Repurposing Grand Challenges in Tumultuous Times

Recalibrating Management Research for the Post‐COVID‐19 Scientific Enterprise

The scientific enterprise holds the most promise for addressing urgent societal challenges when diversity, inclusivity, and collaboration are fostered within the science community. This requires that scientists develop personal and interpersonal competencies that allow them to participate in diverse, inclusive, and collaborative endeavors. Within STEM education, persistence and success in science and math are also influenced by such personal and interpersonal experiences. The personal connection students feel to the class material, the nature and tone of interactions among students and faculty, the sense of agency that students develop around accessing the “hidden curriculum” (office hours, research experiences, and other academic support or leadership experiences), and the sense of mattering and belonging, are all important factors in helping students develop an identity as a scientist. At our small liberal arts college, a survey of 800 students in science and math courses revealed that women, students of color, first generation to college students, and students from low socioeconomic status backgrounds disproportionately report these factors as barriers to their academic success in science and math classes. We are exploring whether we can foster a diverse, inclusive, and collaborative community of science while also lowering barriers to student success through the creation of opportunities for students and faculty to come together in interdisciplinary Grand Challenge learning collectives. Learning collectives tacklecomplex societal issues that students care deeply about and which can be addressed only through collaboration among different disciplines and lived experiences. We report on outcomes and lessons learned from a Grand Challenges learning collective focused on Global Climate Change. A set of linked introductory STEM courses (Calculus, Physics, Chemistry, Data Science, Psychology) and freshman writing seminars (Sociology, History, Earth Science) addressed climate change from their own disciplinary perspectives while providing opportunities for students to engage in climate change work in foundational science courses. Work inside classes was supported by community conversations and events outside of class. At the conclusion of the introductory level courses, students explored opportunities to continue building the community by serving as near-peer mentors, by engaging in student research experiences or community-engaged learning experiences, or serving as a student Catalyst working to improve inclusion. Fundamental to the evolution of the learning collective was a program of professional and personal development for faculty and students. Working groups, formed around topics of common interest, aimed to build capacity for inclusion and equity. Faculty participants expressed the need for sustained support as they examined their teaching practices and experimented with ways to foster greater inclusivity. Students deeply valued out-of-class conversations and interactions with faculty that humanize the scientific enterprise and that help them foster their own identity as a scientist.

