In And Around

Successful Science Policy Means Advocating for People

by
Joseph Patton with his legislative science advocacy group for the Geosciences Congressional Visit Day in front of Maryland Rep. Ivey’s office.

By Joseph Patton, Faculty Researcher for the Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center at the University of Maryland, College Park

Note: This is a guest blog post; it represents the views of the author alone and not the American Meteorological Society or the AMS Policy Program. Geosciences Congressional Visits Day is non-partisan, and promotes policy engagement without advocating for particular viewpoints. AMS has not taken a position on the legislation discussed by the author in this post.

In the pursuit of scientific advancements which benefit our communities, sometimes society and lawmakers lose perspective of the research workforce. A significant portion of scientific labor is done by postgraduate students and early-career professionals who often struggle to make ends meet while living in the large, expensive urban areas where their institutions are located. This puts undue financial stress on people who are already working long hours through nights and weekends to find and implement solutions to global problems. This financial insecurity threatens not only the livelihoods of these individuals, but also the quality of their work. No matter their academic wherewithal, someone who is constantly worried about making rent or affording groceries that month may accomplish less, or experience failing mental and physical health. I’ve noticed in my own work extreme disparities in pay for graduate researchers at higher education institutions that are just a few miles apart from each other in Maryland. I believe that it is paramount to our goals of advancing scientific research to ensure that the researchers carrying out this work are able to meet the basic needs of life.

That is why, this September, I was excited to take part in the Geosciences Congressional Visits Day (GEO-CVD) hosted by the AMS and other Earth science societies. GEO-CVD provides a one-day workshop on the federal policy process, followed by a day of visiting Congressional offices, meeting with staff to discuss issues that participants feel are important. My group, which included colleagues from the University of Maryland system, traveled to Capitol Hill to discuss several bills which directly address the financial and residential insecurities of the backbone of our scientific research workforce. 

Our team met with the staff of the two Maryland senators, as well as the representative for the Congressional district including the University of Maryland.

The Bills

One bill for which my group advocated was the RESEARCHER Act, which directs the White House Office of Science and Technology to develop new policies and guidelines for federal research agencies to address the underlying causes of financial insecurity for student and early-career researchers. It would then require federal agencies to implement these policies. Such policies might include standardizing the pay of graduate and early-career researchers working under federal grants at public universities such as UMD, or new guidelines on official employment status and the availability of adequate, affordable healthcare, in addition to more issues surrounding their quality of life.

Joseph Patton stands in front of the U.S. Capitol Building (Photo: Joseph Patton)

Another bill we advocated for is the Keep STEM Talent Act. The United States attracts some of the best talent from all throughout the world with our first-rate universities and research institutions. Yet in addition to broad financial insecurities, many foreign nationals struggle with challenges in maintaining residency in the United States. The Keep STEM Talent Act would exempt researchers with a master’s degree or higher in their field of study from immigration limitations when seeking an immigration visa as a step toward permanent residency status. It would also allow those individuals to pursue an immigrant visa even while living in the country on a non-immigrant visa (e.g., a student visa). This would give the top minds in STEM fields a more secure way to approach living and working in the United States, while maintaining their ability to study and work at American universities in the meantime. Such changes would benefit the research capabilities of institutions across America and nurture the careers of scientists like my colleague Daile Zhang, a foreign national from China and a pioneering lightning researcher. After working in the United States for nearly a decade, she just this fall accepted a tenure-track faculty position at the University of North Dakota.

Joseph Patton, left, with his legislative science advocacy group for the Geosciences Congressional Visit Day in front of Sen. Van Hollen’s office (Photo: Joseph Patton)

Being Heard

Experiencing what it’s like to walk down the winding halls and seemingly endless basements of the buildings surrounding the U.S. Capitol Building was a career-defining opportunity. We briefly got to meet, in person, our representative in Congress, and feel like our voices were heard. We discussed issues close to us as researchers and as people. We genuinely feel empowered by the opportunity to effect change both in Maryland and at a federal level.

