InterAcademy Council Research Articles

On Becoming a Physicist of Mind

In 1976, the German Max Planck Society established a new research enterprise in psycholinguistics, which became the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics in Nijmegen, the Netherlands. I was fortunate enough to be invited to direct this institute. It enabled me, with my background in visual and auditory psychophysics and the theory of formal grammars and automata, to develop a long-term chronometric endeavor to dissect the process of speaking. It led, among other work, to my book Speaking (1989) and to my research team's article in Brain and Behavioral Sciences “A Theory of Lexical Access in Speech Production” (1999). When I later became president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, I helped initiate the Women for Science research project of the Inter Academy Council, a project chaired by my physicist sister at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. As an emeritus I published a comprehensive History of Psycholinguistics (2013). As will become clear, many people inspired and joined me in these undertakings.

Responsible conduct of research: enhancing local opportunities.

Research integrity is the foundation of credible research and a pre-requisite for a successful academic research environment. Lately, a lot of revelations of fraud and other unacceptable behaviour in research have been highly publicized in scientific journals and mass media. Whereas institutions in developed countries have developed guidelines and regulations to ensure responsible conduct of research and appropriately deal with cases of research misconduct, low- and middle-income countries seem to be lagging behind. In Uganda, there seems to be lack of coordinated efforts to address the problem of research misconduct both at the national and institutional level. To propose a framework for fostering scientific integrity and deterring misconduct in research in Ugandan research and academic institutions. A review of literature on scientific integrity, scientific misconduct, responsible conduct of research, and international ethical guidelines was done. Basing on the 2012 Inter-Academy Council policy report, initiatives to promote responsible conduct of research in Ugandan research and academic institutions are proposed. With the proposed framework, an honest and trustworthy research enterprise in Uganda based on principles of scientific integrity is envisioned.

University Rankings Could Bias Funding

The News & Analysis story 'Brussels ranking' of universities off to a rocky start (T. Rabesandratana, 25 January, p. [383][1]) discusses a new plan for ranking universities called the U-Multirank, which rates universities according to their quality. This plan may lead to a polarization of research funding. The misuse of such a university ranking list may aggravate an existing bias in the review process: Research teams from well-rated universities, which in most cases already have good funding, have an advantage compared with research groups at low-rated universities when competing for funding resources ([ 1 ][2]). Ranking universities may also aggravate the already difficult access to financial support for junior research groups; senior research groups, with larger and well-funded laboratories ([ 2 ][3]), are more likely to be affiliated with well-rated universities. Ranking universities is not new (for example, the Academic Ranking of World Universities has existed for a decade), but emphasizing the importance of such lists, as seems to be the European Union's intent for the U-Multirank, may harm the research enterprise. If a university's rank is used to judge research proposals and allocate funding, high-quality and innovative research ideas proposed by researchers at low-rated universities may never see the light of day. 1. [↵][4] InterAcademy Council and IAP (The Global Network of Science Academies), Responsible conduct in the global research enterprise: A policy report (2012); [www.interacademies.net/10878/19787.aspx][5]. 2. [↵][6] 1. A. A. Hyman , Science 339, 119 (2013). [OpenUrl][7][Abstract/FREE Full Text][8] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.339.6118.383 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [5]: http://www.interacademies.net/10878/19787.aspx [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DHyman%26rft.auinit1%253DA.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D339%26rft.issue%253D6116%26rft.spage%253D119%26rft.epage%253D119%26rft.atitle%253DFunding%2BInnovative%2BScience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1234741%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F23307707%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMzkvNjExNi8xMTkiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyNToiL3NjaS8zMzkvNjEyNS8xMjc0LjMuYXRvbSI7fXM6ODoiZnJhZ21lbnQiO3M6MDoiIjt9

Responsible Research Conduct

Last Month, the Interacademy Council (IAC) and the Interacademy Panel (IAP), the Global network of science academies, released a report on responsible behavior in science. * The recommendations of the committee, which we chaired, were inspired by several trends in today's research environment that have made it an exciting time to do research, but have also made science a more complicated enterprise, raising concerns about ethical conduct and values.

Between Tribalism and Trust: The IPCC Under the "Public Microscope"

This article explores how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has dealt with growing public scrutiny of its workings. It reviews recent initiatives set up to respond to the Climategate controversy. An independent review of the IPCC undertaken by an international scientific umbrella body—InterAcademy Council—can be shown to have triggered one of the turning points in the debate, placing the focus of attention on the IPCC's transparency and accountability. However, the council's recommendations have been implemented by the IPCC in such a way that the issue of public trust is treated as one of effective communication. The article then explains how IPCC's responses to Climategate can be traced back to the linear model of expertise. The article concludes with a discussion why the challenge of producing policy-relevant knowledge under conditions of heightened public scrutiny also requires new forms of scientific appraisal aimed at wider publics.

