More Like this

1. Freshwater research in Latin America: Current research topics, challenges, and opportunities

   https://doi.org/10.15517/RBT.V68IS2.44328  

   Ramírez, Alonso ; Gutiérrez-Fonseca, Pablo E. ( October 2020 , Revista de Biología Tropical)

   Introduction: Freshwater research in Latin America has been increasing in recent years, with a large participation of scientists based on local institutions. However, researchers in the region are facing diverse challenges, and we lack a regional overview of the status of freshwater research. Objective: To address this, we surveyed researchers in the region to assess the current activity and challenges faced by the scientific community. We were interested in understanding (1) the type of research currently taking place in the region, (2) the major research gaps, as viewed by local researchers, and (3) the main limitations or obstacles slowing the development of freshwater science in the region. Methods: We prepared a questionnaire with 26 questions regarding the background of participants, their ongoing research priorities, the products generated from their research, and the major limitations they are facing as researchers. Results: We obtained 105 answers from researchers in 19 Latin American countries. Some of the important trends identified included: (1) a focus on stream ecosystems under agricultural and natural forest; (2) emphasis on biodiversity assessment and species inventories; (3) limited ecological research, mostly centered on litter decomposition and food web studies; and (4) communicating research in the form of peer-reviewed papersmore »and reports in gray literature. Major limitations to the scientific activity included: (1) language, with a majority of respondents considering their handling of English a handicap; (2) limited access to research equipment; (3) lack of tools, such as taxonomic keys; and (4) limited research funding. Research needs and priorities resulted in three major areas in need of attention: (1) developing taxonomy and systematics; (2) improving our current understanding of ecology and natural history; and (3) understanding species distributions and biodiversity patterns. Conclusions: Latin America has an active community of scientists. There is a need to diversify research topics, without abandoning traditional research areas (e.g., taxonomy, species distribution). We advocate for more collaboration among scientists with similar research goals, regardless of their affiliation. Improving communication and collaboration among universities and countries within Latin America will certainly facilitate overcoming obstacles and will help shaping a brighter future for freshwater research, and sciences in general, in the region.« less
2. Reproducible Software Environment: a tool enabling computational reproducibility in geospace sciences and facilitating collaboration

   https://doi.org/10.1051/swsc/2020011  

   Bhatt, Asti ; Valentic, Todd ; Reimer, Ashton ; Lamarche, Leslie ; Reyes, Pablo ; Cosgrove, Russell ( January 2020 , Journal of Space Weather and Space Climate)

   The Reproducible Software Environment (Resen) is an open-source software tool enabling computationally reproducible scientific results in the geospace science community. Resen was developed as part of a larger project called the Integrated Geoscience Observatory (InGeO), which aims to help geospace researchers bring together diverse datasets from disparate instruments and data repositories, with software tools contributed by instrument providers and community members. The main goals of InGeO are to remove barriers in accessing, processing, and visualizing geospatially resolved data from multiple sources using methodologies and tools that are reproducible. The architecture of Resen combines two mainstream open source software tools, Docker and JupyterHub, to produce a software environment that not only facilitates computationally reproducible research results, but also facilitates effective collaboration among researchers. In this technical paper, we discuss some challenges for performing reproducible science and a potential solution via Resen, which is demonstrated using a case study of a geospace event. Finally we discuss how the usage of mainstream, open-source technologies seems to provide a sustainable path towards enabling reproducible science compared to proprietary and closed-source software.
3. Plant science decadal vision 2020–2030: Reimagining the potential of plants for a healthy and sustainable future

   https://doi.org/10.1002/pld3.252  

   Henkhaus, Natalie ; Bartlett, Madelaine ; Gang, David ; Grumet, Rebecca ; Jordon‐Thaden, Ingrid ; Lorence, Argelia ; Lyons, Eric ; Miller, Samantha ; Murray, Seth ; Nelson, Andrew ; et al ( August 2020 , Plant Direct)

