History of Science Society

Dr. Gormley Goes to Washington, Part 8

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

May, 2016
Washington, D.C.

The Historian’s Personal, Professional, and Public Obligations

I am helping the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enhance its ethical culture by working with two programs focused on ethics and compliance: Scientific Integrity and Human Subjects Research. Paying so much attention to integrity, ethics, and responsibility has me thinking regularly about my personal, professional, and public obligations as an historian.

Every historian has a personal obligation to uphold certain standards whether those standards are set by the scholar or by another authority. When I fulfill this obligation then I can hold my head high and be proud of my work and actions. Our professional obligation is to our peers and employers and how we fulfill it reflects on our discipline and workplaces. When I publish, other historians should be able to trust that I have performed my work responsibly and thoroughly and have conveyed it honestly and accurately. When a historian is found guilty of falsification, fabrication, or plagiarism, it not only mars that person’s credibility, but can also harm the discipline’s reputation. Our public obligations are fulfilled by applying our expertise and skills to serve a public need. I can do this by targeting diverse audiences whether my approach is education, advising, or advocacy.*

Many professional societies have codes of conduct or ethics statements explaining responsible research (and sometimes teaching) practices and noting the importance of professional and public service. Rather than draft its own ethical guidelines, the History of Science Society (HSS) refers its members to the American Historical Association’s (AHA’s) Statement on Standards of Professional Conduct (updated 2011). Below are excerpts from AHA’s statement that speak to our obligations. Each is prefaced with the title of the section from which I extracted it.

Shared Values of Historians: “Historians cannot successfully do this work without mutual trust and respect. By practicing their craft with integrity, historians acquire a reputation for trustworthiness that is arguably their single most precious professional asset. The trust and respect both of one’s peers and of the public at large are among the greatest and most hard-won achievements that any historian can attain.”

Plagiarism: “All historians share responsibility for defending high standards of intellectual integrity. … Scholarship flourishes in an atmosphere of openness and candor, which should include the scrutiny and public discussion of academic deception.”

History in the Public Realm: “Because interpreting the past is so vital to democratic debate and civic life in the public realm, historians regularly have the opportunity to discuss the implications of their knowledge for concerns and controversies in the present—including present controversies about past events. It is one of the privileges of our profession to share historical insights and interpretations with a wider public, wherever the locus of our employment. We should welcome the chance to do so, and the institutions that employ historians should recognize the importance of this aspect of our work.”

For those who teach and do research, the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP’s) Statement on Professional Ethics is also applicable. The Statement has five sections and the below excerpts are prefaced by their section number.

Section 1: “Professors, guided by a deep conviction of the worth and dignity of the advancement of knowledge, recognize the special responsibilities placed upon them. Their primary responsibility to their subject is to seek and to state the truth as they see it.”

Section 2: “Professors demonstrate respect for students as individuals and adhere to their proper roles as intellectual guides and counselors. Professors make every reasonable effort to foster honest academic conduct and to ensure that their evaluations of students reflect each student’s true merit.”

Section 5: “As citizens engaged in a profession that depends upon freedom for its health and integrity, professors have a particular obligation to promote conditions of free inquiry and to further public understanding of academic freedom.”

HSS recently adopted a new strategic plan that it is implementing. Two sections are particularly relevant to our obligations as historians and members of HSS.

Goal 4: BROADENING OUR REACH: “Promote general interest in history of science among educators at all levels and the public, in part by providing opportunities to scholars to expand their audiences and make their work more effective and relevant.”

Goal 5: ADVOCACY: “Promote history of science in the United States by advocating on behalf of the field and its practitioners to the public, to government officials, to universities, and to potential employers of historians of science; and support advocacy of history of science in other countries.”

As you think about your obligations and how you do and will fulfill them, check out these other resources.

· History Relevance Campaign, history professionals who promulgate the value of history

· Online Ethics Center, resources for teaching research ethics to scientists and engineers

· AHA’s Guiding Principles on Taking a Public Stance in defense of history and historians

· 4Humanities.org, an international community advocating for the humanities

· Historian and ethicist Nicholas Steneck’s Code of Conduct for Advocacy for Science, guidelines for communicating research that can be applied to areas other than science

* Definitions for the three obligations can be found in On Being a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct in Research, third edition, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2009, pages 2-3.

Dr. Gormley Goes to Washington, Pt 7

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

April, 2016
Washington, D.C.

Should I stay or should I go?

About two-thirds of AAAS fellows stay two years. I see the attraction. I’m one-third of the way through year one and my learning curve has followed a rocket’s path. Daily life continues to excite, challenge, and confuse. There’s much more to learn, and there are things I don’t understand and want time to figure out. I have started projects that I’d like to finish… will one year be enough?

Fellows write an Impact Plan during the first six weeks in which they set goals for the year. Our mid-year reviews are due in March. As I have these conversations and fill out this paperwork, I am continually asking myself: What do I want from this experience and what are my measures for success? What have I accomplished and what do I still want to achieve?

It’s now time for me to take stock. In January, my AAAS program manager visited me and my mentors at EPA and this started the process of determining what’s next. In February, I was asked whether I’d like to stay a second year. In March, I had to decide: Will I spend a second year as a S&T Policy Fellow with AAAS? Or will I return to Notre Dame where I have a full-time staff position?

