“Both Buddhists and Hindus, though still relatively small compared to the large Christian groups, have grown to the point that they are beginning to exert significant influence on the key issues that most affect their lives,” said J. Gordon Melton, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of American Religious History with the Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University, who was in charge of assembling the data on both groups.

The census, the most comprehensive statistical assessment of data from the 2,000-plus religious groups active in the United States, is made every 10 years by the Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies. The complete summary may be viewed at this link: http://www.rcms2010.org/press_release/ACP%2020120501.pdf

Both Hindus and Buddhists have temples in most states, and “the groups now regularly voice their opinions on U.S. relations with predominantly Hindu and Buddhist countries,” Melton said. “Like the Muslim congregations, Hindus and Buddhists are found in every part of the country, but they are concentrated in the big cities and still have not begun to appear in the smaller cities and rural areas.”

Another significant finding was that all areas of American religion have grown, although specific groups – especially some of the larger Christian churches – have declined or stagnated.

Southern Baptists, whose ranks grew spectacularly for a generation as it became a national organization, decreased dramatically since the year 2000. United Methodist and Evangelical Lutheran membership also decreased.

Both Muslims and Mormons (Latter-day Saints) showed dramatic increases in percentages, the former from both immigration and penetration of the African-American community, the latter from movement out of its base in the Mountain states to all parts of the country. Muslims are distinct as the majority are of Indo-Pakistani background, the second largest group being African-American, with Arab Americans a distinct minority. There are now some 6 million Mormons and 2.6 million Muslims in the country.

Other findings showed that traditional patterns continue. The Baptist Bible Belt remains across the South, the older Reformation Protestant churches are strongest across the Midwest, Latter-day Saints dominate in the Mountain West, and Roman Catholics dominate in the northeast and southwest, including the southern third of Texas.

Rodney Stark, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of the Social Sciences and co-director of the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion, said the census is unique in its attempt to: (1) gather data from participating churches on a congregation-by-congregation basis; (2) compute membership in churches (as opposed to religious preferences as measured in national polls); and (3) assess data at the state and county level. The 2010 census includes:

• Detailed reports from more than 200 of the largest American denominations, including many that did not participate in the 2000 study.
• Most exhaustive count ever of independent, nondenominational Christian churches, including many of the new mega-churches, some on their way to becoming new denominations.
• First-ever counts of Buddhist and Hindu congregations/temples and adherents by tradition.
• Detailed coverage of Eastern Orthodox Christian Churches.
• Improved coverage of predominantly African-American religious bodies.
• Counts of Jewish congregations and adherents by tradition.
• Expanded coverage of Muslim congregations.
• More comprehensive coverage of Amish, Friends and other traditions.

ABOUT BAYLOR UNIVERSITY

Baylor University is a private Christian university and a nationally ranked research institution, characterized as having “high research activity” by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. The university provides a vibrant campus community for approximately 15,000 students by blending interdisciplinary research with an international reputation for educational excellence and a faculty commitment to teaching and scholarship. Chartered in 1845 by the Republic of Texas through efforts of Baptist pioneers, Baylor is the oldest continually operating university in Texas. Located in Waco, it welcomes students from all 50 states and more than 80 countries to study a broad range of degrees among its 11 nationally recognized academic divisions.

ABOUT THE BAYLOR INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES OF RELIGION

Launched in August 2004, the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion (ISR) exists to initiate, support and conduct research on religion, involving scholars and projects spanning the intellectual spectrum: history, psychology, sociology, economics, anthropology, political science, epidemiology, theology and religious studies. The institute’s mandate extends to all religions, everywhere, and throughout history, and embraces the study of religious effects on prosocial behavior, family life, population health, economic development and social conflict. While always striving for appropriate scientific objectivity, ISR scholars treat religion with the respect that sacred matters require and deserve. For more information, visit www.baylorisr.org

Contact: Terry Goodrich
terry_goodrich@baylor.edu
254-710-3321
Baylor University

Some regard the WikiLeaks disclosures of 2010 as evidence that conventional mechanisms for controlling government-held information are breaking down, heralding a new world of ‘radical transparency’. However, Alasdair Roberts of Suffolk University Law School, Boston USA, argues that claims that old-style secrecy is over are an illusion, and that Wikileaks’ advocates have overstated their scale and significance.

