the United Nations General Assembly “invites all [its] Member States, organizations of the United Nations system and other global, regional and subregional organizations, as well as other relevant stakeholders, including academia, civil society, inter alia, international and national nongovernmental organizations, individuals and the private sector, to observe and raise awareness of the importance of basic sciences for sustainable development, in accordance with national priorities”.

The United Nations General Assembly motivated its decision with “the high value for humankind of basic sciences”, and with the fact that “enhanced global awareness of, and increased education in, the basic sciences is vital to attain sustainable development and to improve the quality of life for people all over the world”. It also stressed that “basic sciences and emerging technologies respond to the needs of humankind by providing access to information and increasing the health and well-being of individuals, communities, and societies”.

The successes and difficulties of the global fight against the COVID-19 pandemic have been for two years a stark reminder of this importance of basic sciences, such as (but not limited to) biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics and anthropology.

The vote is the result of the mobilization of the international scientific community, led since 2017 by the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics (IUPAP), CERN (The European Laboratory for Particle Physics), and 26 other international scientific unions and research organizations from different parts of the world, under the auspices of UNESCO.

Over 90 national and international science academies, learned societies, scientific networks, research and education centers are also supporting this initiative.
They will organize events and activities all over the planet during this special year, to showcase and improve the links between basic sciences and the 17 SDGs. The resolution was proposed to the United Nations General Assembly by Honduras, and co-sponsored by 36 other countries. Its vote confirms resolution 40/C 76 adopted unanimously by UNESCO General Conference, 25 November 2019.

The International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development (IYBSSD2022) will be officially inaugurated with an opening conference 30 June – 1 July 2022 at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. Events and activities will be organized around the world until 30 June 2023. ALLEA is an active supporter of the project and part of the network of international science organizations behind this initiative.

UNESCO General Conference Adopts Recommendation on Open Science

/in , /by

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science has been adopted at the 41st session of the UNESCO General Conference on 23 November 2021, making it the first international framework on open science. This follows a resolution from the 40th session of UNESCO’s General Conference in 2019, where 193 Member States tasked UNESCO with the development of an international standard-setting instrument on Open Science.

In developing the Recommendation on Open Science, UNESCO gathered contributions through Multistakeholder Consultations. A global online consultation on Open Science was conducted between February and July 2020 in the form of an online survey, which was open to all stakeholders and was available in English, French, and Spanish.

ALLEA participated in the design of this survey, which was coordinated by the International Science Council. As part of the UNESCO Open Science Partnership, the ALLEA Open Science Task Force also responded to the UNESCO Multistakeholder Consultations on Open Science with a statement submitted on 15 December 2020, which you can find here.

The UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science complements the 2017 Recommendation on Science and Scientific Research. It also builds upon the UNESCO Strategy on Open Access to Scientific Information and Research and the new UNESCO Recommendation on Open Educational Resources.

 

Aim of the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science

The aim of the UNESCO Recommendation is to provide an international framework for open science policy and practice that recognises disciplinary and regional differences in open science perspectives, takes into account academic freedom, gender-transformative approaches and the specific challenges of scientists and other open science actors in different countries and in particular in developing countries, and contributes to reducing the digital, technological and knowledge divides existing between and within countries.

The Recommendation outlines a common definition, shared values, principles and standards for open science at the international level and proposes a set of actions conducive to a fair and equitable operationalisation of open science for all at the individual, institutional, national, regional and international levels.

To achieve its aim, the key objectives and areas of action of the UNESCO Recommendation are as follows:

i. promoting a common understanding of open science, associated benefits and challenges, as well as diverse paths to open science;
ii. developing an enabling policy environment for open science;
iii. investing in open science infrastructures and services;
iv. investing in human resources, training, education, digital literacy and capacity building for open science;
v. fostering a culture of open science and aligning incentives for open science;
vi. promoting innovative approaches for open science at different stages of the scientific process;
vii. promoting international and multi-stakeholder cooperation in the context of open science and with view to reducing digital, technological and knowledge gaps.

 

Read UNESCO Press Release

Read the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science

Read the Report on UNESCO’s Global Online Consultation on Open Science

Read ALLEA’s Recent Statement on Equity in Open Access

Learn more about ALLEA’s Open Science Task Force