Back to table of contents Previous article ProfessionalFull AccessGrand Challenge Aims to Eradicate MH StigmaKatie O’ConnorKatie O’ConnorSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:23 Jun 2022https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.pn.2022.07.7.13AbstractThe Huntsman Mental Health Institute is bringing together dozens of national organizations, including APA, in a large-scale, collaborative effort to end the stigma of mental illness and substance use disorders for good.Until the stigma associated with mental health and substance use disorders is eliminated, psychiatric patients will continue to be treated as second-class citizens, said Mark Rapaport, M.D.“Their concerns will continue to be dismissed, they will continue to be criminalized, and their care will continue to be undervalued,” said Rapaport, CEO of the Huntsman Mental Health Institute (HMHI) at the University of Utah. “We have to eliminate the ignorance and prejudice that exist around these illnesses. If we don’t, patients will continue to needlessly suffer and die because they’re not seeking [care] that should easily be available to them.”The urgency to save the lives of patients in need has motivated an expansive new initiative that HMHI recently launched with the goal of ending stigma for good. Named the “Grand Challenge,” the campaign unites dozens of organizations with the shared goal of eliminating stigma against people experiencing mental or substance use disorders, with HMHI acting as what Rapaport referred to as the backbone. “Our goal is to help these organizations succeed by facilitating and coordinating their efforts so they can truly eliminate stigma,” he said.According to an HMHI news release, a grand challenge is a “social change movement that shifts beliefs, attitudes, and behavior.” Similar movements in the past included those to address seatbelt use, recycling, and tobacco use. “Most grand challenges have broad support, take place over decades, and have multifaceted strategies to meet a full range of needs,” the release stated.HMHI’s “Grand Challenge” is using the Collective Impact Model, which includes five essential elements: a common agenda shaped by a collective definition of the problem; shared measurements among the partners to track and share progress; integration of the partners’ activities to maximize the results; continuous communication; and a backbone team to coordinate the group’s work.“The COVID-19 pandemic has brought mental illness to the forefront of public discussion,” says Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A. “Now is the time to take advantage of that public awareness and end the stigma of mental illness once and for all.”The kickoff event was held in Utah in April. Experts, including APA CEO and Medical Director Saul Levin, M.D., M.P.A., participated in the Design Studio event, during which they laid out the goals of the campaign to eliminate stigma from all sectors of U.S. society. According to HMHI’s website, those goals include establishing sustainable funding models, creating outreach plans to connect with underserved communities, and building infrastructure to coordinate and communicate about evidence-based best practices. In addition to APA, participants at the Design Studio event included representatives from the National Alliance on Mental Illness, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention.“It was an amazing meeting of leaders,” Levin said. “We agreed that we need to, essentially, blanket the airwaves—saturate television, radio, and the print media—with the message that mental illness is similar to any other illness, like diabetes or hypertension, that requires treatment to allow patients to feel the way they want to feel.”Levin was appointed to the campaign’s Steering Committee; Kristin Kroeger, APA’s chief of policy, programs, and partnerships, was appointed to the Summit Planning Committee; Nitin Gogtay, M.D., APA’s chief of research and a deputy medical director, was appointed to the Matrix Committee; and Bob Ensinger, M.P.A., APA’s chief communications officer, was appointed to the Outreach and Communications Committee.Eliminating the stigma around mental illness has been a focus for Levin since he became APA’s CEO and medical director, he said. Decades ago, patients would not openly discuss breast cancer diagnoses, he pointed out. But now, thanks to advocates’ work to raise awareness, it is a very visible and treatable disease. The same must be done for mental illness, he said.The difficulty with most campaigns to end mental health stigma is they often occur in silos, Rapaport said, with organizations lacking the resources to successfully communicate and collaborate. That’s where HMHI comes in. He pointed to a 2016 report from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine. The report explored how successful anti-stigma campaigns have operated in other countries, and stated that, in order to eliminate or significantly reduce stigma in the United States, a coordinated and sustained effort that lasts at least two decades is necessary. HMHI is prepared to make that multi-decade commitment to the Grand Challenge, Rapaport said.“One amazing thing about this initiative is that we have the tremendous support of the Huntsman family, who have been willing to talk honestly about their family’s struggles with mental and substance use disorders,” he said. HMHI was established thanks to a $150 million gift that the Huntsman family, including former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., made to the University of Utah in 2019.The Grand Challenge is still growing, with organizations continuing to join, and the next step is another Design Summit in Snowbird, Utah, in October. There, participants will discuss the efforts they can implement on a local level and across the country to eliminate stigma. Rapaport said that representatives from between 100 and 200 organizations are expected.“Why should people who have diseases of the most complex organ in the body not be treated with the same dignity and respect that people with heart disease or cancer receive?” Rapaport said. “Our patients and their families deserve that respect.” ■ResourcesMore information about the Grand Challenge ISSUES NewArchived

Catalysis is one of the most valuable contributors to our economy and historically an area where the United States has enjoyed, but is now losing, international leadership. While other countries are stepping up their work in this area, support for advanced catalysis research and development in the U.S. has diminished. Yet, more than ever, innovative and improved catalyst technologies are imperative for new energy production processes to ease our dependence on imported resources, for new energy-efficient and environmentally benign chemical production processes, and for new emission reduction technologies to minimize the environmental impact of an active and growing economy. Addressing growing concerns about the future direction of U.S. catalysis science, experts from the catalysis community met at a workshop to determine and recommend advanced resources needed to address the grand challenges for catalysis research and development. The workshop's primary conclusion: To recapture our position as the leader in catalysis innovation and practice, and promote crucial breakthroughs, the U.S. must establish one or more well-funded and well-equipped National Catalysis Research Institutes competitively selected, centered in the national laboratories and, by charter, networked to other national laboratories, universities, and industry. The Institute(s) will be the center of a national collaboratory that gives catalysis researchers access to the most advanced techniques available in the scientific enterprise. The importance of catalysis to our energy, economic, and environmental security cannot be overemphasized. Catalysis is a vital part of our core industrial infrastructure, as it is integral to chemical processing and petroleum refining, and is critical to proposed advances needed to secure a sustainable energy future. Advances in catalysis could reduce our need for foreign oil by making better use of domestic carbon resources, for example, allowing cost-effective and zero emission conversion of coal into transportation fuels. No matter what energy sources are being considered (oil, natural gas, coal, biomass, solar, or nuclear based), a clean, sustainable energy future will involve catalysis to improve energy efficiency and storage and use options, and to mitigate environmental impacts. Recent revolutionary advances in nanotechnology and high-performance computing are enabling the breakthroughs in catalysis science and technology essential for a secure energy future. Thus, the time is right for substantially increased investments in catalysis science and technology.