“They also overlook many ways in which the simple logic of radical transparency – leak, publish, and wait for the inevitable outrage – can be defeated in practice,” Roberts says.

WikiLeaks’ aim is to challenge ‘increasing authoritarian tendencies’ in government and the growth of unaccountable corporate power. By the end of 2010, WikiLeaks and its editor in chief and founder, Julian Assange, were in the eye of a media storm, with few doubting the significance of the extensive leaked material. Yet Roberts suggests that the 2010 leaks actually revealed the obstacles to achievement of increased transparency, even in the digital age.

The leaks’ sheer size in terms of volume of pages was cited as proof of their significance – these were the largest set of confidential documents ever leaked to the public. Yet in quantitative terms, the data’s significance as a fraction of the total number of confidential documents is no greater than previous leaks during other eras. The sheer quantity of this type of data held by governments is constantly increasing.

On the Internet, commercial and political considerations compromise the free flow of information, just as they did when we relied on earlier communications technologies. When WikiLeaks released US State Department cables in November 2010, several companies that Wikileaks used, including Amazon Web Services, EveryDNS.net, PayPal and Apple, cut off their services, citing contractual violations or threats to their own businesses that would hinder other customers. This complicated WikiLeaks’ ability to distribute leaked information, and damaged it financially.

The radical transparency vision has a further difficulty, in that it neglects the significance of intermediation – organizing, interpreting, and drawing attention to information. Skilled in the use of information technology, WikiLeaks’ members were nonetheless daunted by the task of handling bulk data leaked from the Defence Department. WikiLeaks released a series of US military counterinsurgency manuals in 2008, anticipating a strong reaction and press attention. In reality it garnered little reaction because the material was too complex, and there was no clear story to grasp.

Wikileaks subsequently turned to a number of major media outlets to help with handling information releases. However, this also meant that the media became gatekeepers for the information, taking their own decisions regarding which content should be published, and what was newsworthy or what they had the budget to investigate.

Wikileaks expected its leaks to spark outrage, shifting public opinion. But the American public, in general, did not react with the expected level of outrage: perceptions about the conduct of the war in Afghanistan actually improved after WikiLeaks’ July 2010 disclosures.

Roberts observes that: “The incidents revealed by WikiLeaks might not even be construed as abuses of power at all. On the contrary, they might provide reassurance that the American government is willing to act ruthlessly in the pursuit of American interests, and that it actually has the capacity to act ruthlessly.”

The final difficulty with the vision of radical transparency is that it assumes a passive government reaction. In fact, governments have shown they can respond to such threats with “speed and brutality”. US Army private Bradley Manning, the apparent source of all four of the 2010 leaks, has taken the hardest fall. US federal agencies have responded to the leaks by tightening administrative controls on access to sensitive information. Even if government officials lost control of the information itself, they have not lost their capacity to shape its interpretation.

“There is no such thing, even in the age of the Internet, as the instantaneous and complete revelation of the truth. In its undigested form, information has no transformative power at all,” Roberts says. “Raw data must be distilled; the attention of a distracted audience must be captured; and that audience must accept the message that is put before it.”

Roberts is a proponent of stronger accountability and increased transparency, for diplomatic and national security institutions. However, he concludes that this will require hard work, rather than a technological fix. “A major difficulty with the WikiLeaks project is that it may delude us into believing otherwise,” he concludes.

For an embargoed copy of the article please contact: jayne.fairley@sagepub.co.uk

After the embargo the article with be free to access for a limited period here: http://ras.sagepub.com/

WikiLeaks: the illusion of transparency by Alasdair Roberts is published today, 23 March 2012, in the International Review of Administrative Sciences

Roberts piece is one of several which make up a special theme issue on ‘Government transparency’ in the latest issue of the International Review of Administrative Sciences (2012, vol.78, number 1). IRAS is the oldest public administration journal focused on international and comparative topics, having first appeared in 1927. Published by SAGE, it is the journal of the Brussels-based International Institute of Administrative Sciences (IIAS). The IIAS is an independent institute for the study of the theory and practice of public administration and public management worldwide.

