Science Advocacy Research Articles

Love Slaves and Wonder Women: Radical Feminism and Social Reform in the Psychology of William Moulton Marston

In contemporary histories of psychology, William Moulton Marston is remembered for helping develop the lie detector test. He is better remembered in the history of popular culture for creating the comic book superhero Wonder Woman. In his time, however, he contributed to psychological research in deception, basic emotions, abnormal psychology, sexuality, and consciousness. He was also a radical feminist with connections to women's rights movements. Marston's work is an instructive case for philosophers of science on the relation between science and values. Although Marston's case provides further evidence of the role that feminist values can play in scientific work, it also poses challenges to philosophical accounts of value-laden science. Marston's work exemplifies standard views about feminist value-laden research in that his feminist values help him both to criticize the research of others and create novel psychological concepts and research techniques. His scientific work includes an account of the nature of psycho-emotional health that leads to normative conclusions for individual values and conduct and for society and culture, a direction of influence that is relatively under-theorized in the literature. To understand and evaluate Marston's work requires an approach that treats science and values as mutually influencing; it also requires that we understand the relationship between science advising and political advocacy in value-laden science.

A beginner's guide to getting involved in science advocacy.

Every scientist in the United States likely has a story of how the federal funding crisis for biomedical research has affected him or her personally. The sharing of these powerful anecdotes will enable policy makers to fully grasp the extent to which the decline in federal funding has negatively affected the scientific community. However, many scientists do not know where to begin or are uncertain that their advocacy efforts will have an impact. In an effort to encourage more scientists to become involved in science advocacy, we describe how to form and maintain a student science advocacy group.

Speaking Up For Science

Communicating science and being an advocate for public support of research are critical roles for scientists. However, despite having the most relevant expertise, many of us do not get involved in matters bridging science and policy. Here I discuss the importance of science advocacy by researchers, and present strategies for communicating the relevance of your work to the public and elected officials, including the crafting of a two-minute pitch - a valuable skill for all scientists.

The role of race and ethnicity in climate change polarization: evidence from a U.S. national survey experiment

Research suggests that public divides on climate change may often be rooted in identity processes, driven in part by a motivation to associate with others with similar political and ideological views. In a large split-ballot national survey experiment of 2041 U.S. adults, we explored the role of a non-partisan identity—racial/ethnic majority and minority status—in climate change opinion, in addition to respondents’ political orientation (i.e., ideology and party affiliation). Specifically, we examined respondents’ climate beliefs and policy support, identification with groups that support environmental causes (“environmentalists”), and the sensitivity of these beliefs to other factors known to predict issue polarization (political orientation and issue framing). Results revealed that across all opinion metrics, non-Whites’ views were less politically polarized than those of Whites and were unaffected by exposure to different ways of framing the issue (as “global warming” versus “climate change”). Moreover, non-Whites were reliably less likely to self-identify as environmentalists compared to Whites, despite expressing existence beliefs and support for regulating greenhouse gases at levels comparable to Whites. These findings suggest that racial and ethnic identities can shape core climate change beliefs in previously overlooked ways. We consider implications for public outreach and climate science advocacy.

Comparing Student and Professional Responses Toward Advocacy in Science

ABSTRACTTo advance the conversation about scientists’ roles in advocacy, we conducted an exploratory study examining the perspectives of students alongside those of academic faculty and other natural resource professionals. We surveyed wildlife and natural resource students and professionals, mostly in the Southeastern United States, and found areas of agreement and contention that can be used for promoting communication across groups engaged in science and policy. Groups disagreed about what actions constitute advocacy and what roles are acceptable for scientists, but groups agreed scientists should engage in advocacy to influence policy. The majority of respondents lacked previous formal training about these topics. Given growing support for closer relationships between scientists and advocacy seen in this and other published works, our findings suggest that educational opportunities be made available to emerging and established scientists. Opportunities should foster a deeper understanding of the science–advocacy nexus and aid in making informed decisions about the appropriate role of scientists.

Abstract C88: Genomics, advocacy, and emerging therapeutics to address triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) outcome disparities.