One thing I’ve learned from my career so far (I’ve been a graduate student, a federal employee, and now a faculty researcher), is that nearly every researcher is in their niche STEM field because they are incredibly passionate about the work that they do. Whether that’s an astrobiologist studying how to grow plants on Mars, a chemical engineer finding the next breakthrough in energy storage, or an oncologist working on the cure for a specific type of cancer, we blur the lines between work and personal time and spend long hours in the lab or at our workstations because our work is a part of who we are as people. It’s not for money, fame, or even recognition; it’s to make sense of the complicated natural world in which we all live, explore new possibilities, help people feel safe and secure in a sustainable way of life, and better our communities. When we take care of researchers, we all benefit from the result.

I want to send a sincere and heartfelt thank you to the American Meteorological Society for offering us the opportunity to learn about the science policy process as our team set out to advocate for issues that are close to us as researchers. I also want to send a special thanks to Emma Tipton, a policy fellow with AMS, for helping us individually work on our messaging and guiding us through the maze (literally and figuratively) of Congressional advocacy. We appreciate the time and efforts of the Congressional staffers and legislative aides for Senators Ben Cardin and Chris Van Hollen as well as Representative Glenn Ivey.

<<Joseph Patton (center) stands on the steps of the Senate side of the U.S. Capitol Building with his fellow legislative science policy advocates (Photo: Emma Tipton)

Photo at top: Joseph Patton with his legislative science advocacy group for the Geosciences Congressional Visit Day in front of Maryland Rep. Ivey’s office. (Photo: Joseph Patton)

About Geosciences Congressional Visits Day

Geosciences Congressional Visits Days (GEO-CVD) is a two-day, non-partisan science policy workshop hosted by AMS alongside other Earth science societies. Participants learn about Congress and build relationships with Congressional offices, to help ensure that Members of Congress and their staffs have access to the best available scientific information relating to weather, water and climate.

Celebrating Peer Review Week, 2024!

by
Banners of 12 AMS journals laid out in a grid

In support of its mission to advance science for the benefit of society, the American Meteorological Society publishes 12 peer-reviewed, highly regarded scientific journals. Over four thousand individual volunteer reviewers contribute reviews to AMS journals every year.

Peer reviewers are subject-matter experts who volunteer their time both to advise journal editors on the suitability of a manuscript for publication and to provide guidance to authors in improving the accuracy and readability of their study. Peer reviewers’ careful evaluation of manuscripts is essential to scientific communication. 

During Peer Review Week each September AMS highlights recipients of the AMS Editor’s Award, which is given for excellence in reviewing. AMS reviewers almost always do their work anonymously, so the Editor’s Award and Peer Review Week are rare opportunities to thank at least some reviewers by name, and give them an opportunity to share their thoughts on this essential but unsung task.

For more about peer review in AMS publications, check out Peer Review Week 2024!

Why is peer review important?

Eric Firing

“Peer review is not infallible, especially at the level of each individual paper, but it is an important mechanism for steering science in the long run towards better descriptions of how the world works.”

-Eric Firing, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa

Christopher Pitt Wolfe

“[As a researcher] It’s often harder to explain what you’ve done than to do it in the first place. It’s easy to develop your own vocabulary for a problem that’s opaque to outside readers. A good reviewer will point out where my arguments are unclear and sometimes even help me clarify them. In the process, this often helps clarify my own thinking on the problem.”

-Christopher Pitt Wolfe, Stony Brook University

What keeps you motivated to review?

“I learn something from nearly every manuscript I review … One advantage of being a reviewer is to have the opportunity to read a manuscript that has not been published yet.”

-Lili Lei, Nanjing University, China

Lili Lei

“In doing peer reviews, I have learned about new topics, methodologies, and trends in the field.”

-Will Cheng, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)

William Cheng

“From both the perspective of a reviewer and an author, the review process often provides new angles of how your studies are comprehended by people whose expertise is different from yours. I find that both annoying (of course!) and enlightening.”

-Yunji Zhang, The Pennsylvania State University

Yunji Zhang

“I’ve learned a lot of science from reviewing. Often, you have to read up on concepts that you don’t know well enough. Or you try to reproduce some results and, in the process, find something interesting.”

-Ingo Richter, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC)

Ingo Richter

How do you approach the task of reviewing?