SAGE is a leading international publisher of journals, books, and electronic media for academic, educational, and professional markets. Since 1965, SAGE has helped inform and educate a global community of scholars, practitioners, researchers, and students spanning a wide range of subject areas including business, humanities, social sciences, and science, technology, and medicine. An independent company, SAGE has principal offices in Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC. www.sagepublications.com

Contact: Jayne Fairley
jayne.fairley@sagepub.co.uk
44-207-324-8719
SAGE Publications

A new paper by researchers at the University of Notre Dame, led by Thomas E. Albrecht-Schmitt, professor of civil engineering and geological sciences and concurrent professor of chemistry and biochemistry, showcases Notre Dame Thorium Borate-1 (NDTB-1) as a crystalline compound which can be tailored to safely absorb radioactive ions from nuclear waste streams. Once captured the radioactive ions can then be exchanged for higher charged species of a similar size, recycling the material for re-use.

If one considers that the radionuclide technetium (99Tc) is present in the nuclear waste at most storage sites around the world, the math becomes simple. There are more than 436 nuclear power plants operating in 30 countries; that is a lot of nuclear waste. In fact, approximately 305 metric tons of 99Tc was generated from nuclear reactors and weapons testing from 1943 through 2010. Its safe storage has been an issue for decades.

“The framework of the NDTB-1 is key,” says Albrecht-Schmitt. “Each crystal contains a framework of channels and cages featuring billions of tiny pores, which allow for the interchange of anions with a variety of environmental contaminants, especially those used in the nuclear industry, such as chromate and pertechnetate.”

Albrecht-Schmitt’s team has concluded successful laboratory studies using the NDTB-1 crystals, during which they removed approximately 96 percent of 99Tc. Additional field tests conducted at the Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., and discussed in the paper have shown that the Notre Dame compound successfully removes 99Tc from nuclear waste and also exhibits positive exchange selectivity for greater efficiency.

The paper appears in the journal Advanced Functional Materials.

Contact: Thomas E. Albrecht-Schmitt
talbrec1@nd.edu
574-631-1872
University of Notre Dame

“A lackluster investment in science and innovation is driving fears among Americans about our world dominance in the years ahead,” said Research!America Chair and former Illinois Congressman John E. Porter. “These concerns will likely increase unless policy makers take action to avoid serious consequences, such as a major loss of U.S. jobs, business, medical breakthroughs and output in innovation.”

Only 23% of Americans consider the U.S. first in medical and health research today. And an overwhelming majority (91%) say it is important for the U.S. to maintain its world leadership role, as other nations such as China and India ramp up their investment.

Americans are especially concerned about funding cuts to medical and health research. Upon hearing that federal spending for medical and health research (after adjusting for inflation) has declined over the past five years, more than half of likely voters (57%) had a negative reaction to the cut in spending. Moreover, 54% think that federal spending for medical and health research should be exempt from across-the-board cuts outlined in the Budget Control Act of 2011.

“With the threat of automatic cuts on the horizon, a significant amount of federally supported research and innovation will be shelved, impacting the pace of scientific discovery in the U.S. and forcing patients to stand aside as other priorities dominate,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “We simply cannot afford to jeopardize our leadership and settle for second best. Elected officials and candidates must make stronger commitments to sustaining our world-class status in research and innovation.”

More than half of likely voters (64%) say they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports increased government funding for medical and health research. A vast majority of likely voters also think it is important for presidential and congressional candidates to debate issues relating to science, innovation and health.

Poll highlights include:

• 58% of Americans do not believe the United States will be a world leader in science and technology in 2020;
• 53% of Americans do not believe the United States will be a world leader in health care in 2020;
• 65% of Americans say it’s important that the U.S. is a leader in medical and health research.
• 85% of likely voters are concerned about the impact of a decreased federal investment in research, including the possibility of scientists leaving their profession or moving abroad to countries with a stronger investment in research;
• 66% of likely voters believe government investment in medical and health research will have an impact on the future of the United States; and
• Nearly 70% of Americans believe science and math education will have an impact on the future of the United States.

To view the poll, visit: http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/0312nationalpollwithJZA.pdf

About the Publication: Research!America began commissioning polls in 1992 in an effort to understand public support for medical, health and scientific research. The results of Research!America’s polls have proven invaluable to our alliance of member organizations and, in turn, to the fulfillment of our mission to make research to improve health a higher national priority. In response to growing usage and demand, Research!America has expanded its portfolio, which includes state, national and issue-specific polling. Poll data is available by request or at www.researchamerica.org.