PROTOCOL: Farmer Field Schools for Improving Farming Practices and Farmer Outcomes in Low‐ and Middle‐income Countries: A Systematic Review

Farmer field schools (FFS) are a common approach used to transfer specialist knowledge, promote skills and empower farmers around the world. At least 10 million farmers in 90 countries have attended such schools. FFS are implemented by facilitators using participatory "discovery-based" learning based on adult education principles. Many different implementing bodies have been involved. Field schools have a range of objectives, including tackling overuse of pesticides and other harmful practices, improving agricultural and environmental outcomes, and empowering disadvantaged farmers such as women. We conducted a systematic review of evidence on FFS implementation to investigate whether FFS make a difference, to which farmers, and why or why not. We synthesised quantitative evidence on intervention effects using statistical meta-analysis, and qualitative evidence on the barriers and enablers of effectiveness using a theory of change framework. The results of statistical meta-analysis provide evidence that FFS are beneficial in improving intermediate outcomes relating to knowledge learned and adoption of beneficial practices, as well as final outcomes relating to agricultural production and farmers' incomes. The findings suggest this to be the case for FFS promoting integrated pest management (IPM) technology, as well as other techniques. However, the rigorous impact evaluation evidence base is small and there are no studies that we were able to identify as having a low risk of bias. There is no evidence that neighbouring non-participant farmers benefit from diffusion of IPM knowledge from FFS participants. Therefore, they do not experience improvements in IPM adoption and agriculture outcomes. The evidence of positive effects on agricultural outcomes is largely limited to short-term evaluations of pilot programmes. In the few examples where FFS have been scaled up, the evidence does not suggest they have been effective in improving agricultural outcomes among participating farmers or neighbouring non-participants. Although empowerment is a major objective of many FFS, very few studies have collected information on this outcome in a rigorous manner. A few studies suggest farmers feel greater self-confidence. What explains the lack of scalable effects among FFS participants, or diffusion of IPM practices among the community? FFS differ from standard agricultural extension interventions, which tend to focus on disseminating knowledge of more simple practices such as application of fertiliser and pesticides, or adoption of improved seeds. The experiential nature of the training, and the need for the benefits of the FFS technology to be observed, are barriers to spontaneous diffusion. Furthermore, the effectiveness of scaled-up interventions has been hampered by problems in recruiting and training appropriate facilitators at scale. The review provides implications for policy, practice and research.

Making More Food Available: Promoting Sustainable Agricultural Production

During the 20th century food availability worldwide has increased considerably. The increase in population was outnumbered by the productivity increase in agriculture mainly by higher yields per ha. Globally there is more food available per person than ever before. In the coming decades the world population will further increase and diets will change requiring a doubling of plant production worldwide by 2050. Especially the increase in demand will be substantial in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The strategies to attain food security in these two continents have to be different, making use of agroecological potentials and eliminating limitations through measures that are geared to location specific conditions (WRR 1995; InterAcademy Council 2004). It is important in this regard to note the production systems in agriculture evolve over time depending on the development stage of society because of their changing desires, advances in technology and institutional and market conditions (Pingali 1997). With regard to the entire national and global food system, revolutionary changes take place in different stages and components of food production (e.g., Fig. 1) to processing, market and institutional structures to manage food distribution, such as private of public storage of food, and in the competition in allocation of natural resources to produce different goods and services. In this paper historical trends will be discussed and possibilities for food security in the decades to come will be described as will be the way to do that by addressing the major challenges for the 21st century. These options will be illustrated indicating that ecological modernization based on basic principles offers opportunities and chances that should be optimally utilized. That may also contribute considerably to the conservation of natural ecosystems and the better use of ecosystems services.

Evaluation, characterization, and communication of uncertainty by the intergovernmental panel on climate change—an introductory essay

Since its inception in 1988, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has worked with the growing recognition that uncertainty is pervasive in our understanding of the climate system: what drives climate change, what will determine its future course, and what influence it will have on important social and ecological aspects of our world. It is not news that the IPCC has struggled, with varying degrees of success, in its efforts to describe these uncertainties and to judge the confidence with which it can offer its major conclusions. Richard Moss and Stephen Schneider (Moss and Schneider 2000) were the lead authors of IPCC’s first attempt to provide some guidance for authors in this regard, during the preparation of the Third Assessment Report (the TAR). A second guidance document was created by an author team headed by Martin Manning and Rob Swart (Manning et al. 2004) after an expert meeting to support the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), and yet another version was produced after another expert meeting by a crossworking group team (Mastrandrea et al. 2010) as chapter authors assembled to begin their work on the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). This most recent attempt, informed by the history of previous assessments, is the point of departure for the papers in this special issue of Climatic Change. AR5 authors must do their work in a world that is marked by several recent, major changes in the climate change landscape that present larger challenges and opportunities. First of all, the Inter-Academy Council (IAC 2010) review of IPCC emphasized the treatment of uncertainty and, among other things, called for improvement in the way IPCC describes and communicates uncertainty with particular emphasis on increased consistency Climatic Change (2011) 108:629–639 DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0176-8

Improving conveyance of uncertainties in the findings of the IPCC

Authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) received guidance on reporting understanding, certainty and/or confidence in findings using a common language, to better communicate with decision makers. However, a review of the IPCC conducted by the InterAcademy Council (2010) found that “the guidance was not consistently followed in AR4, leading to unnecessary errors . . . the guidance was often applied to statements that are so vague they cannot be falsified. In these cases the impression was often left, quite incorrectly, that a substantive finding was being presented.” Our comprehensive and quantitative analysis of findings and associated uncertainty in the AR4 supports the IAC findings and suggests opportunities for improvement in future assessments.