   Plants, and the biological systems around them, are key to the future health of the planet and its inhabitants. The Plant Science Decadal Vision 2020–2030 frames our ability to perform vital and far‐reaching research in plant systems sciences, essential to how we value participants and apply emerging technologies. We outline a comprehensive vision for addressing some of our most pressing global problems through discovery, practical applications, and education. The Decadal Vision was developed by the participants at the Plant Summit 2019, a community event organized by the Plant Science Research Network. The Decadal Vision describes a holistic vision for the next decade of plant science that blends recommendations for research, people, and technology. Going beyond discoveries and applications, we, the plant science community, must implement bold, innovative changes to research cultures and training paradigms in this era of automation, virtualization, and the looming shadow of climate change. Our vision and hopes for the next decade are encapsulated in the phrase reimagining the potential of plants for a healthy and sustainable future. The Decadal Vision recognizes the vital intersection of human and scientific elements and demands an integrated implementation of strategies for research (Goals 1–4), people (Goals 5 and 6),more »and technology (Goals 7 and 8). This report is intended to help inspire and guide the research community, scientific societies, federal funding agencies, private philanthropies, corporations, educators, entrepreneurs, and early career researchers over the next 10 years. The research encompass experimental and computational approaches to understanding and predicting ecosystem behavior; novel production systems for food, feed, and fiber with greater crop diversity, efficiency, productivity, and resilience that improve ecosystem health; approaches to realize the potential for advances in nutrition, discovery and engineering of plant‐based medicines, and green infrastructure. Launching the Transparent Plant will use experimental and computational approaches to break down the phytobiome into a parts store that supports tinkering and supports query, prediction, and rapid‐response problem solving. Equity, diversity, and inclusion are indispensable cornerstones of realizing our vision. We make recommendations around funding and systems that support customized professional development. Plant systems are frequently taken for granted therefore we make recommendations to improve plant awareness and community science programs to increase understanding of scientific research. We prioritize emerging technologies, focusing on non‐invasive imaging, sensors, and plug‐and‐play portable lab technologies, coupled with enabling computational advances. Plant systems science will benefit from data management and future advances in automation, machine learning, natural language processing, and artificial intelligence‐assisted data integration, pattern identification, and decision making. Implementation of this vision will transform plant systems science and ripple outwards through society and across the globe. Beyond deepening our biological understanding, we envision entirely new applications. We further anticipate a wave of diversification of plant systems practitioners while stimulating community engagement, underpinning increasing entrepreneurship. This surge of engagement and knowledge will help satisfy and stoke people's natural curiosity about the future, and their desire to prepare for it, as they seek fuller information about food, health, climate and ecological systems.

   « less
4. Juror Scientific Reasoning Skills and Discussion of Scientific Evidence During Deliberation

   McCowan, K. ( March 2020 , Annual Conference of the American Psychology-Law Society.)

   Abstract We investigate the link between individual differences in science reasoning skills and mock jurors’ deliberation behavior; specifically, how much they talk about the scientific evidence presented in a complicated, ecologically valid case during deliberation. Consistent with our preregistered hypothesis, mock jurors strong in scientific reasoning discussed the scientific evidence more during deliberation than those with weaker science reasoning skills. Summary With increasing frequency, legal disputes involve complex scientific information (Faigman et al., 2014; Federal Judicial Center, 2011; National Research Council, 2009). Yet people often have trouble consuming scientific information effectively (McAuliff et al., 2009; National Science Board, 2014; Resnick et al., 2016). Individual differences in reasoning styles and skills can affect how people comprehend complex evidence (e.g., Hans, Kaye, Dann, Farley, Alberston, 2011; McAuliff & Kovera, 2008). Recently, scholars have highlighted the importance of studying group deliberation contexts as well as individual decision contexts (Salerno & Diamond, 2010; Kovera, 2017). If individual differences influence how jurors understand scientific evidence, it invites questions about how these individual differences may affect the way jurors discuss science during group deliberations. The purpose of the current study was to examine how individual differences in the way people process scientific information affects the extentmore »to which jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberations. Methods We preregistered the data collection plan, sample size, and hypotheses on the Open Science Framework. Jury-eligible community participants (303 jurors across 50 juries) from Phoenix, AZ (Mage=37.4, SD=16.9; 58.8% female; 51.5% White, 23.7% Latinx, 9.9% African-American, 4.3% Asian) were paid $55 for a 3-hour mock jury study. Participants completed a set of individual questionnaires related to science reasoning skills and attitudes toward science prior to watching a 45-minute mock armed-robbery trial. The trial included various pieces of evidence and testimony, including forensic experts testifying about mitochondrial DNA evidence (mtDNA; based on Hans et al. 2011 materials). Participants were then given 45 minutes to deliberate. The deliberations were video recorded and transcribed to text for analysis. We analyzed the deliberation content for discussions related to the scientific evidence presented during trial. We hypothesized that those with stronger scientific and numeric reasoning skills, higher need for cognition, and more positive views towards science would discuss scientific evidence more than their counterparts during deliberation. Measures We measured Attitudes Toward Science (ATS) with indices of scientific promise and scientific reservations (Hans et al., 2011; originally developed by the National Science Board, 2004; 2006). We used Drummond and Fischhoff’s (2015) Scientific Reasoning Scale (SRS) to measure scientific reasoning skills. Weller et al.’s (2012) Numeracy Scale (WNS) measured proficiency in reasoning with quantitative information. The NFC-Short Form (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measured need for cognition. Coding We identified verbal utterances related to the scientific evidence presented in court. For instance, references to DNA evidence in general (e.g. nuclear DNA being more conclusive than mtDNA), the database that was used to compare the DNA sample (e.g. the database size, how representative it was), exclusion rates (e.g. how many other people could not be excluded as a possible match), and the forensic DNA experts (e.g. how credible they were perceived). We used word count to operationalize the extent to which each juror discussed scientific information. First we calculated the total word count for each complete jury deliberation transcript. Based on the above coding scheme we determined the number of words each juror spent discussing scientific information. To compare across juries, we wanted to account for the differing length of deliberation; thus, we calculated each juror’s scientific deliberation word count as a proportion of their jury’s total word count. Results On average, jurors discussed the science for about 4% of their total deliberation (SD=4%, range 0-22%). We regressed proportion of the deliberation jurors spend discussing scientific information on the four individual difference measures (i.e., SRS, NFC, WNS, ATS). Using the adjusted R-squared, the measures significantly accounted for 5.5% of the variability in scientific information deliberation discussion, SE=0.04, F(4, 199)=3.93, p=0.004. When controlling for all other variables in the model, the Scientific Reasoning Scale was the only measure that remained significant, b=0.003, SE=0.001, t(203)=2.02, p=0.045. To analyze how much variability each measure accounted for, we performed a stepwise regression, with NFC entered at step 1, ATS entered at step 2, WNS entered at step 3, and SRS entered at step 4. At step 1, NFC accounted for 2.4% of the variability, F(1, 202)=5.95, p=0.02. At step 2, ATS did not significantly account for any additional variability. At step 3, WNS accounted for an additional 2.4% of variability, ΔF(1, 200)=5.02, p=0.03. Finally, at step 4, SRS significantly accounted for an additional 1.9% of variability in scientific information discussion, ΔF(1, 199)=4.06, p=0.045, total adjusted R-squared of 0.055. Discussion This study provides additional support for previous findings that scientific reasoning skills affect the way jurors comprehend and use scientific evidence. It expands on previous findings by suggesting that these individual differences also impact the way scientific evidence is discussed during juror deliberations. In addition, this study advances the literature by identifying Scientific Reasoning Skills as a potentially more robust explanatory individual differences variable than more well-studied constructs like Need for Cognition in jury research. Our next steps for this research, which we plan to present at AP-LS as part of this presentation, incudes further analysis of the deliberation content (e.g., not just the mention of, but the accuracy of the references to scientific evidence in discussion). We are currently coding this data with a software program called Noldus Observer XT, which will allow us to present more sophisticated results from this data during the presentation. Learning Objective: Participants will be able to describe how individual differences in scientific reasoning skills affect how much jurors discuss scientific evidence during deliberation.« less
5. An NSF REU Site with Integrated Academia-Industry Research Experience