The National Public Opinion Poll was conducted online in March 2012 by JZ Analytics for Research!America. The poll had a sample size of more than 1,000 likely U.S. voters, with a theoretical sampling error of +/- 3.2%.

About Us: Research!America is the nation’s largest nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority. Founded in 1989, Research!America is supported by member organizations representing 125 million Americans. Visit www.researchamerica.org.

Contact: Angie Antonopoulos
aantonopoulos@researchamerica.org
571-482-2737
Research!America

Photosynthesis allows biological systems to take energy from the sun and use it to produce food and fuel. It is one of the most important biological processes on earth but it’s not as efficient as it could be. Natural trade-offs results in less than 1% efficiency in many important crops and so there is significant scope for improvement.

Scientists from the UK and US are working to engineer or enhance photosynthesis to benefit food and fuel production.

Professor Douglas Kell, Chief Executive of BBRSC, explains why funding this research is vital: “We are facing global challenges in food and energy security that must be addressed. Improving photosynthesis within plants, or externally using synthetic biology, would bring huge benefits.”

The artificial ‘leaf’

Professor Richard Cogdell from the University of Glasgow is taking a synthetic biology approach in a bid to create an artificial ‘leaf’ capable of converting the sun’s energy to liquid fuel.

Professor Cogdell explains: “The sun gives its energy away for free but making use of it is tricky. We can use solar panels to make electricity but it’s intermittent and difficult to store. What we are trying to do is take the energy from the sun and trap it so that it can be used when it is needed most.”

The researchers hope to use a chemical reaction similar to photosynthesis but in an artificial system. Plants take solar energy, concentrate it and use it to split apart water into hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is released and the hydrogen is locked into a fuel.

The latest research aims to use synthetic biology to replicate the process.

Professor Cogdell added: “We are working to devise an analogous robust chemical system that could replicate photosynthesis artificially on a grand scale. This artificial leaf would create solar collectors that produce a fuel, as opposed to electricity.”

The artificial system could also improve on natural photosynthesis to make better use of the sun’s energy. By stripping back photosynthesis to a level of basic reactions, much higher levels of energy conversion could be possible.

Ultimately, success in this research could allow the development of a sustainable carbon neutral economy arresting the increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning.

‘Turbocharging’ photosynthesis

Professor Howard Griffiths, University of Cambridge, is also hoping to enhance the potential of photosynthesis by focusing on an enzyme called RuBisCO (Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase oxygenase). It’s a key enzyme in photosynthesis that allows plants to use atmospheric carbon dioxide to create energy-rich molecules, such as simple sugars.

Some plants have evolved mechanisms that act like biological turbochargers to concentrate carbon dioxide around the enzyme for optimal photosynthesis. This boosts growth and production. Professor Griffiths’ research is developing a deeper understanding of these biological turbochargers so that they may one day be incorporated into crops to increase yields.

Professor Griffiths explains: “We want to improve the operating efficiency of RuBisCO in crops and we believe algae may one day provide the answer. Their turbocharger is contained within a structure called the algal pyrenoid which could be utilised in a crop’s photosynthetic structures. By combining algal and plant photosynthesis to improve photosynthetic efficiency we would see an increase in agricultural productivity for the production of food and renewable energy.”

Capturing ‘wasted’ solar energy

Professor Anne Jones from Arizona State University is looking at other ways to ensure the sun’s energy is not wasted.

Cyanobacteria (bacteria that get their energy from photosynthesis) can absorb much more solar energy than they can utilize. Professor Jones’s research seeks to develop a mechanism to take advantage of this excess, wasted energy by transferring it to a fuel-producing cell.

Professor Jones said: “We want to couple the photosynthetic apparatus in one bacterial species to the fuel-producing metabolism of a second species. We could then funnel excess energy directly into fuel production. It would see two biological systems working together to make fuel from the sun’s energy.”

A simple analogy is a power station that isn’t connected to the distribution grid. Unconnected, the excess energy goes to waste. The researchers hope to create a connection that will transfer this energy to make fuel. This connection could be provided by hair-like electrically conductive filaments called pili.

Professor Jones explains: “Certain bacteria naturally grow conductive filaments called pili. These pili could be exploited to transfer energy between the cells we want to use.”