Abstract Background: Collaborative team science provides a starting point for comprehensive change, and advocates have a unique and important role developing and engaging in transdisciplinary collaboratives that focus on new questions and new possibilities to advance the science of ethnic and medically underserved health care disparities. Participating in four areas : 1) research and programmatic support, 2) education and outreach, 3) policy and strategy, and 4) representation and advisory, the UCSF Breast Science Advocacy Core (BSAC) Program, a volunteer affiliate of the Breast Oncology Program (BOP), one of ten multidisciplinary research programs under the umbrella of the UCSF Helen Diller Comprehensive Cancer Center promotes a transformative, transdisciplinary, integrated environment to study the biological basis of the diseases that comprise breast cancer; to define the risk of developing or progressing with specific types of breast cancer; to develop novel interventions that work locally and globally to reduce morbidity and mortality from breast cancer and its treatment; and to leverage new collaborative research, education, and mentoring/training opportunities that address cancer outcome disparities. Advocates involved in KOMEN, DOD, PCORI, AND CBCRP funded research and training grants apply four core principles that forge synergy with NCI Advocacy Research Working Group Recommendations: 1)strategic innovation, 2)collaborative execution, 3)evidence based decision-making, and 4) ethical codes of conduct. Embracing transdisciplinary professionalism, researchers and advocates build on their track record as shared value partners committed to furthering the collective impact of science advocacy exchange (SAE). Study Objectives: Genomic analyses of patient tumors have unearthed an overwhelming number of recurrent somatic alterations in genes that have dramatic effects on tumor biology, patient drug responses, and clinical outcomes. In one study, high grade triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 34% of breast cancers in African American women versus 21% in white women. A growing body of evidence has shown that African American women have biologically more aggressive disease, independent of social determinants, and suffer the highest mortality rates. While biological breakthroughs of the last decade have greatly advanced our understanding of cancer, in advanced TNBC, a poor prognosis subtype, there is an urgent need to translate this evolving patient genomic data into new therapeutic paradigms. Our study focuses on the intersection of synthetic lethal approaches, MYC driven human cancers, and immunotherapy as an “innovation agenda”. A distinct MYC vision highlights how overexpression is associated with aggressive outcomes and poor patient outcomes, and synthetic lethal strategies to target MYC (CDK inhibitors, PIM2, as well as the PDI immune pathways) have potential for addressing outcome disparities In African American Women with Triple Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC). Key Findings: We have developed a screening technique that can be used to rapidly and accurately identify potential synthetic lethal interactions in TNBC. This platform utilizes an isogenic cell line system that we have developed to model oncogene activation in TNBC. A growing body of evidence has shown that: 1) Quantitative approach maps genotype-specific drug responses in isogenic cells 2) Systematic discovery of biomarkers for cancer drugs under clinical investigation 3) Clinically actionable synthetic lethal interaction between MYC and dasatinib is discovered 4) Mechanism of dasatinib action through inhibition of LYN kinase is described Key Take-Away Message: The inclusion of advocates in convergent science settings remind academic stakeholders that research is there to benefit the patient as they attempt to spark innovation, democratize science, and support smarter interventions that expedite the incredible potential of future investments in bioscience within disparities arenas. Citation Format: Susan Samson, Alicia Y. Zhou, Maria Martins, Alexandra Corella, Dai Horiuchi, Christina Yau, Taha Rakshandehroo, John Gordan, Rebecca Levin, Jeff Johnson, John Jascur, Mike Shales, Antonio Sorrentino, Jaime Cheah, Paul Clemens, Alykhan Shamji, Stuart Schreiber, Nevan Krogan, Kevan Shokat, Frank McCormick, Sourav Bandyopadhyay, Andrei Goga. Genomics, advocacy, and emerging therapeutics to address triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) outcome disparities. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Eighth AACR Conference on The Science of Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; Nov 13-16, 2015; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016;25(3 Suppl):Abstract nr C88.