Year one has given me many opportunities to contribute to EPA and so far many of these products are internal to EPA. I have conducted oral history interviews with retiring EPA employees and performed other historical research on EPA; I have investigated best practices in the private and academic sectors so that I can compare them to government practices, searching for possible alternative methods suitable for EPA; and I’ve filtered through various assessment measures looking for a model that fits EPA’s needs.

Presenting the results of my work will take longer than one year. While I’ve already presented at two academic conferences, I’m currently submitting abstracts for conferences to take place next year. If I return to Notre Dame, these conferences will take place after the fellowship has ended.

This is my conundrum. Year one has revealed the many opportunities for me to help EPA and start the ball rolling on projects for which I will be able to take ownership. Year two will give me more time to do work that I really want to do and it’s hard to walk away from that, especially since I have started several projects that will continue after I leave. Granted, I can remain active on some of them even if I leave. But, will I have time to follow through to publication? My contributions, should I stay, will undoubtedly be more extensive and fruitful on a day-to-day basis and will be enriched by my interactions with my EPA and AAAS mentors and colleagues. Leaving could push this work into the evenings and weekends on top of a 40-plus hour work week.

It’s a hard decision to make when you are mere months into the fellowship. As with any project, the initial stages move more slowly than the end stages, and it’s likely that the puzzle pieces will start fitting easily into place in the upcoming months. At the half-way point of the first year, all I see are the many things that I want to accomplish. It’s hard to decide. Should I stay or should I go?

Dr. Largent Went to Washington

Melinda Gormley is taking a break from blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow to interview Mark A. Largent. Dr. Largent was a AAAS Science and Technology (S&T) Policy Fellow in 2011-2012 with a placement at the National Science Foundation.

February, 2016
East Lansing, Michigan

An Interview with Mark A. Largent

Mark A. Largent, Ph.D. is a historian of science employed at Michigan State University, who focuses on medicine and public health. He recently published Keep out of Reach of Children: Reye’s Syndrome, Aspirin, and the Politics of Public Health. He is an Associate Dean of Lyman Briggs College, and a Professor at James Madison College at Michigan State University. I sent him a list of questions and he graciously sent the following remarks and recollections.

Melinda: How would you describe your fellowship year?

Mark: For me and my family, it was an adventure. My (new) wife and 5 year old went with me for the year, and my wife home-schooled my daughter for her kindergarten year while we were there. We rented a nice (albeit very small) apartment two blocks from NSF and really enjoyed living in an urban environment. It was so different from our normal much more suburban lifestyle. Personally, it was a tremendous learning experience. I was thrown into a completely new environment, with new expectations, and lots of resources to accomplish whatever I wanted.

What is your most memorable or rewarding experience?

The two-week orientation was something I will never forget. Eight hours a day for two weeks we sat learning how DC functions from incredibly accomplished people. And all the other fellows were brilliant people. Being around them as incoming fellows was so much different than being around brilliant people in grad school (where there’s so much tension and anxiety) or as a professor (where there’s such rigid hierarchy among academics). All of them were cooperative and curious and recognized that we all needed one another to be successful. There’s tremendous camaraderie among the fellows – both during and after the fellowship. We all knew one another, knew alumni, and knew who to call across town when we needed something.

What accomplishment or contribution from your time in D.C. makes you most proud?

Through luck and following my curiosity, I found myself working with a couple of brilliant people – Julia Lane and Rebecca Rosen – helping to advance a project called STAR METRICS,* which was a collaboration between federal agencies and research institutions to better understand the impacts of federal science funding. It was a huge undertaking by a very small number of people, and I am impressed by what we accomplished.
[* Mark A. Largent and Julia I. Lane, “STAR METRICS and the Science of Science Policy,” Review of Policy Research 29.3 (May 2012): 431-38.]

Why did you apply and accept the fellowship?

I was approaching my first sabbatical. After five years as a non-tenure-track professor and six more as a tenure-track professor (during which time I published two books),* I needed a break from teaching and research. I had been running Michigan State’s science policy minor, and thought that it might be useful for me (and my students) if I had some actual science policy experience. The fellowship seemed like a good option, but very much a longshot for me. The application process was easy (easier even than applying for a tenure-track job), so I threw my hat in the ring and was pleasantly surprised to get an interview.
[*Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States (2008) and Vaccine: The Debate in Modern America (2012).]

How has your AAAS fellowship experience affected your career?

Being a AAAS S&T policy fellow was a watershed event in my career. I had followed the well-worn track through graduate school and into a tenure-track job, and expected that I would spend the next 25 years continuing down the same track. After a year in DC, I knew I wanted something more. Shortly after I returned to MSU, I became the associate dean of Lyman Briggs College. The new position has allowed me to use many of the skills I acquired as a fellow.

How are you using the expertise and skills you gained through the fellowship today?

I use it in the classroom, because I know so much more about how DC works. I use a lot of the interpersonal skills I learned in my position as administrator. I also find that I keep up on what’s happening in DC far more than I ever would have before I was a fellow.

What do you want historians to know about the AAAS fellowship?

American science needs us in DC. The vast majority of AAAS S&T policy fellows are scientists – they are brilliant people, but they are not trained in the humanities or in the history of science. We think differently than they do. We ask different questions, and we know different things than they do. But we are all united in a common appreciation of the importance of a healthy, vibrant scientific community. There were nearly 250 first- and second-year fellows during my year, and I was the only humanist and only one of two science studies professionals. There should be several of us there every year. Not only are we useful to advancing science policy in DC, but becoming better known among science policy professionals has the potential to bring new resources into our discipline as we become more socially and politically engaged.