Contact: Rob Dawson
robert.dawson@bbsrc.ac.uk
01-793-413-204
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

A new Brigham Young University study found that 16-18 year olds perform better academically when they shave about two hours off that recommendation.

“We’re not talking about sleep deprivation,” says study author Eric Eide. “The data simply says that seven hours is optimal at that age.”

The new study by Eide and fellow BYU economics professor Mark Showalter is the first in a series of studies where they examine sleep and its impact on our health and education. Surprisingly, the current federal guidelines are based on studies where teens were simply told to keep sleeping until they felt satisfied.

“If you used that same approach for a guideline on how much people should eat, you would put them in a well-stocked pantry and just watch how much they ate until they felt satisfied,” Showalter said. “Somehow that doesn’t seem right.”

In the new study, the BYU researchers tried to connect sleep to a measure of performance or productivity. Analyzing data from a representative sample of 1,724 primary and secondary school students across the country, they found a strong relationship between the amount of sleep youths got and how they fared on standardized tests.

But more sleep isn’t always better. As they report in the Eastern Economics Journal, the right amount of sleep decreases with age:

• The optimal for 10-year-olds is 9 – 9.5 hours
• The optimal for 12-year-olds is 8 – 8.5 hours
• The optimal for 16-year-olds is 7 hours

“We don’t look at it just from a ‘your kid might be sleeping too much’ perspective,” Eide said. “From the other end, if a kid is only getting 5.5 hours of sleep a night because he’s overscheduled, he would perform better if he got 90 minutes more each night.”

The size of the effect on test scores depends on a number of factors, but an 80-minute shift toward the optimum is comparable to the child’s parents completing about one more year of schooling.

Contact: Joe Hadfield
joe_hadfield@byu.edu
801-422-9206
Brigham Young University

When readers access a story from a credible news source they trust through an online portal, they also tend to trust the portal, said S. Shyam Sundar, Distinguished Professor of Communications and co-director of the Media Effects Research Laboratory. Most of these portals use computers, not people, to automatically sort and post stories.

Sundar said this transfer of credibility provides online news portals — Yahoo News and Google News — with most of the benefits, but with little of the costs associated with online publishing.

“A news portal that uses stories from a credible source gets a boost in credibility and might even make money through advertising,” said Sundar. “However, if there is a lawsuit for spreading false information, for example, it’s unlikely that the portal will be named in the suit.”

Sundar said the flow of credibility did not go both ways. He said that reading a low-credibility story on a high-credibility portal did not make the original source more trustworthy.

The researchers, who reported their findings in Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, asked a group of 231 students to read online news stories. After reading the stories, the students rated the credibility of the original source and the portal.

The researchers placed banners from Google News, which served as a high credibility portal, and the Drudge Report, which served as a low-credibility portal, on the pages. They also added banners to identify the New York Times — the high-credibility source — and the National Enquirer — the low-credibility source.

The students were significantly more likely to consider a portal credible if the source of the story was trustworthy. The credibility of the portal suffered if the source lacked trustworthiness.

Sundar said that attention to sources depended on the involvement of the reader. When readers were particularly interested in the story, they tended to more thoroughly evaluate all the sources involved in the production and distribution of that news. People who are not interested in the story base their judgments on the credibility of the portal, which is the most immediately visible source.

Sundar, who worked with Hyunjin Kang and Keunmin Bae, both doctoral students in communications, and Shaoke Zhang, doctoral student in information sciences and technology, said that the way credibility is transferred from site to site shows the complexity of the relationship between online news readers and sources.

Evaluating credibility is difficult on the web because there are often chains of news sources for a story, Sundar said. For example, a person may find a story on an online news portal, forward the information to another friend through email, who then posts it on a social network. The identity of the original source may or may not be carried along this chain to the final reader.

“With traditional media it’s fairly clear who the source is,” Sundar said. “But in online media, it gets very murky because there are so many sources.”

The Korea Science and Engineering Foundation of South Korea supported this work.

Contact: Matt Swayne
mls29@psu.edu
814-865-9481
Penn State

“American polarization is largely exaggerated,” says Leaf Van Boven of the University of Colorado Boulder, especially by people who adopt strong political stances. And when people perceive a large gap between political parties, they may be more motivated to vote. That message emerges from analyses of 40 years’ worth of voter data and could help predict voting behavior for the 2012 presidential election, according to social psychologists presenting their work today at a conference in San Diego, CA.