Science Committee Chair Pummeled Research Agencies

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) isn’t one to back down from a skirmish with the science community. In 2015, the chair of the House of Representatives Science, Space & Technology Committee has continued to investigate research and policy at several science agencies, despite pushback from science advocacy groups. Earlier this year, Smith and the National Science Foundation came to a detente over his two-year-long investigation into several NSF grants—primarily social sciences and climate change research—that Smith found objectionable. Smith also asked for changes in NSF’s peer review process, including forcing NSF employees to personally certify that any grant the agency gives is in the national interest. Science organizations feared that interference could take NSF away from its basic mission and deter scientists from pursuing research without a clear outcome. NSF and Smith eventually overcame their stalemate when Director France Cordova conceded that NSF’s original charter was broad enough to cover the ...

The Politics and Crisis Management of Animal Health Security

Even as the lessons learned from the response to the 2014–2015 Ebola outbreak in West Africa begin to be analyzed, history provides other key examples of health crises that challenge traditional thinking and, in some cases, government structures themselves. In his new book The Politics and Crisis Management of Animal Health Security, author John Connolly examines the events and aftermath of the 2001 foot and mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United Kingdom, an event that cost >£8 billion (US ≈$11.6 billion), resulted in the death or slaughter of 6.5 million animals, and led to the country’s first delay in a national election since World War II. Caused by a picornavirus, FMD affects cloven-hoofed animals including sheep, cattle, and pigs. Because of the disease’s highly infectious nature, FMD-free countries like the UK must respond quickly to outbreaks because of economic trade consequences; a quick and well-coordinated response is key to success. However, in 2001, some early and notable missteps in UK government decisions, including a 3-day lag in imposing national animal movement bans, led to viral spread via animal movements and a mushrooming of the national crisis. The atmosphere of the outbreak response was highly charged, and battles between government and stakeholders played out daily in the media with political cartoons and images of burning carcasses. The crisis led to the dissolution of the country’s Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and the creation of the new Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). In his book, Connelly asks, have the lessons learned during the aftermath of the 2001 FMD outbreak been adequately applied, and is the UK better prepared to deal with a substantial animal health crisis in the future? Written in multiple parts, this book provides an initial primer in crisis management and defines theoretical drivers of change. Connelly describes the FMD outbreak in the United Kingdom as a “critical juncture” situation: that is, a public crisis combined with the political climate to drive necessary organizational change. Next, the book takes the reader through a description of the acute crisis, including technical details of the outbreak’s spread and the primary features of the government response. The book then moves the reader into an understanding of DEFRA’s post-FMD crisis management and how the new agency tackled a “fix” to the problem through contingency planning, improved communications, science advocacy, and stakeholder engagement. Finally, the book reviews the efficacy of DEFRA’s new plans, as executed during a 2006–2007 avian influenza A(H5N1) crisis and a 2007 outbreak of FMD associated with an accidental laboratory release. The author’s conclusions are that many of the lessons learned from the 2001 outbreak have resulted in positive change and a stronger capacity for the government to respond to recent and future outbreaks. Reviewing this book carries personal significance for me, as I spent a month in England in 2001 helping the United Kingdom as part of the response. I talked directly with the farmers at the epicenter of the outbreak and saw firsthand the public distrust fueled by challenges in communicating government decisions. Now, working in public affairs and scientific communications myself, I found it very informative to review this book and look back at that time through a new professional lens. The book lacks, perhaps, a robust discussion of the role of media and public outcry in shaping government policy decisions, but nonetheless proves an excellent reference for anyone who wishes to understand organizational change in response to crises, particularly in the health and veterinary sectors. The positive changes that have taken place since 2001 provide me with hope that the United Kingdom—and other countries that choose to pay close attention—may indeed be better prepared for future outbreak responses.

Improving credibility and transparency of conservation impact evaluations through the partial identification approach.