What other thoughts would you like to share?

My single biggest concern when I applied for the AAAS S&T Fellowship was figuring out how to make it work financially. With a house and a family and all the usual expenses, I worried that I would never be able to afford to spend the year in DC. As it turned out, AAAS is very generous in supporting fellows and, coupled with my 50% pay during my sabbatical, it was easy for me to afford to take the fellowship.
I’d also like to strongly encourage anyone just finishing their PhD to apply for the S&T fellowship. Most of the other fellows were within a few of years of graduate school – many had just finished a post-doc. And I think that someone with a PhD in the history of science and a couple of years in DC would be in a very strong position in the job market.

Would you do it again?

I’d love to do it again.

Dr. Gormley Goes to Washington, Part 6

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

January, 2016
Washington, D.C.

The Federal Historian

Vapiano bustles with many different groups celebrating holiday parties, and I scan the restaurant and bar in search of mine. It’s my first time attending a happy hour of the Society for History in the Federal Government (SHFG), and I have no idea who will be here. I realize after walking in and looking around for a few seconds that I may need to walk group to group asking, “Are you historians?”

Then I spot Terrance Rucker, the President of the SHFG, recognizing him from his photo on the Society’s homepage at http://shfg.org/shfg/. He’s greeting others who have just arrived. While I wait to introduce myself, I survey those chatting around the table and recognize Marc Rothenberg.

Marc has long been in Washington D.C. He is the recently retired historian of the National Science Foundation (NSF), a position he officially held from 2006-2014, and was with the Smithsonian Institution for 30 years before that. He’s a past president of the SHFG (held in 2012-2013), and served as Treasurer of HSS for 10 years, for which he was given the HSS’s Outstanding Service Award.

I have one goal in mind – to meet federal historians and learn more about what they do. AAAS fellows are encouraged to set up informational interviews, which are career conversations and networking opportunities. These interviews are typically suggested to job seekers as a means for expanding their knowledge about potential career paths and for getting their foot in the door with the company of their choosing. To learn about informational interviews and get advice on conducting them, check out these blog posts at Chronicle.com and Forbes.com.

Here is a collage of the tasks that historians in the federal government may perform:

· Write about the agency’s history for both the public and for the employees at the agency

· Perform oral history interviews

· Collect artifacts and documents

· Put together museum displays

· Point others to resources for writing on the agency’s history, such as to oral history transcripts, archived materials, publications, and the agency’s history webpages

· Give presentations at new employee orientations

· Provide tours of the facilities to student groups and other visitors

· Clarify the agency’s history when someone misrepresents it

To learn more, see the following.

· “FDA Historians Share Lessons from Agency’s Past,” an interview with historians Suzanne Junod and John P. Swann of the Food and Drug Administration, March 20, 2014.

· “NSF turns 64,” an interview with Marc Rothenberg on NSF’s Science360, May 10, 2014.

· Colleen Flaherty on “Dr. Uncle Sam: Historians Talk Fondly of Jobs in Government,” January 6, 2014.

· Victoria A. Harden on “What do Federal Historians Do?” from the American Historical Association’s Perspectives on History, May 1999.

Less than an hour into the holiday happy hour and I have learned a lot and it corresponds with what I’ve heard from other historians working in the federal government. I get a lead on a new contact, Suzanne Junod who has been with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1985. Within a week, I will have spoken to her on the phone and have an invitation to visit the FDA offices in Maryland where they house and display more than 10,000 artifacts. This is just one of the many opportunities my policy fellowship presents on a daily basis.

Dr. Gormley Goes to Washington, Part 5

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

December, 2015
Washington, D.C.

Intent and Interpretation: What do the Changes to the Common Rule mean for History?

The Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, a.k.a. the Common Rule, is undergoing its first significant revision since 1981. The proposed changes list many types of research that will be excluded from the policy, including oral history, journalism, biography, and historical scholarship activities. (See my November post for more information.) (link to this)

The goal of adding exclusions to the Common Rule, according to the group overseeing this policy revision, which is the Department of Health and Human Service’s Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP), is “to better calibrate the level of review to the level of risk.” Adding exclusions will alleviate the burdens that the Common Rule is currently having on important, non-invasive, low-risk research involving human subjects.

Excluded activities will not need to adhere to the Common Rule and will not be required to undergo review by an Internal Review Board (IRB). Having a list of exclusions aims to clarify what is and is not human subjects research so that it is easier to determine whether or not your research must obey the Common Rule. Learn more by watching OHRP’s video on exclusions.

While I see the benefits of excluding some historical and journalistic activities from the Common Rule, I worry about unforeseen consequences. In particular if the exclusion goes into effect as it is written now, it could cause problems for history as a discipline including decreasing governmental funding for historical research on scientific, technology, and medical topics.

What do the Changes Mean for History?

The exact wording in the Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) marked for “exclusion” identifies, “oral history, journalism, biography, and historical scholarship activities that focus directly on the specific individuals about whom the information is collected” (NRPM, page 18; Section .101(b)(1)(ii)).

Of the eleven activities proposed as exclusions, only this one names academic disciplines. The others call attention to sources of information, methods of research, or uses of materials. This concern was raised in response to the July 2011 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) and is summarized in the NPRM released on September 8, 2015.