The author was a U.S. congressman from Florida for 24 years and was known as “Mr. Health” for sponsoring or playing a significant role in enacting major health legislation. He is currently chair of the board of Research!America in Alexandria, Virginia. This editorial is based on his remarks at the recent Lasker Awards luncheon. In October 1996, six scientists-John Robbins and Rachel Schneerson from the National Institutes of Health (NIH); Porter Anderson from North Miami Beach, Florida; David H. Smith from the David Hamilton Smith Foundation in New York; Robert Furchgott from the Health Science Center of the State University of New York at Brooklyn; and Ferid Murad from Lake Forest, Illinois-received the Albert Lasker Medical Research Awards for their exceptional contributions to basic and clinical research and public service. The work of these scientists will have an impact well into the new millennium, but that impact will be affected by what we do now that another selection process—the election of our new President and new members of Congress—also is over. These are complicated times for the U.S. scientific enterprise. To say that the process of funding NIH and other agencies that support biomedical research has been a careening roller coaster ride is not an exaggeration. Fortunately, Senator Mark Hatfield and Congressman John Porter provided some balance through their leadership; as a result, the 1997 budget for NIH increased. However, substantial reductions in overall government spending for science and technology have been projected to be about 25 percent by the year 2002. Entire sectors have been targeted for elimination. On another level, and perhaps a more insidious one, there seems to be an effort to restrict the intellectual independence of scientific research in this country. Ten senators of the 104th Congress protested the Centers for Disease Control9s support for university-based studies of injuries caused by firearms, which account for 37,000 deaths in this country each year. The senators9 rationale was that the studies are hostile to legitimate gun ownership. In addition, the projected sweeping reorganization of health care delivery threatens funding for science as well as the infrastructure of biomedical research in our nation9s academic health centers. At times like these, a strengthened national commitment to medical research is essential. Doubling our national investment in research would not only enhance and save lives; it would also save money. The Alliance for Aging Research reports that if the onset of Alzheimer9s could be delayed by 5 years, the nation would save $50 billion annually. A similar delay in the onset of cardiovascular diseases could save $69 billion per year. Science is poised to make delayed onset and, ultimately, cure and prevention of these and other diseases a reality, although recent scientific breakthroughs have raised ideological and ethical issues that will need to be addressed. For example, what are the rights of the fetus? In an aging population, what are the costs and benefits of keeping people alive by artificial means? How these and other issues are resolved will surely affect the public9s attitude toward research, and that attitude ultimately determines how the decision-makers in Washington will construct future federal research and development budgets and provide incentives for the conduct of research in the private sector. Relations between the public and the scientific community must be strengthened so that support from the average citizen continues. Too many members of the research community remain quite removed from advocacy; the new politics in Washington demand new politics in science. We need to stay allied as a scientific community and use our alliance to stimulate understanding and advocacy among members of the public and, in turn, decision-makers. Polls conducted by Research!America and other organizations consistently show that Americans believe that medical research should be a higher national priority. Not only is the public supportive, it wants to be better informed about research. Researchers and health care providers can empower our citizenry to act. These highly respected individuals must take the time to interact in the community, explain research, speak at civic meetings, appear on television, write opinion pieces for the local newspapers, and meet with editorial boards. Every scientist working today and every other stakeholder in research can, and must, carry the message as we move into the next century.