Stephen Strader

“It takes a lot of time to get research published. Reviewers are volunteers that take time out of their own work and lives to provide constructive feedback for people they may not know. It is a thankless job most of the time. Also, we don’t make up the rules as we go. We have standards and following those standards helps maintain objectivity and push the collective understanding of a given topic. Patience and understanding are key. It takes effort to provide a constructive and thorough review.”

-Stephen Strader, Villanova University

Gan Zhang

“Be purposefully constructive. The AMS provides great reviewer instructions. When following those instructions and drafting comments, I remind myself that my comments should serve the journal, the scientific enterprise, and the authors. I find it straightforward to focus on the first two, but the last is hard to deliver without some purposeful thinking. In practice, the outcome can too easily be comments that are excessively harsh or too generic to be helpful for authors. Thoughtful reviews can make a difference, especially for an early-career researcher. For example, reviewers offered specific suggestions that helped me improve my writing and research. By correcting my rookie mistakes early, those reviewers also spared the reviewers of my later studies some headaches. This is the power of being purposefully constructive.”

-Gan Zhang, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Noah Samuel Brauer

“The most important thing to keep in mind when reviewing a manuscript is to provide unbiased, objective, and constructive feedback to the authors. It is important to ensure that the methods/science is sound, which can be done by providing constructive comments and suggestions that the authors can use to improve the quality and robustness of their work.”

-Noah Samuel Brauer, NOAA/NWS Weather Prediction Center

Young-Ha Kim

“A paper should contribute to the current understanding of the topic. This could be a new discovery, a support or challenge of existing knowledge, or insights that can stimulate discussion in the community. As a reviewer, these are the aspects I focus on. However, it’s important to remember that reviewers are only the first judges of the paper — ultimately, readers will also assess it (and the reviewers’ judgment).”

-Young-Ha Kim, Seoul National University

Christopher Pitt Wolfe

“Everything should make sense in detail. If something doesn’t make sense, it could be wrong or simply not explained well (usually the latter). There should be enough information that a reader reasonably familiar with the field could reproduce the results (or at least the analysis) given sufficient time and resources.”

-Christopher Pitt Wolfe, Stony Brook University

Varvara Zemskova

“Whenever I review a manuscript, I try to make sure that it is pedagogical. That is, I want to make sure that if an early stage graduate student were to read it, they would be able to understand the background and gaps in the literature and follow the methodology. When I approach peer review through this lens, it helps identify areas that may be unclear to readers who are not experts in the specific subtopic, and overall improve the flow of the narrative.”

-Varvara Zemskova, University of Waterloo, Canada

Nathan Lenssen

“Advice I was given at some point (can’t remember from who) is that most manuscripts will get accepted somewhere. Thus, it is your job as a reviewer to help the authors get the manuscript accepted at the submitted journal if at all possible. This attitude has helped me feel aligned with the authors, rather than a gatekeeper.”

-Nathan Lenssen, Colorado School of Mines and NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research

What has reviewing taught you about the scientific process?

“Peer review may sound like a dry, boring, non-stimulating activity. But in reality, peer review requires creative and critical thinking, and often I learn new facts about topics related to atmospheric science and/or am exposed to new ways of thinking about subjects I already know a lot about. Performing peer review has expanded my worldview and helped me develop the skill of examining issues from perspectives not native to my own history.”

-Jeffrey Duda, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science, Earth System Research Lab

Jeffrey Duda

“To borrow from something I heard recently from a grade-school science teacher, it’s important to understand that science is never finished. Even if a study has been rigorously evaluated through peer review, in the future new data, methods, or interpretations could lead to a different set of conclusions. That being said, we can still take actions in response to the best information we have available, especially if the same conclusions have been found by multiple studies examining a question from many different angles.”

-Patrick Alexander, Columbia University

Patrick Michael Alexander

Atlanta Tornado and Impacts: Weather 2009

by

In the evening of March 14, 2008, the Georgia World Congress Center where the 90th Annual Meeting of the AMS is taking place this year was hit by an EF2 tornado. The supercell thunderstorm that produced the tornado was unexpected that day, with an outbreak of tornadoes forecast for, and subsequently realized, the next day.

Portion of 2008 Atlanta tornado track
Track and intensity of Atlanta tornado through downtown. (Adapted from NWS Atlanta tornado report.)