“A significant minority of commenters opposed the exclusion of any fields of study, arguing that the activity itself rather than the academic discipline or training of the investigator should be the basis for the assessment of whether the activity should be excluded” (NPRM page 18).

The choice of wording in the NPRM is causing confusion about exactly what is being excluded. At the October 22, 2015 meeting of OHRP’s external advisory committee, called the Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP), a sub-committee voiced the concern that not all historical and journalistic activities will fall outside of the definition research in the Common Rule. The SACHRP sub-committee recommended to “revise 101(b)(1)(ii) to emphasize that the nature and purpose of the activity warrant the exclusion, not the academic discipline of the investigator.” They proposed the following rewording.

“Activities whose purpose is to collect and share evidence-based portrayals of specific individuals (with their knowledge and consent) who have themselves been selected as a result of the relevance of their personal experiences to the phenomena being studied.”

After comments from Jerry Menikoff, the Director of OHRP, and members of SACHRP, it was decided to merge the original language in the NPRM with the language suggested by the SACHRP sub-committee. (To see the recommendations about exclusions in general and about historical and journalistic activities, watch from 4:12:00 to 4:19:30 of day 2 of the October 2015 meeting.) SACHRP held two more days of meetings on December 3-4, 2015 during which they drafted their final recommendations for OHRP before the deadline. SACHRP members agreed to the following language.

“Oral history, journalism, biography, historical and other scholarship activities whose purpose is to collect and share evidence-based portrayals of specific individuals who have been selected as a result of the relevance of their personal experience to the phenomena being studied.”

OHRP doesn’t have to adopt the recommendations proposed by SACHRP.

Neither SACHRP nor OHRP consider it problematic for the exclusion to state “oral history, journalism, biography, and historical scholarship activities.” The intent of the proposed wording, according to OHRP, is to call attention to these types of activities, and not disciplines.

My concern is the difference between the original intent of the wording and possible interpretations after the policy goes into effect. As was evident during the rulemaking process, people may look at this exclusion and assume that it pertains to the entire disciplines of history and journalism. This is likely to continue to be the case if the wording is not clarified.

As a historian, I suggest alternative language for the exclusion. I prefer phrasing along the lines of the following:

· Oral history and journalistic interviews, biographical and historical scholarship, and other research activities that focus directly on the specific individuals about whom the information is collected.

· Activities that focus directly on the specific individuals about whom the information is collected such as oral history interviews, journalistic interviews, biographical scholarship, and historical scholarship.

Intent and Interpretation

Fueling my worry that this doesn’t bode well for history are the problems facing the humanities in the United States, the types of research supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) that legislators have called into question, and the NSF’s definition of what it funds. Let me give you a few worst-case scenarios.

NSF funds research, and historical endeavors are excluded from the Common Rule because they do not fit the definition of research in this policy, viz. “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (section 45 CRF part 46.102d; my italics). Therefore, historical and journalistic activities that are not generalizable are excluded from the Common Rule. My concern is that NSF could stop supporting altogether research that does not contribute to generalizable knowledge or stop supporting research involving human subjects that does not fit the definitions laid out by the Common Rule. (See my November post for additional discussion). (link here before posting)

The NSF does specifically fund historical research though its Science, Technology, and Society (STS) program and attacks on NSF-funded research have included several proposals funded by the STS program. I worry that a legislator looking to axe this program or drastically decrease its budget could likewise find fodder through the Common Rule.

The Common Rule’s NPRM notes that, “The exclusions also identify certain research activities that are sufficiently low-risk and nonintrusive that the protections provided by the regulations are an unnecessary use of time and resources, whereas the potential benefits of the research are substantial” (page 16). Problems facing the humanities in recent years make me question the extent to which the potential benefits of historical research are seen as substantial enough to garner continued federal financial support.

Am I being overly pessimistic and paranoid? In one breath I tell myself that I am. In the next I decide I’m not. Then I worry about who may read this post and use what it says to attack my discipline.

Dr. Gormley Goes to Washington, Part 4

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

November, 2015
Washington, D.C.

Oral History is about to get easier, possibly.

Have you ever wanted to conduct an oral history interview as part of your research and been told that you need the approval of an Institutional Review Board (IRB)? Well, this may change soon because the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is in the process of revising its policy to better protect living human subjects involved in research studies. The proposal from the HHS seeks to exclude activities such as oral history interviews from the IRB policy, meaning that interviews can take place without going through the long approval process. The Oral History Association has been seeking such changes for more than 20 years.

The Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects

The Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (45 CFR 46) was formally published in 1991 to safeguard a person’s rights and welfare if s/he agrees to participate in a research study. It outlines the rules governing the informed consent process and IRBs.

The informed consent process explains to the person who is considering enrolling in a research study the risks and benefits of participation. Written consent is usually obtained from a participant by getting a signature on a consent form. The consent form also outlines procedures that the researchers will use for protecting personal information.

The job of the IRB is to review a proposed study and to determine whether or not the research would pose ethical issues for the researchers or subjects. Filling out the IRB protocol requires submitting an example consent form and explaining what risks, if any, are posed to participants enrolled in the study. Vulnerable populations, such as children and prisoners, are protected by a specific part of the regulation identified as 45 CFR (for Code of Federal Regulations) Part 46.