Polarization and political engagement

Much of the data comes from the American National Election Studies, a large survey of American’s political attitudes and voting behaviors from 1948 to 2008 funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), and from a nationally representative sample of American adults from 2008. Using a subset of 26,000 respondents from this data, John Chambers of the University of Florida and colleagues studied the degree to which people estimate differences between Republicans’ and Democrats’ attitudes. They found that the actual gap between the parties’ political attitudes has not increased substantially over time and that members of both parties have consistently overestimated the size of that gap.

Moreover, Chambers’ team found that those who perceived the greatest political polarization were more politically engaged – for example, more likely to have voted in the last election, tried to influence the vote of other voters, attended political rallies, or donated money to a party or candidate. “These findings may have important implications for election outcomes,” Chambers says. “Particularly in close or hotly-contested elections, the balance may be tipped in favor of the party whose members perceive more polarization between the two parties.”

Indeed, in the 2008 Presidential election, people who strongly supported either Obama or McCain perceived Americans as more polarized than did people whose support for either of the two candidates was more moderate, according to work by Van Boven of the University of Colorado Boulder. His NSF-funded study likewise found that people who perceived Americans as more polarized were more inclined to vote in the presidential election compared with people who perceived less polarization – independent how strongly they supported Obama or McCain.

Morality drives people to the polls

In another analysis from the 2008 election, moral conviction also significantly predicted the likelihood to vote, even when statistically controlling for people’s ideology, says G. Scott Morgan of Drew University. His research team surveyed 827 US residents about their political orientation, intentions to vote, and degrees of moral conviction on several issues, including abortion, same-sex marriage, tax cuts, and healthcare reform. They found that no party holds a monopoly on moral conviction.

The study counters the notion that conservatives’ political views and behaviors might be more greatly shaped by morality than those of liberals, Morgan says. Indeed, during the 2012 political campaign, he says “liberals and conservatives seem similarly likely to feel moral conviction about the issues that are important to them.”

Moral convictions change factual beliefs

Other researchers are investigating how people view morally controversial political issues. They are finding that people’s moral sensibilities shape their perceptions of facts.

Brittany Liu and Peter Ditto of the University of California, Irvine, tested how people’s perceptions of the costs and benefits of capital punishment changed when they read essays advocating either its inherent morality or immorality. The essays changed not only participants’ perceptions of the inherent morality of capital punishment but also beliefs about whether capital punishment deterred future crime or led to miscarriages of justice. “Changing participants’ moral beliefs led to corresponding changes in factual beliefs,” Liu says.

Related survey work found a similar pattern of results across many different issues, including forceful interrogations, stem cell research, abstinence-only sexual education, and global warming. The results help explain some of the major impediments to bipartisan cooperation, Liu says. “For both liberals and conservatives, there is no clean separation between moral intuitions and factual beliefs,” she says. “This affects how politicians and partisans interpret scientific and economic data, making compromise difficult as both sides hold drastically different beliefs about the relevant facts and data.”

A press conference on this research “Political Ideology: Red v. Blue in a Presidential Election Year” takes place on Jan. 27, 2012, at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (SPSP). More than 3,000 scientists are in attendance at the meeting in San Diego from Jan. 26-28 (http://www.spspmeeting.org).

SPSP promotes scientific research that explores how people think, behave, feel, and interact. With more than 7,000 members, the Society is the largest organization of social and personality psychologists in the world (http://www.spsp.org).

Contacts:

Lisa M.P. Munoz, SPSP Public Information Officer
spsp.publicaffairs@gmail.com
703-951-3195

John Chambers, University of Florida
jrchamb@ufl.edu
352-273-2162

Leaf Van Boven, University of Colorado
vanboven@colorado.edu
720-771-2261

G. Scott Morgan, Drew University
smorgan@drew.edu
973-408-3970

Peter Ditto
phditto@uci.edu
949-824-8168

Joseph C. LaManna, PhD, President of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) responded, “We enthusiastically support the President’s emphasis on innovation and join him in urging Congress to maintain the federal commitment to research. It is abundantly clear that research-based innovation has dramatically improved the quality of life for Americans and people around the world. Sustainable budgets allow scientists to pursue new ideas and address scientific challenges with increased sophistication. Our best hope for future progress remains a strong commitment to science and technology.”