The 12 Grand Challenges for Social Work make clear the need for a broad new approach for social work to solve complex contemporary social problems. The grand challenges likewise highlight the importance of developing and coordinating a plan to prepare the next generations of social work scholars for high-impact careers that contribute to the identification and implementation of solutions. This paper provides an overview of contemporary trends affecting the scientific enterprise in which our current and emerging scholars operate and within which strong practice, policy, and community-engaged research partnerships must be forged and sustained. We discuss modes of successful transdisciplinary team and translational science and how we expect these new scientific approaches to advance the Grand Challenges for Social Work. We identify the major challenges entailed in this ambitious agenda and highlight strategies for successfully conducting coordinated team science that spans disciplines and extends acr...

The report documents the DOE Town Halls held during 2019 at Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and in Washington, DC. From July to October 2019, the Argonne, Oak Ridge, and Berkeley National Laboratories hosted a series of four town hall meetings attended by more than 1,000 U.S. scientists and engineers. The goal of the town hall series was to examine scientific opportunities in the areas of artificial intelligence (AI), Big Data, and high-performance computing (HPC) in the next decade, and to capture the big ideas, grand challenges, and next steps to realizing these opportunities. In this report and in the Department of Energy (DOE) laboratory community, we use the term “AI for Science” to broadly represent the next generation of methods and scientific opportunities in computing, including the development and application of AI methods (e.g., machine learning, deep learning, statistical methods, data analytics, automated control, and related areas) to build models from data and to use these models alone or in conjunction with simulation and scalable computing to advance scientific research. The AI for Science town hall discussions focused on capturing the transformational uses of AI that employ HPC and/or data analysis, leveraging data sets from HPC simulations or instruments and user facilities, and addressing scientific challenges unique to DOE user facilities and the agency’s wide-ranging fundamental and applied science enterprise.

Green Day: An Interview with NHGRI Director Eric Green

I feel a little like Mary Lasker, who was asked late in her life if she had to start over again whether she would consider a career as a scientist. She replied, “Oh no! I couldn't cut up a frog! And I certainly couldn't perform surgery! Nobody would have me in their laboratory for five minutes

Comprehensive decade-long analysis of point-of-care resources reveals insights into how clinical research makes its way into practice across different medical specialties and through time to enable us to identify potential translational bottlenecks in the pathway from research to practice.

Comprehensive decade-long analysis of point-of-care resources reveals insights into how clinical research makes its way into practice across different medical specialties and through time to enable us to identify potential translational bottlenecks in the pathway from research to practice.

With the development of economic globalization, the trend of internationalization and alliance of large enterprises is becoming more and more obvious, and the competition and cooperation among enterprises are still continuing. In this new historical stage, it is very necessary to ensure the smooth implementation of financial management and coordination with other systems, in line with the times, to establish, improve, and ensure a scientific and reasonable enterprise financial management model and prove its effectiveness. However, the existing research on the specific implementation of the integrated financial management model based on the theory and case studies is not specific enough, the process tracking is not detailed enough, the implementation effect evaluation theory lacks scientificity and integrity in the establishment of the index system, and the evaluation methods are relatively simple. In view of the above problems, this paper proposes the specific implementation steps and problems that need to be paid attention based on the financial management model for large listed companies, establishes the evaluation index system of enterprise implementation by using the method, and quantifies the listed companies before and after the implementation of integrated financial management. The comparisons give credible results. This paper is of great significance for improving the existing performance evaluation system, responding to national policies, promoting the development of enterprise informatization, and improving the success rate and competitiveness of enterprise integrated financial management implementation.

Infectious diseases and bioweapons: Science and the political economics of affliction

Brexit: A view from the BSI

In our rapidly expanding global scientific research enterprise, good science anywhere is good for science everywhere, provided that there exists an open flow of information with transparent processes to promote rigorous peer review and scientific integrity. Last year on this page, I emphasized that collaboration across national boundaries requires a global ecosystem that nurtures and accelerates the pace of scientific discoveries to address the many grand challenges facing humanity. * The heads of major science and engineering research funding agencies from nearly 50 countries—primarily representing the G-20 and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—took the first steps toward this goal by convening at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) in Virginia, for the first Global Merit Review Summit. The outcomes and momentum from the meeting, held on 14 and 15 May 2012, reflect the serious commitment of nations to ensure that science functions in a coherent and well-coordinated manner among developed and developing nations, maintains the public trust, and addresses each nation's unique needs for economic growth, national security, and human capital development.