Historical events led to the formulation of this policy designed to protect research subjects. For example, those who have taught history of medicine are familiar with examples of research performed on prisoners and economically poor individuals. Nazi experiments on incarcerated Jews, gypsies, and other targeted groups resulted in the Nuremberg Code, which states that researchers must be trained in the field they are investigating, must obtain voluntary consent from patients, must allow patients to halt the study at any time, and cannot purposefully cause bodily harm and injury. The U.S. Public Health Service Syphilis Study (sometimes called the “Tuskegee Study” because of where it was conducted) prompted the Belmont Report that established the three ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence (and non-maleficence), and justice for performing research with human subjects.

HHS entities, such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Centers for Disease Control, (CDC) must adhere to the Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Starting in 1991 other governmental agencies including (but not limited to) the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Defense (DOD), and Department of Education (DOE) agreed to adhere to the policy drafted by HHS in 45 CFR 46. Thus, this portion of the policy is usually referred to as the “Common Rule” because 18 (and soon to be 19) federal departments and agencies hold it in common. US academics are often subject to this policy as well. When researchers in an academic setting gets funding from a federal agencies, they enter into what’s called a Federal-wide Assurance (FWA) with the government. Through a FWA, an institution agrees to enforce the Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects for research undertaken by its employees and on its campus.

On September 8, 2015, HHS released a Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Common Rule that was in an open comment period until January 6, 2016. The overarching goals of the NPRM are to “attempt to better protect human subjects involved in research and attempt to reduce burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators, to facilitate valuable research.” If these changes are adopted this will be the first significant revision since the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare published the policy in 1981, 35 years ago.

The NPRM and its Statements about Historical Activities

Relevant to historians is the NPRM proposal to exclude some research activities involving human subjects so that they are not held to the rules outlined in this policy. If the policy is revised as proposed, the excluded activities will not need to undergo IRB review. Oral history, journalism, biography, and historical scholarship activities are among the eleven exclusions.

The first reason for exclusion has to do with the types of research covered by the policy. The Common Rule defines research as “a systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (section 45 CRF part 46.102d; my italics). Historians, journalists, and biographers seek specific information from the person they are interviewing. These types of activities do not fit the Common Rule’s definition of research because they are not generalizable.

Two, the Common Rule seeks to protect an individual’s rights, welfare, and privacy. The task of the historian, journalist, and biographer is to seek out the truth even if it incriminates an interviewee. Therefore, historians, journalists, and biographers are better served by using ethical guidelines developed specifically for the activities they undertake. The Oral History Association, for example, provides Principles and Best Practices and resources on proper conduct for performing oral history interviews.

The Process of Rulemaking

Changing the rules takes time. Federal agencies must follow specific guidelines when undertaking a significant revision such as this. The process can involve years of deliberation before a new policy goes into effect. The 2015 changes came about only after comments from a July 2011Advanced Notice for Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) from the HHS that allowed for public comments. After the comment period ended it took years to collate and examine the comments, which now form the basis of the NPRM that was released in September.

It’s anyone’s guess when the new policy will go into effect. The comments need to be processed and summarized before they are released with the final rule. But we may see some changes significant to historians in the next few years.

Dr. Gormley goes to Washington, Pt 3

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

October, 2015
Washington, D.C.

What people know about the history of science; or, Why you should practice public communication

In 2012, after more than 10 years of immersing myself in historical events, it became obvious to me that I had no idea of what the “public” knows about history.

Let me back up. I like people, puzzles, and stories. I like learning about people; I have primarily written biographies and I like chatting with others – friends, new and old. I like that, during the research phase, I am presented with a jumbled mass of bits and pieces that I will eventually assemble into a complete picture using narrative. I also want to tell entertaining and educational stories.

I hated history in high school but then majored in it as an undergraduate. After graduation, I spent 5 years working in the for-profit and non-profit sectors. I started graduate school in fall 2001, and over the next 10 years, I mastered many things: I could speak to other historians of science about my research, to colleagues about administrative issues at our university and in academia in general, and to my students who were typically undergraduates majoring in science or engineering.

But in 2012, I began to write for the general public, and I had no idea how to pitch my work. I could not related to my audience.

The impetus for this new endeavor was that I had received a NSF-funded fellowship called To Think, To Write, To Publish hosted by the Consortium for Science Policy and Outcomes at Arizona State University. As an academic, I was partnered with a freelance science writer, Melissae Fellet, who has a PhD in chemistry, and we were tasked with writing an article on a science-policy topic using creative nonfiction techniques. This year we published our article in Issues of Science and Technology (summer 2015), which was picked up by Slate (Slate.com on 29 July 2015 and Slate.fr in French on 28 September 2015) and we posted several entries on the Linus Pauling blog (July 2015).

Unfortunately, while mastering the historian’s craft, I had lost touch with the audience that I now wanted to engage – people who hadn’t spent years studying history of science. Between 2012 and 2015 I struggled with what to say and how to say it.

Melissae constantly reminded me that my “arguments” mattered only to my academic peers in history of science. But her reactions to details commonplace to me reassured me that I had something to say. Other hurdles were figuring out how to say it and coming to terms with how little can be said.

Since arriving in DC, I have had many conversations; few have involved another historian and even fewer have been with a historian of science. It is through these conversations that I gain perspective. And through the AAAS fellowship we receive professional development training not only in science policy and leadership, but also in communication.