LaManna also praised the President for acknowledging that public research dollars have helped develop advanced technologies. “Basic research funded by the federal government is at the heart of medical progress, but it is the kind of investment that no individual or private business could afford to undertake. If we do not have public support for the investigation of fundamental scientific principles, this work would not be done,” stated LaManna.

FASEB sincerely appreciates President Obama’s commitment to maintaining the nation’s research enterprise and will soon launch a new campaign to encourage biomedical scientists and engineers to become more involved in advocacy for science.

FASEB is composed of 26 societies with more than 100,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Celebrating 100 Years of Advancing the Life Sciences in 2012, FASEB is rededicating its efforts to advance health and well-being by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative advocacy.

Contact: Lawrence Green
lgreen@faseb.org
301-634-7335
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

“For too long, patients and families have suffered from debilitating, incurable diseases and we know that stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans across the country. I am committed to supporting responsible stem cell research now, and in the future,” said President Obama in his response to the questionnaire.

“I strongly support adult stem cell research,” said Gingrich. “I will oppose at every turn any process of destroying embryos.”

In the area of global competitiveness, Gingrich said, “Considering today’s American tax and regulatory systems, it is increasingly likely that the full implementation of the new [scientific] knowledge will first occur outside the United States and be imported by us. This will be tragic for Americans in lost health opportunities, lost jobs and prosperity, and unnecessarily higher healthcare costs.”

“To compete for the jobs and industries of our time, we have to make America the best place on earth to do business and out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world,” said Obama. “I have called for a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race and sent budgets to Congress that helps us meet that goal.”

Obama and Gingrich also responded to questions about support for the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food and Drug Administration, science, technology, engineering and math education, and government investment in health research for military veterans. www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org. All presidential candidates were invited to participate.

The responses from Obama and Gingrich largely reflect public sentiment on federal support for research. In new public opinion poll data, a vast majority of Americans (86%) believe investing in health research is important for job creation and economic recovery and (54%) say research is part of the solution to rising health care costs. Seventy-seven percent believe the U.S. is losing its global competitive edge in science and innovation. However, 60% say they are uninformed about their representatives’ positions on medical, health and scientific research.

“Unfortunately, many elected officials and candidates have failed to elevate these issues in their campaigns,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America. “The poll underscores Americans’ willingness to make research a high priority to address our economic and health challenges.”

In other polling data, most Americans say it’s important to increase funding for federal health research agencies — (86%) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), (79%) for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and (75%) for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“Americans realize that massive spending cuts for federal agencies like the NIH would move our country in the wrong direction,” said Research!America’s chair, former Illinois Congressman John Porter. “A strong investment in research will yield more scientific discoveries, boost our global competitiveness and help lower health care costs. We need elected officials who will aggressively support and expand research and development.”

Additional findings from the public opinion poll include:

• 85% think research and innovation is important to their state economy.
• 48% say there is not enough government investment in health research for the benefit of military veterans and service members.
• 82% say it’s important to conduct medical or health research to eliminate health disparities.
• 73% believe the federal government should place more emphasis on increasing the number of young Americans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.
• 61% favor expanding federal funding for research using embryonic stem cells.

About the Poll: Research!America commissioned JZ Analytics to conduct an online survey of 800 adults nationwide in October 2011. The sample is representative of the nation’s demographics, including geography, gender and ethnicity, with a theoretical error of ±3.0%. The full results can be found at http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/December2011PollRelease.pdf

For more information about Your Candidates – Your Health, visit www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org. Supporting partners include the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, Alzheimer’s Association, Pfizer, American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, American Association for Dental Research, Assurant, Brain & Behavior Research Foundation, Charles Drew University, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Food Allergy Initiative, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Lovelace, National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research, National Alliance for Hispanic Health, New York-Presbyterian, Northeast Ohio Medical University, Society for Neuroscience, University of Michigan, University of North Carolina School of Medicine and Washington University School of Medicine.

About Us: Research!America is the nation’s largest not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance working to make research to improve health a higher national priority. Founded in 1989, Research!America is supported by member organizations representing 125 million Americans. Visit www.researchamerica.org.

Contact: Suzanne Ffolkes
sffolkes@researchamerica.org
571-482-2710
Research!America