The fundamental challenge of evaluating the impact of conservation interventions is that researchers must estimate the difference between the outcome after an intervention occurred and what the outcome would have been without it (counterfactual). Because the counterfactual is unobservable, researchers must make an untestable assumption that some units (e.g., organisms or sites) that were not exposed to the intervention can be used as a surrogate for the counterfactual (control). The conventional approach is to make a point estimate (i.e., single number along with a confidence interval) of impact, using, for example, regression. Point estimates provide powerful conclusions, but in nonexperimental contexts they depend on strong assumptions about the counterfactual that often lack transparency and credibility. An alternative approach, called partial identification (PI), is to first estimate what the counterfactual bounds would be if the weakest possible assumptions were made. Then, one narrows the bounds by using stronger but credible assumptions based on an understanding of why units were selected for the intervention and how they might respond to it. We applied this approach and compared it with conventional approaches by estimating the impact of a conservation program that removed invasive trees in part of the Cape Floristic Region. Even when we used our largest PI impact estimate, the program's control costs were 1.4 times higher than previously estimated. PI holds promise for applications in conservation science because it encourages researchers to better understand and account for treatment selection biases; can offer insights into the plausibility of conventional point-estimate approaches; could reduce the problem of advocacy in science; might be easier for stakeholders to agree on a bounded estimate than a point estimate where impacts are contentious; and requires only basic arithmetic skills.

Preface to the 50th anniversary issue of the Journal of Materials Science

In his book ‘‘The Coming of Materials Science’’ [1], the late Professor Robert Wolfgang Cahn FRS documented the rise of Materials Science as a distinct discipline from its roots in solid-state physics, metallurgy, polymer chemistry, inorganic chemistry, mineralogy, glass, and ceramic technology. The development of the discipline was a process in which he was intimately involved from 1942 when he enrolled at Trinity College, Cambridge to read Metallurgy, to his death from leukemia in 2007. His technical contributions were remarkably diverse, spanning such areas as: defects and deformation mechanisms, crystal growth, recrystallization, intermetallic compounds, and metallic glasses. It was these broad interests that led him to become such a staunch advocate for Materials Science as a discipline. Another of his passions was scientific editing, and he is remembered as much for his editing of several major journals and books as he is for his scientific research work. In 1964, Robert Cahn was invited by the publishers Chapman and Hall to establish the Journal of Materials Science as the first broad-spectrum Materials Science journal. As Chairman of Editors, he recruited a group of Editors with complementary areas of expertise, gave them independent powers of decision on submitted papers, and encouraged them to be pro-active in soliciting papers from key researchers on novel topics. This helped to ensure that the journal fulfilled its mission of being a broad-spectrum inclusive periodical that brought together work on different classes of materials using a wide variety of different experimental and theoretical approaches. The first issue appeared in April of 1966, and the Journal grew rapidly over the next few years to become a major international forum for research in Materials Science. In Robert Cahn’s memoirs [2], he said that the years he devoted to creating the Journal of Materials Science represented his single most important editorial contribution to the field. Over the last five decades, there have been many changes to the Journal, to the community that it serves, and to the field as a whole. The publishers have undergone several re-organizations and changes of ownership, and are now part of the Springer Nature group. Specialist sister journals have been spun off in the areas of Materials in Electronics and Materials in Medicine, while others such as Interface Science have been incorporated into the main journal. The community has broadened to encompass more biologists, chemists, and physicists due to developments in, for example, tissue engineering, nanostructured catalysts, and functional oxides, respectively. There have also been dramatic changes in the synthesis, processing, characterization, and computational modeling techniques available to materials scientists, and these advances have had a revolutionary effect on research directions in the field. Throughout, the Editors have maintained an open and flexible definition of Materials Science so that the Journal remains true to Robert Cahn’s original vision of a broadspectrum publication. This has been helped by stability in the leadership of the Journal with just four Chairmen/ Editors-in-Chief over the first 50 years: Professors Robert Cahn, William Bonfield, Rees Rawlings, and since 2004, C. Barry Carter. In 2006, the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Journal was marked with a special issue (volume 41, issue 3) comprising reviews, original research articles, and commentaries written by current and former Editors. The & Mark Aindow m.aindow@uconn.edu

Scientific advocacy, environmental interest groups, and climate change: are climate skeptic portrayals of climate scientists as biased accurate?