Conversations that I have had over the past six weeks remind me that I, as a historian of science, have something relevant to say.

I shocked someone with the news that EPA was celebrating its 45th anniversary this year. He thought EPA started in response to the Industrial Revolution.
I have repeatedly explained that EPA – whose mission is to protect human health and the environment – has a human-subjects research program. Many believe EPA addresses only environmental issues.
I have watched scientists perk up when hearing examples of scientists and science forging peaceful and productive diplomatic relations where politicians and politics have failed.

The history of science arms me with a rich wealth of examples and in Washington many recognize the important role that history plays in shaping the context of current political situations. If you are interested in educating the public, policymakers, scientists, and engineers, know that you have something to say. The trick is figuring out how to say it in a manner that works for you. Start by talking to those outside your discipline, department, institution, and classrooms. From these conversations you’ll gain perspective on what needs to be said.

gormley science policy aaas epa history

Dr. Gormley goes to Washington, Pt 2

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

September 2015
Washington DC

Saving the World

“How are you going to save world?” Brent asks. “I’m not. I’m here to save science,” I blurt out without much thought.

It’s day 2 of the 8-day orientation that kicks off the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellowship. About 250 fellows, all sharply dressed in business attire, crowd around circular dining tables in the ballroom of the Fairfax Hotel at DuPont Circle. It’s loud, too loud for everyone at any one table to hold a conversation.

Brent Nelson, a second-year AAAS fellow, is an Associate Professor of mechanical engineer on leave from Northern Arizona University. He researches renewable energy and energy conservation and is working – fittingly – at the US Department of Energy.

Before Brent queried me about saving the world, plenty of people have asked me various versions of the “why-are-you-here” question. During placement week in April, interviewers wanted to learn my expectations and career plans: “What do you want to get out of your AAAS fellowship?” During orientation, fellow-to-fellow conversations tended to focus on the near-term. “Where will you be working? What will you be doing there?”

The distribution of our placements gives merit to Brent’s world-saving inquiry. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) hosts the greatest number with 38 fellows. Other top runners with 30-35 fellows each are the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), State Department, and Congress. The Department of Energy (DOE) has 26 fellows, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 21, and the Department of Defense (DOD) 17. The rest have 1-6 fellows: Homeland Security, Department of Justice, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Army Corp of Engineers, NASA, Fish and Wildlife Service, Health and Human Services, US Geological Survey, the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, and Department of Education.

A sample of the agencies’ mission statements tout ambitious themes, such as ensuring security, ending poverty, promoting peace, and maintaining health.

US State Department – “shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere.”
USAID – “We partner to end extreme poverty and to promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity.”
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) – “to reduce poverty through economic growth.”
Department of Defense (DOD) – “provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of our country.”
US Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) – “Deliver vital public and military engineering services; partnering in peace and war to strengthen our Nation’s security, energize the economy and reduce risks from disasters.”
US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – “to enhance and protect the health and well-being of all Americans.”
National Institutes of Health (NIH) – “to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and the application of that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability.”
National Science Foundation (NSF) – “To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense.”

Saving Science

My retort to his question sounds haughty even to my own ears. I can just imagine how others at the table took it. Yet, it’s accurate. Over the past four years at the University of Notre Dame, I have developed training sessions on scientific integrity, both responsible conduct of research and social responsibility, as well as responsible communication practices.

I’m headed to EPA, whose mission is “to protect human health and the environment.” It’s a regulatory agency that performs scientific research and sets environmental and health standards. EPA is controversial and has a rich history. What more could a historian of science whose research has been at the nexus of science, politics, and society ask for?

Well, I could request a placement that builds on my most recent job experience as Assistant Director for Research at the John J. Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values at the University of Notre Dame. Which is exactly what I got. My staff position with the Reilly Center has helped me to view my historical research through alternative lenses, namely policy, ethics, and communication. It is at Notre Dame that I began training STEM students on research ethics, science policy, social responsibility, and responsible communication.

EPA brings these threads together. The EPA’s Scientific Integrity program drafts guidelines and provides training on research ethics, social responsibility, and responsible communication. The Human Subjects Research program oversees implementation of proper research conduct involving human subjects whether that requires drawing blood or conducting interviews.

The beauty of the AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship is the give and take. It’s a year of professional development and service in which you learn by attending training seminars and through on-the-job experiences. You contribute your knowledge about science and technology to the US government and learn about science policy while developing leadership and communication skills.

Each fellowship class has a group photo taken with the Capitol in the background. In our picture the Capitol building’s dome is covered with scaffolding. My interpretation is that we, the fellows, are under construction. Richard Ames, an engineer on leave from Raytheon Missile Systems and spending his year at the Department of Defense, suggested an alternative meaning “Rebuilding America.” Like I said, the AAAS S&T policy fellowship is about give and take. Offer your services while acquiring new skills and knowledge.

gormley aaas science policy fellowship history histsci epa

Dr. Gormley goes to Washington, Pt 1

Melinda Gormley is blogging her experiences as a 2015-2016 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in the Environmental Protection Agency.

This is the first in a series of blogs she’s writing from Washington D.C.

April 2015

Placement week – it’s long and tiring and invigorating.

I’m a finalist for an American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science and Technology Policy Fellow (STPF) for two different programs – Health, Education, and Human Services (HEHS) and Energy, Environment, and Agriculture (EEA). I’ll interview with the Department of Justice (DOJ), National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Monday’s 8:30 AM info session came with a warning. There are a lot of acronyms. Learn them. Get used to it.