Report Calls for Climate Panel Reforms

The process by which the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) operates and produces its periodic assessments requires some fundamental changes so that it is more effective and transparent, according to a 30 August report of the Inter‐Academy Council (IAC). The report recommends modernizing the IPCC management structure, including imposing a limit of one term for the IPCC chair and other key IPCC leaders, to “ensure a greater infusion of fresh perspectives on the assessments.” The report notes that a two‐term appointment, for a total of 12 years, “is too long for a field as dynamic and contested as climate change.” Current IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri is in his second term and has held the position since 2002.

Independent review slated for climate change panel

The InterAcademy Council (IAC) has agreed to conduct an independent review of the processes and procedures followed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in preparing its assessment reports. The review was requested by IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri and United Nations secretary general Ban Ki‐moon following some criticism of IPCC, including the inclusion in IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of non‐peer‐reviewed information about the disappearance of Himalaya glaciers.At a 10 March briefing, Ban noted that there were “a very small number of errors” in AR4 and that the IPCC process needs to ensure “full transparency, accuracy, and objectivity, and minimize the potential for any errors going forward.” Ban added, “The threat posed by climate change is real. Nothing that has been alleged or revealed in the media recently alters the fundamental scientific consensus on climate change, nor does it diminish the unique importance of the IPCC work.”

CLIMATE-CHANGE PANEL UNDER SCRUTINY

A GLOBAL COALITION of national science academies will review how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) operates, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon announced last week. The InterAcademy Council will convene the review panel, which will operate “completely independently of the UN,” Ban said. The details given by Ban flesh out a late-February UN announcement that a probe of IPCC activities would take place (C&EN, March 8, page 8). Science academies from around the world created the InterAcademy Council in 2000 to provide high-quality peer-reviewed advice to international organizations such as the World Bank and the UN. Its board consists of the presidents of national science academies from 15 countries, including the U.S. IPCC, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for its assessments of climate-change science, has faced a rising tide of criticism in recent months about its scientific integrity. Controversy continues to swirl around e-mails, originally circulated among prominen...

Bruce Alberts: Education, education, education

Bruce Alberts needs no introduction to our readers, each one of whom is sure to have a thoroughly dog-eared copy of “Molecular Biology of the Cell” (1). Alberts, a co-author of this bible of biology, has not only been shaping the scientific landscape through his research (2, 3), but also influencing the way science is done (4), and the way science is taught (5, 6). Not bad for a man who failed his PhD exam on the first attempt. Alberts was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1987, and served as its President from 1993 to 2005. He is a member of the American Society for Cell Biology and served as its President in 2007. Since 2000, he has been the Co-Chair of the InterAcademy Council (the association of Science Academies from around the world). And this March he was appointed as Editor-in-Chief of Science magazine. On top of all this, he still manages to hold down a day job: he is a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics at the University of California, San Francisco. Figure 1 Bruce Alberts TOM KOCHEL Despite having a schedule busier than an international airport, Alberts made time to talk with us and share his dreams for a scientifically empowered global populace.

Revitalising African agriculture through innovative business models and organisational arrangements: promising developments in the traditional crops sector

Within the last four years, a number of high profile reports outlining new strategies for pulling African agriculture out of its current impasse have emerged. These include the Comprehensive African Agriculture Development Programme of NEPAD, and the InterAcademy Council Report commissioned by UN Secretary General Koffi Annan. Whilst these strategies are a welcome improvement on those that have characterised African agriculture in the past, it is argued here that like their predecessors, they fail to focus on business-competitive approaches as an integral part of the reform package needed to stimulate African agricultural productivity and development. This paper draws on innovation, business and organisation literature to highlight some of these approaches. It focuses on three concepts: value innovation, lead user focus and organisational value logic.

New World Council

The creation of a new council to provide international bodies such as the United Nations and the World Bank with impartial advice on science, engineering, and medical issues of global concern was announced by a group of national science academies on May 15.The InterAcademy Council (IAC), headquartered at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences in Amsterdam, will serve as a formal advisory body, funded on a project‐by‐project basis by international agencies.

Global Science Advisory Board Created

To address science issues of international concern, a group of science academies from around the world has announced formation of a new organization, the InterAcademy Council (IAC). council will be headquartered at the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences in Amsterdam. idea for the new organization, championed by U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) President Bruce Alberts, has been endorsed by the leaders of 80 national science academies worldwide. Together, in 1993 they formed the InterAcademy Panel on International Issues (IAP), which met last week in Tokyo, where a name, governance structure, and location of IAC were decided. We shall be developing a very ambitious agenda for science—aiming to engage scientists everywhere more deeply with their own governments and societies, Alberts said of the new organization at his annual address last month to NAS members. The new council will function as a formal advisory body funded on a project-by-project basis by international ...