Arthur Daemmrich, Arizona State University

President Joe Biden was inaugurated in January 2021 amid a devastating pandemic, with over 24 million COVID-19 cases and more than 400,000 deaths in the U.S. recorded at that point.

Operation Warp Speed, initiated by the Trump administration in May 2020, meant an effective vaccine was becoming available. Biden quickly announced a plan to immunize 100 million Americans over the next three months. By the end of April 2021, 145 million Americans – nearly half the population – had received one vaccine dose, and 103 million were considered fully vaccinated. Science and technology policymakers celebrated this coordination across science, industry and government to address a real-world crisis as a 21st-century Manhattan Project.

From my perspective as a scholar of science and technology policy, Biden’s legacy includes structural, institutional and practical changes to how science is conducted. Building on approaches developed over the course of many years, the administration elevated the status of science in the government and fostered community participation in research.

Raising science’s profile in government

The U.S. has no single ministry of science and technology. Instead, agencies and offices across the executive branch carry out scientific research at several national labs and fund research by other institutions. By elevating the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to a Cabinet-level organization for the first time in its history, Biden gave the agency greater influence in federal decision-making and coordination.

Formally established in 1976, the agency provides the president and senior staff with scientific and technical advice, bringing science to bear on executive policies. Biden’s inclusion of the agency’s director in his Cabinet was a strong signal about the elevated role science and technology would play in the administration’s solutions to major societal challenges.

Under Biden, the Office of Science and Technology Policy established guidelines that agencies across the government would follow as they implemented major legislation. This included developing technologies that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to address climate change, rebuilding America’s chip industry, and managing the rollout of AI technologies.

Instead of treating the ethical and societal dimensions of scientific and technological change as separate from research and development, the agency advocated for a more integrated approach. This was reflected in the appointment of social scientist Alondra Nelson as the agency’s first deputy director for science and society, and science policy expert Kei Koizumi as principal deputy director for policy. Ethical and societal considerations were added as evaluation criteria for grants. And initiatives such as the AI bill of rights and frameworks for research integrity and open science further encouraged all federal agencies to consider the social effects of their research.

The Office of Science and Technology Policy also introduced new ways for agencies to consult with communities, including Native Nations, rural Americans and people of color, in order to avoid known biases in science and technology research. For example, the agency issued government-wide guidance to recognize and include Indigenous knowledge in federal programs. Agencies such as the Department of Energy have incorporated public perspectives while rolling out atmospheric carbon dioxide removal technologies and building new hydrogen hubs.

Advertisement

Use-inspired research

A long-standing criticism of U.S. science funding is that it often fails to answer questions of societal importance. Members of Congress and policy analysts have argued that funded projects instead overly emphasize basic research in areas that advance the careers of researchers.

In response, the Biden administration established the technology, innovation and partnerships directorate at the National Science Foundation in March 2022.

The directorate uses social science approaches to help focus scientific research and technology on their potential uses and effects on society. For example, engineers developing future energy technologies could start by consulting with the community about local needs and opportunities, rather than pitching their preferred solution after years of laboratory work. Genetic researchers could share both knowledge and financial benefits with the communities that provided the researchers with data.

Fundamentally, “use-inspired” research aims to reconnect scientists and engineers with the people and communities their work ultimately affects, going beyond publication in a journal accessible only to academics.

The technology, innovation and partnerships directorate established initiatives to support regional projects and multidisciplinary partnerships bringing together researchers, entrepreneurs and community organizations. These programs, such as the regional innovation engines and convergence accelerator, seek to balance the traditional process of grant proposals written and evaluated by academics with broader societal demand for affordable health and environmental solutions. This work is particularly key to parts of the country that have not yet seen visible gains from decades of federally sponsored research, such as regions encompassing western North Carolina, northern South Carolina, eastern Tennessee and southwest Virginia.

Community-based scientific research

The Biden administration also worked to involve communities in science not just as research consultants but also as active participants.

Scientific research and technology-based innovation are often considered the exclusive domain of experts from elite universities or national labs. Yet, many communities are eager to conduct research, and they have insights to contribute. There is a decades-long history of citizen science initiatives, such as birdwatchers contributing data to national environmental surveys and community groups collecting industrial emissions data that officials can use to make regulations more cost effective.

Advertisement

Going further, the Biden administration carried out experiments to create research projects in a way that involved community members, local colleges and federal agencies as more equal partners.

For example, the Justice40 initiative asked people from across the country, including rural and small-town Americans, to identify local environmental justice issues and potential solutions.

The National Institutes of Health’s ComPASS program funded community organizations to test and scale successful health interventions, such as identifying pregnant women with complex medical needs and connecting them to specialized care.