Public discourse on climate change often refers to possible bias among climate scientists as a rationale for limited climate policy action by the United States. Part of this discussion is the association of scientists with environmental interest groups and whether such affiliations facilitate the perception that climate scientists lack objectivity. While surveys suggest that some climate scientists disapprove of affiliations with interest groups, recent research indicates that climate scientists are quite likely to be involved with environmental organizations. This paper compares the affiliations of scientists and the general public to discern whether scientists are uniquely likely to affiliate with interest groups or they simply share characteristics common to the public who also affiliate with these organizations. Our findings suggest that climate scientists are no more likely to donate money, but are less likely to sign a petition or attend a demonstration, when controlling for other factors. These results strengthen our understanding of the affiliations between scientists and interest groups and hold implications for the accuracy of popular perceptions of climate scientists.

Crossing boundaries and building bridges: integrative zoology

The invited papers in this special issue highlight contributions to the symposium with the same title, held at Genomes to Biomes: the First Joint Meeting of the Canadian Society for Ecology and Evolution, the Canadian Society of Zoologists, and the Society of Canadian Limnologists. Today, leading researchers cross boundaries between layers of biological organization and traditional areas of expertise, and increasingly reach beyond their historical role in society to serve as public educators and science advocates. This series includes reviews of the integrative study of animals ranging from the very small (the world’s southernmost insect) to the very large (rorqual whales), a review on using ancient DNA to elucidate the physiology of long-extinct animals, and research articles that take us from the proteomic response of honey bees to Israeli acute paralysis virus (IAPV) infection to the geographic spread of a harmful invasive earthworm in the boreal forest.

A new vision for the National Library of Medicine

This summer, with the retirement of Donald A.B. Lindberg, MD, after 31 years from the National Library of Medicine (NLM), the National Institutes of Health director, Francis Collins, MD, PhD, charged the NLM working group to articulate a new, strategic vision for the NLM. The NLM has been a tremendous supporter of informatics, and this new report provides insight into the role that NLM will play in the future. It articulates a vision for how the NLM can continue to be a trustworthy source of biomedical data and information, an advocate for open science, a promoter of the next generation of data scientists, a protector of the legacy of the past, and a vital partner for those who are generating biomedical knowledge for the future. The NLM working group put out a request for information (RFI) (see http://www.nlm.nih.gov/news/nih\_rfi\_nlm\_working\_group.html) and received over 650 responses both domestically and internationally.1 The training programs and programs that provided access to medical information such as PubMed …

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science.

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.

Leadership and management influences the outcome of wildlife reintroduction programs: findings from the Sea Eagle Recovery Project.

Wildlife reintroductions and translocations are statistically unlikely to succeed. Nevertheless, they remain a critical part of conservation because they are the only way to actively restore a species into a habitat from which it has been extirpated. Past efforts to improve these practices have attributed the low success rate to failures in the biological knowledge (e.g., ignorance of social behavior, poor release site selection), or to the inherent challenges of reinstating a species into an area where threats have already driven it to local extinction. Such research presumes that the only way to improve reintroduction outcomes is through improved biological knowledge. This emphasis on biological solutions may have caused researchers to overlook the potential influence of other factors on reintroduction outcomes. I employed a grounded theory approach to study the leadership and management of a successful reintroduction program (the Sea Eagle Recovery Project in Scotland, UK) and identify four critical managerial elements that I theorize may have contributed to the successful outcome of this 50-year reintroduction. These elements are: 1. Leadership & Management: Small, dedicated team of accessible experts who provide strong political and scientific advocacy (“champions”) for the project. 2. Hierarchy & Autonomy: Hierarchical management structure that nevertheless permits high individual autonomy. 3. Goals & Evaluation: Formalized goal-setting and regular, critical evaluation of the project’s progress toward those goals. 4. Adaptive Public Relations: Adaptive outreach campaigns that are open, transparent, inclusive (esp. linguistically), and culturally relevant.

Twitter's not just for teenagers: A scientists' guide to getting started with Twitter in just 5 minutes a day

Twitter is an effective, powerful tool for scientists looking to keep abreast of trends in their field, communicate their research, and act as public advocates of science. With a simple 140-character Tweet, a person can announce new publications, comment on current events, share photos and updates of research, connect with budding young scientists, and more. Many people think that using Twitter is a massive time investment, but many basic Twitter activities can be conducted in the time it takes you to drink your morning coffee. This talk will introduce the basics of Twitter, show the power of Twitter, and demonstrate best practices for using Twitter with science—all in just 5 minutes a day.