I’ll attend 12 interviews and 4 “happy hours” over the next 4 days. Thankfully, I am not alone. I sit in the auditorium at the AAAS offices in Washington D.C. surrounded by 153 other fellowship finalists. A doctoral degree is required and most finalists are scientists and engineers.

I sit next to the only person whose face I recognize in the crowd. Dan Hicks is a philosopher who received his PhD at University of Notre Dame in 2012, which is where I have worked since 2011. Dan and I are 2 of 33 finalists who are interviewing for positions with two AAAS programs. We submitted two applications, had two interviews, and were selected by both programs as finalists. We are – I am soon to realize – the one historian and the one philosopher in the auditorium.

We are finalists for the Executive Branch which has four programs. We are both interviewing for positions in HEHS and EEA. The other two programs are Big Data and Analytics (BDA) and Diplomacy, Security, and Development (DSD). AAAS also places fellows in the Congressional and Judiciary Branches. Of the 163 AAAS Fellows in the 2015-2016 class, 81% are Executive and 19% are Congressional Fellows. No one is Judiciary.

There’s an anxious tension in the room that’s partially due to the nerves that one gets before interviews. The jittery energy around me stems from more than that, though. During Q&A it becomes evident that many finalists recently received the PhD and haven’t yet lined up a job for next year. I learn later that 18% of fellows graduated in the past year and 50% received the PhD 1-5 years ago.

Both nerves and excitement contribute to the atmosphere. At this point AAAS cannot guarantee that placement week will result in an offer. Offers will be extended starting the first week of May and will continue into June, possibly July. Whereas I received a list of 11 interviews on Friday (and will get an additional interview request on Monday afternoon of placement week), others have zero or 1 interview. Placement week is what you make of it. Many will pitch themselves for various positions requesting an interview via email.

My situation is a bit different from that of many in the room. I defended more than 8 years ago. I have interviewed for several positions over the years and I conduct mock interviews with graduate students. I have a job next year whether it’s in South Bend, Indiana or in Washington D.C. If I accept a fellowship, I will take a leave of absence from Notre Dame and when the fellowship ends I will return to Notre Dame.

Writing history is an aspect of several of the positions I interview for and many interviewers comment that they are interested in me as a candidate because I am a historian. If an interviewer doesn’t mention history as part of the job description, I ask, “What opportunities are there for me to do historical research?” The typical reply is, “The fellowship is a chance for you to pursue what interests you while contributing to our office. If you find a historical project that interests you and fits with what our office does, we’d encourage you to pursue it.”

Fast forward 3 weeks.

I receive 3 offers and have 2 days to decide. I choose a placement with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Science Advisor working with two programs, Scientific Integrity and Human Subjects Research. My responsibilities include enhancing a culture of scientific integrity at EPA and developing and executing an ethics education strategic plan. My other assignment is performing an assessment and history of human subjects’ research and protections at EPA that will be used for regulatory reform.

These tasks fit squarely with my job at Notre Dame where I provide training in communication, policy, and ethics. In my historical research I examine the role of scientists in public policy and in recent years my attention has centered on research ethics, social responsibility, science policy, and responsible communication.

Looking Ahead

If the AAAS STP fellowship interests you, APPLY! You’re not too far out from receiving the PhD and you don’t have a PhD in an excluded discipline. I have heard these two statements several times ever since I started telling people that I am doing this. My experience has been that AAAS STPF welcomes historians and philosophers. Three other historians of science who recently were AAAS fellows (and the years they were fellows) are James Fleming (2006-2007), Mark Largent (2011-2012), and Elise Lipkowitz (2013-2014, 2014-2015). To learn more about the AAAS S&T Policy Fellowship, go to aaas.org/stpf.

About Melinda Gormley

Melinda Gormley is a 2015-2016 AAAS Fellow with the Environmental Protection Agency. Her historical research has focused on the role of scientists in public policy. At Notre Dame she offered training on scientific integrity, both responsible conduct of research and social responsibility, as well as responsible communication practices. Dr. Gormley works with the Scientific Integrity and Human Subjects Research programs in EPA’s Office of the Science Advisor. She is on a leave of absence from the John J. Reilly Center for Science, Technology, and Values at the University of Notre Dame.

First Person: Pamela O. Long

Pamela O. Long was awarded a MacArthur “Genuis” grant earlier this year. Here, we look back at a piece she wrote for the HSS Newsletter in 2008 on being an independent historian.

From the HSS Newsletter, January 2008, Vol. 37, No.1

“On Being an Independent Historian”

After a slow start, Pamela O. Long made a successful academic career outside the university system. Here, she discusses ways and means of being an historian without a university paycheck.

There are plenty of us out here, so it seems reasonable that we should claim some cultural space beyond the usually unspoken designation of those who have failed to get an academic job. In my view, being an independent historian is not only possible (both economically and intellectually), but should more often be considered a legitimate alternative to being a historian in the academy. In our profession, a tenure-track job and thereafter, tenure, is taken to be virtually an absolute measure of success. Certainly, I have not been immune and at various times have applied to tenure-track academic positions, all of which were offered to better candidates.