And the National Science Foundation’s Civic Innovation Challenge required academic researchers to work with local organizations to address local concerns, improving the community’s technical skills and knowledge.

Frontiers of science and technology policy

Researchers often cite the 1945 report Science: The Endless Frontier, written by former Office of Scientific Research and Development head Vannevar Bush, to describe the core rationales for using American taxpayer money to fund basic science. Under this model, funding science would lead to three key outcomes: a secure national defense, improved health, and economic prosperity. The report, however, says little about how to go from basic science to desired societal outcomes. It also makes no mention of scientists sharing responsibility for the direction and impact of their work.

The 80th anniversary of Bush’s report in 2025 offers an opportunity to move science out into society. At present, major government initiatives are following a technology push model that focuses efforts on only one or a few products and involves little consideration of consumer and market demand. Research has repeatedly demonstrated that consumer or societal pull, which attracts development of products that enhance quality of life, is key to successful uptake of new technologies and their longevity.

Future administrations can further advance science and address major societal challenges by considering how ready society is to take up new technologies and increasing collaboration between government and civil society.

Arthur Daemmrich, Professor of Practice in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society, Arizona State University

Advertisement

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The science section of our news blog STM Daily News provides readers with captivating and up-to-date information on the latest scientific discoveries, breakthroughs, and innovations across various fields. We offer engaging and accessible content, ensuring that readers with different levels of scientific knowledge can stay informed. Whether it’s exploring advancements in medicine, astronomy, technology, or environmental sciences, our science section strives to shed light on the intriguing world of scientific exploration and its profound impact on our daily lives. From thought-provoking articles to informative interviews with experts in the field, STM Daily News Science offers a harmonious blend of factual reporting, analysis, and exploration, making it a go-to source for science enthusiasts and curious minds alike. https://stmdailynews.com/category/science/

(Family Features) In the U.S., 1 in 3 adults is at risk for a newly recognized syndrome that comes from a combination of heart disease, kidney disease, type 2 diabetes and excess body weight. This cluster of conditions, called cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome, is an example of how problems in one part of your body can affect other parts.

To avoid CKM syndrome, health experts suggest paying close attention to four of the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8 – blood pressure, lipids, body weight and blood sugar level – which are core health factors that impact your metabolic health.

Good metabolic health means your body uses energy well and keeps these factors in a normal range. However, when numbers are off in one area, it can affect others, raising your risk for heart disease, stroke, kidney disease and diabetes.

Consider these tips from the American Heart Association to help keep your core health factors under control.

Blood Pressure
High blood pressure, also known as hypertension, happens when the force of your blood pushing against the walls of your blood vessels is too high. High blood pressure is a leading cause of heart disease, stroke and kidney disease.

Because high blood pressure doesn’t have symptoms, the only way to know you have it is to get your blood pressure checked. Healthy blood pressure is below 120/80. If your blood pressure is 130/80 or higher, talk to your doctor about checking your other core health factors.

Lifestyle changes can help reduce high blood pressure. One example is a Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH) eating pattern that’s low in fat and rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and low-fat dairy products. Losing 10 pounds and reducing alcohol consumption can also reduce blood pressure.

Cholesterol
Cholesterol is a waxy substance your liver makes then circulates in the blood where your body uses it to build cells and make vitamins and hormones. You may also get cholesterol from eating animal products. If there’s too much cholesterol circulating, your risk of type 2 diabetes, heart disease and stroke may increase.

For optimal CKM health, your LDL cholesterol should be below 100 and triglycerides below 150. Triglycerides are the most common type of fat in the body. If your triglyceride level is 135 or higher, talk to your doctor about decreasing your risk.

Advertisement

Losing body weight and increasing physical activity decrease triglyceride levels. In addition, DASH and Mediterranean (plant-based, high-fiber, low-fat) eating patterns support healthy LDL and triglyceride levels.

Body Weight
Healthy weight may be determined by body mass index (BMI), a number that represents your weight in relation to your height. Extra body fat can mean a higher risk for many health problems, including heart disease, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.

CKM syndrome starts when BMI is 25 or higher and waist circumference is 88 centimeters or higher for women and 102 centimeters or higher for men. Aim for a BMI between 18.5-25.

To lose weight and keep it off, start by setting realistic goals. Understand how much and why you eat, manage portion sizes, make smart snack substitutions and be physically active.