Censoring government scientists and the role of consensus in science advice: a structured process for scientific advice in governments and peer-review in academia should shape science communication strategies.

Before the Second World War, science advocacy in politics was rare and usually only in the context of religious or philosophical debates. It seldom affected political decisions, elections or policies [1], [2]. During the war, the technological arms race with Nazi Germany gave scientific advisors great influence over military strategy and political decisions, in particular in the USA and the UK. After 1945, many governments continued to use either permanent or ad hoc scientific advisors, who shaped both research policy and influenced political decision‐making and discourse. An early example of actual political advocacy by scientists dates back to the 1964 US presidential race between Barry Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson, when “Scientists and Engineers for Johnson‐Humphreys” successfully campaigned against Goldwater's pro‐nuclear weapons position. Yet, even then, many scientists worried about the politicization of science, arguing that the integrity of scientific insights could only be maintained if science remained apolitical. Notwithstanding, scientists are increasingly called upon to participate in public policy discussions. Science advocacy has become commonly involved in issues ranging from the regulation of genetically modified foods to public health policies, to understanding and mitigating the effects of global climate change. Advocacy gives scientists an opportunity to shape political discourse and provide a rational and informed perspective, but it can lead to conflict between scientific advice and government policy. Although there remains a desire to keep science separate from politics, many scientists worry that, unless they openly voice their opinion and concerns, political decisions will not reflect their perspectives and could even distort scientific findings [3], [4]. For example, stem cell research was a polarizing topic throughout the 1990s and 2000s: In 1994, a scientific committee advising the director of the US National Institutes of Health devised a strategy to inform politicians who …

Booming university administrations

Booming university administrations

Offline: The necessity (and risks) of science advocacy

Should doctors ever convert a clinical problem into a campaign promise? If the experience of one correspondent is anything to go by, doctors should steer clear of anything that could be remotely branded “activist”. She is a prominent UK medical scientist, a person who has campaigned hard to promote clinical research. But in our modern NHS—where fear is the dominant leitmotiv—institutions tend to baulk at those they perceive to be troublemakers. Her outspoken comments have led to threats of dismissal. To keep her job, she was forced to sign a statement forbidding her to speak publicly. She lost the right to lead research projects. Her university would almost certainly like her to resign voluntarily. She worries that she will soon be sacrificed to save the institution's misguided actions. So it might seem like a mistake to make noise about a severe, yet hidden, health crisis in the UK, one that our medical and public health leaders seem happy to neglect.

Nutritional status as assessed by nutrient intakes and biomarkers among women of childbearing age--is the burden of nutrient inadequacies growing in America?

Understanding nutrient intakes among women of childbearing age within the USA is important given the accumulating evidence that maternal body weight gain and nutrient intakes prior to pregnancy may influence the health and well-being of the offspring. The objective of the present study was to evaluate nutritional status in women of childbearing age and to ascertain the influence of ethnicity and income on nutrient intakes. Nutritional status was assessed using data on nutrient intakes through foods and supplements from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Biomarker data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention were used to assess nutritional status for selected nutrients. Poverty-income ratio was used to assess family income. White (n 1560), African-American (n 889) and Mexican-American (n 761) women aged 19-30 and 31-50 years were included. A nationally representative sample of non-pregnant women of childbearing age resident in the USA. African-American women had the lowest intakes of fibre, folate, riboflavin, P, K, Ca and Mg. Women (31-50 years) with a poverty-income ratio of ≤ 1.85 had significantly lower intakes of almost all nutrients analysed. Irrespective of ethnicity and income, a significant percentage of women were not consuming the estimated recommended amounts (Estimated Average Requirement) of several key nutrients: vitamin A (~80%), vitamin D (~78%) and fibre (~92%). Nutrient biomarker data were generally reflective of nutrient intake patterns among the different ethnic groups. Women of childbearing age in the USA are not meeting nutrient intake guidelines, with differences between ethnic groups and socio-economic strata. These factors should be considered when establishing nutrition science advocacy and policy.