There are other humanist and creative disciplines though, for which the position one holds is not the key indicator of success. Rather it is the work that one does. Take artists and writers. Many of them have academic jobs, but many do not. The measure of their success is usually based on what they paint or what they write. It would be good for our profession to move a bit closer to this focus on the work as opposed to the position. Unlike say, scientists, who need expensive equipment and virtually never work alone, most historians, like novelists, are able to work by themselves without permanent institutional ties.

An important issue for all historians is how to find the conditions to do excellent, original, or even ground-breaking historical scholarship at a reasonable rate of productivity. An academic position can certainly provide such conditions, but, as we all know, it may also provide just the opposite. I suggest, and my own experience proves, that it is possible to craft a reasonable alternative as an independent historian. And of course that crafting includes the necessity of achieving a basic income.

After I received my Ph.D., I was definitely a slow starter in terms of publications. I had a post-doctoral fellowship and a one-year teaching position, and had revised my dissertation into a book. When the manuscript was rejected by the first press I sent it to, I decided it was awful and never sent it out again. (I was clueless.) Initially, I didn’t have better luck with a long article I had written. Five years after I received my Ph.D., I did not have a single publication. I have been making up for lost time ever since.

In those early postdoctoral years, my partner and I and our infant daughter moved from Manhattan to Washington, and I found what seemed to be the perfect job for me – a permanent half-time position (with benefits) as a literary examiner in the U.S. Copyright Office at the Library of Congress. I worked four hours a day at my job, walked across the street to my study facility in the L.C. and worked on my own research for two hours before going home to spend time with my daughter.

During this time, I decided that since I was a complete failure at being a historian (no one would have disputed this), I was free to do whatever kind of history I wanted to do in the way I wanted to do it, no matter what anyone thought about it. I recall how liberating this conclusion was, how it freed me from all kinds of imagined constraints as I plunged into my new work that concerned craft knowledge and craft transmission in premodern Europe. This was the ground on which I built all my subsequent work. In one of my favorite movies, My Architect, about the architect Louis Kahn, an interviewee was asked about Kahn’s failure (probably because he was Jewish) to get many commissions in Philadelphia. The respondent said something to the effect that one should never regret such negative circumstances in hindsight – that they may constitute in fact the very basis on which a person does his or her best work. Although I have not yet made my trek to Bangladesh to see Kahn’s superb masterwork, I take this comment to heart. It was certainly true of my own circumstances.

Key events furthered my own work. No matter how many publications I accumulate, I will always remember when my first article on the Vitruvian commentary tradition was accepted at a peer-reviewed journal, the process overseen by a diligent editor who had read the manuscript carefully and seemed to truly appreciate it. No matter how many grants and fellowships I receive, I will always remember my first NSF grant in 1987, which I viewed as a miraculous event. Both circumstances gave me hope in the real world. I happily quit my tenured job at Copyright to take the NSF grant and a chance to work on my research full time.

Over the years I have constructed a patchwork of grants and fellowships, contract work, and visiting teaching positions. Along with my partner, who is also self-employed, we have constructed a perfectly satisfactory middle-class (by no means wealthy) life in which his contribution has always been more or less equal to mine, and mine to his. I don’t want to paint an overly rosy picture – at times I panicked and felt genuine despair.

I kept working and developed a few practical strategies along the way. Apply for grants every year. If an application is rejected, absorb the feedback carefully, and then apply again. In addition, years ago I decided to never again teach an adjunct course – meaning a course for which I was paid $2,000-3,000 with no benefits – and I never have. My private slogan became: “For McDonald’s wages, I work at McDonald’s.”

Every scholar has his or her own way of working. Despite my best intentions, I often am working on three or four major projects at the same time. Being an independent historian allows me to do this and also maintain reasonable productivity. I have also taken on complex tasks that I could not have managed as an academic. One has been the co-directorship of the Michael of Rhodes project, a forthcoming (MIT Press) three-volume edition of a fascinating manuscript written by a man who began his career in 1401 as an oarsman on a Venetian galley.

An on-going project consists of research for a book about engineering in a 30-year period in sixteenth-century Rome. My approach is to read entire 30-year runs of particular types of archival records – time consuming, but I have made many discoveries thereby. It’s doable because I can apply for grants every year without waiting for sabbaticals.
I read widely in a way that would simply not be possible if I had an academic position. When I’m at home (not on a research trip), I get up whenever I feel like it, usually at five or six in the morning, make coffee, and read for two or three hours before I start writing or go to the library. I find this reading and thinking essential to the work I do.

Every scholar has his or her own trajectory and I’m not suggesting that mine could or should be followed by anyone else. But I have discovered that independent scholarship is not just a default position, but a real alternative. We independent historians are in many places working away, often within constraints economic and otherwise, to be sure, but also free of the often onerous restrictions imposed by routine academic employment. Like the work of many painters and poets, my work (in this case historical scholarship) is at the very heart and center of my intellectual and creative life. I actually spend all my time doing it. What could be better than having work that you absolutely love to do, and the chance to actually do it, all day every day?

Pamela O. Long

History of Science Society — Image: Engraved print of A philosopher giving a...

See, that’s what the app is perfect for.

More you might like

Pamela O. Long was awarded a MacArthur “Genuis” grant earlier this year. Here, we look back at a piece she wrote for the HSS Newsletter in 2008 on being an independent historian.

From the HSS Newsletter, January 2008, Vol. 37, No.1

“On Being an Independent Historian”