   Jiang, Zhaoshuo ; Caicedo, Juan M. ; Petrulis, Robert ( January 2020 , 2020 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   With increasing demands for high performance in structural systems, Smart Structures Technologies (SST) is receiving considerable attention as it has the potential to transform many fields in engineering, including civil, mechanical, aerospace, and geotechnical engineering. Both the academic and industrial worlds are seeking ways to utilize SST, however, there is a significant gap between the engineering science in academia and engineering practice in the industry. To respond to this challenge, San Francisco State University and the University of South Carolina collaborated with industrial partners to establish a Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Site program, focusing on academia-industry collaborations in SST. This REU program intends to train undergraduate students to serve as the catalysts to facilitate the research infusion between academic and industrial partners. This student-driven joint venture between academia and industry is expected to establish a virtuous circle for knowledge exchange and contribute to advancing fundamental research and implementation of SST. The program features: formal training, workshops, and supplemental activities in the conduct of research in academia and industry; innovative research experience through engagement in projects with scientific and practical merits in both academic and industrial environments; experience in conducting laboratory experiments; and opportunities to present the research outcomes tomore »the broader community at professional settings. This REU program provides engineering undergraduate students with unique research experience in both academic and industrial settings through cooperative research projects. Experiencing research in both worlds is expected to help students transition from a relatively dependent status to an independent status as their competence level increases. The joint efforts among two institutions and industry partners provide the project team with extensive access to valuable resources, such as expertise to offer a wider-range of informative training workshops, advanced equipment, valuable data sets, experienced mentors for the undergraduate researchers, and professional connections, that would facilitate a meaningful REU experience. Recruitment of participants targeted 20 collaborating minority and primarily undergraduate institutions (15 of them are Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSI) with limited science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research capabilities. The model developed through this program may help to exemplify the establishment of a sustainable collaboration model between academia and industry that helps address the nation's need for mature, independent, informed, and globally competitive STEM professionals and could be adapted to other disciplines. In this paper, the details of the first-year program are described. The challenges and lessons-learned on the collaboration between the two participating universities, communications with industrial partners, recruitment of the students, set up of the evaluation plans, and development and implementation of the program are discussed. The preliminary evaluation results and recommendations are also shared.« less