Blood Sugar
High blood sugar can slowly damage the kidneys. In fact, diabetes is the leading cause of kidney disease, and it increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Blood sugar is measured in two ways: a fasting blood glucose test (short term blood sugar) and an A1C test (long term blood sugar control). A normal fasting blood glucose level is 70-99 and a normal A1C level is below 5.7%. Fasting blood glucose above 125 and A1C of 6.5% or higher means you have diabetes.

Habits that help you avoid high blood pressure, weight gain and high cholesterol also keep your blood sugar in check. These are especially important if you have a family history of diabetes.

Advertisement

Learn more about CKM syndrome and how to manage your risk at heart.org/CKMhealth.

Photos courtesy of Shutterstock

SOURCE:
American Heart Association

Simon F. Haeder, Texas A&M University

When most people think about vaccines, they typically think about humans: Experts warn that when large numbers of people are unvaccinated, it can lead to severe consequences, including disease outbreaks and higher rates of illness and death, particularly among the most vulnerable. The economic costs to society can also be substantial.

However, vaccines also provide important protections for our nonhuman companions, including the most common pets: dogs and cats.

Yet, as my research published in 2024 in the American Journal of Veterinary Research and the journal Vaccine indicates, vaccine hesitancy is beginning to spill over into some people’s decisions about whether to vaccinate their pets.

Vaccines and pets

A large body of research has confirmed that U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccines are safe for most people. Yet vaccines have never been universally accepted, dating back to the first inoculations against smallpox. Vaccine hesitancy, or concerns over getting vaccinated, has only intensified in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Growing concerns about vaccines have important implications that go well beyond the individual making decisions about whether or not to get vaccinated.

Vaccines generally work through two important pathways. First, for the vaccinated individual, they provide direct protection by reducing the risk of contracting a disease; they also reduce the severity of a disease.

Vaccines also provide an indirect form of protection for society at large through a process commonly known as “herd immunity.” This occurs when a high percentage of people in a community have developed immunity, ensuring that future outbreaks affect fewer individuals and are quickly contained.

Advertisement

Humans, of course, are not the only species that benefits from the direct and indirect protections of vaccines. However, so far, very little research has examined vaccination in nonhumans.

My recent work specifically sought to extend scientific knowledge about dog and cat owners by using large, national surveys. Many of the findings were positive: The vast majority of cats and dogs have received core vaccines, which provide protection against rabies and other dangerous diseases. Core vaccines are those vaccines that are recommended for all dogs and cats.

Moreover, three-quarters of pet owners trust their veterinarian when it comes to vaccines. And even higher percentages felt confident discussing vaccine-related concerns with their veterinarian. They also understand that many vaccine-preventable pet diseases can be severe.

Pet owners also wanted their neighbors to vaccinate their pets: Most dog and cat owners, more than 80%, supported vaccination requirements for various core and noncore vaccines.

Yet, other findings raise concerns. Most prominently, my study, published in late 2024, identified 22% of dog owners and 26% of cat owners as vaccine hesitant regarding their pets. And although most pets were vaccinated against common diseases, a minority were not. This includes about 4% of dogs and 12% of cats that remained unvaccinated against rabies. For other diseases like parvovirus and distemper, vaccination rates were even lower. The study confirmed similar findings from my earlier 2023 study.

In the same 2024 study, many of the concerns raised by pet owners mirror those of humans: More than half of pet owners question the effectiveness of vaccines.

A similar percentage was concerned about vaccine safety and side effects. Many believed it was better for pets to contract a disease to get immunity than to get vaccinated. About 60% of pet owners thought that pets receive too many vaccines. Strikingly, nearly all pet owners preferred fewer vaccines to be administered to their pets at a time.

Going forward

When people choose to not vaccinate their pets, it can have important implications for society.

Advertisement

The most immediate impact will be on pet owners. Unvaccinated pets face a higher risk of illness and death from preventable diseases; although vaccines are not completely effective, and in some cases even vaccinated pets may be affected. This may impose substantial financial and emotional costs on their owners.

Veterinarians will also be affected. They may encounter pets with diseases they may not expect to see or have had limited exposure to in the past. The same holds for other professions dealing with pets, including groomers, boarders and walkers.

There are also broader implications for public health: Encounters with rabies, in particular, may become more common. Humans may be directly affected if they are bitten by an infected pet. Pets also come into contact with wildlife, increasing the potential for the further spread of rabies.

From a public health perspective, low vaccination rates for pets are just as concerning as those for humans. I believe that a comprehensive public health strategy is crucial for addressing the growing concerns among pet owners regarding vaccines. Such a strategy should not simply dismiss pet owners’ concerns as conspiracy theories, but should instead adopt a thoughtful approach that takes individuals’ specific concerns seriously.

Simon F. Haeder, Associate Professor of Public Health, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Advertisement