The adjacent Omni Hotel as well as CNN Center and a number of nearby hotels and buildings suffered significant damage in the tornado. CNN Center alone lost more than 1600 windows, and windows are still missing in the tube-shaped Westin Peachtree Plaza tower.
CNN was not broadcasting live from Atlanta that night with programming instead coming from its New York and Washington offices. If the 24-hour network had been live from CNN Center, “It could have been a classic You Tube moment,” says Brandon Miller, a weather producer for CNN International, adding, with “us in the center of the tornado, anchors looking all around, fear on their faces … Fortunately, that didn’t happen.” Miller says CNN didn’t cover the tornado strike itself live, but “covered the heck out of the damage afterwords.”
While this tornado event won’t be presented as part of Impacts: Weather 2009 at the 2010 AMS Annual Meeting, a presentation during this Tuesday session will look at Tornado Effects on a Rural Hospital: Impacts of an EF-3 Tornado that struck Americus, Georgia in March 2007 (2:00 PM, January 19, 2010, B206). A presentation Wednesday morning (9:15 AM, B217) will look at lightning characteristics of the Georgia tornado outbreak the day after the 2008 Atlanta tornado. Its author commented that lightning characteristics of the tornadic storm that struck Atlanta the previous day might also be presented, if time allows.
Also, a poster to be presented Monday will investigate the relationship, if any, between Southeastern tornadoes and drought. A climatological analysis of antecedent drought and spring tornadic activity will be available for viewing during the poster session Observed and Projected Climate Change from 2:30 – 4:00 PM Monday, January 18.

Take a Dip in the Wild Ocean

by

If you haven’t gotten your fill of science at the meeting, there’s more at the Fernbank Museum of Natural History. The museum strives to inspire life-long learning of natural history through dynamic programming and interactive science displays.

The forest tower at Fernbank Science Center is festooned with meteorological instruments, contributing to the WeatherBug network.

Along with their permanent exhibits, this month features a special exhibit, “My Favorite Things.” For the exhibit, each department chose a natural history piece from storage to put on display.  The exhibit by nature is designed to appeal to scientists of all ages and fields in its diversity.
Of special interest to oceanographers, “Wild Ocean” is playing at the IMAX theater. Filmed on South Africa’s wild coast, the movie touches on the balance not only between the oceans and people but the relationship between all living things. Showing through March 11, show times are Monday through Saturday 11:00, 1:00, 3:00, and 5:00, with a 9:15 p.m. showing on Friday; and Sunday 1:00, 3:00, and 5:00.
We would tell you about the 7 p.m. extra showing this Friday (shhh!), but instead that’s when Richard Somerville author of the AMS-published book, The Forgiving Air, will give a talk on climate change at the museum.

Looking for Snow in Atlanta?

by

Northeasterners and those from colder climates visiting Atlanta may be trying to escape the snow during the Annual Meeting.  But for those who aren’t, there’s a place nearby to play.  Stone Mountain Park’s Snow Mountain, Atlanta’s first snow park, is a virtual winter wonderland.
The park includes a tubing hill and a 30,000 square foot play area, filled with a blizzard of snow activities. Although the manufactured snow is icy compared to the fluff that occasionally falls in Atlanta, the warmer air temperatures allow for more comfortable outdoor play.
Originally planned to open in 2007, the park was widely criticized for its plans to use one million gallons of tap water during a drought. The plan was changed to use water from the park’s own lake and the park opened last year.

Georgia’s Got a Groundhog, Too

by

He may not be Punxsutawney Phil, but General Beau Lee is the groundhog to look to for the winter forecast in Georgia. Although he doesn’t make his official appearance until February, Beau’s home, the “Weathering Heights” mansion at Yellow River Game Ranch (www.yellowrivergameranch.com), is  a good getaway destination this week if you’re looking for meteorological curiosities or trying to entertain the family.

Located just two and one-half miles east of Stone Mountain on Highway 78, the ranch offers an opportunity not only to meet furry weathercasters, but other animals on an up close and personal basis. Walk down a mile-long trail on 24 wooded acres, where over six hundred birds and animals indigenous to the state of Georgia reside.
Located on the banks of the Yellow River, the ranch was affected by the heavy rains and floods in September, but fortunately no animals, nor the mansion, were in danger and the ranch is back to functioning as usual.
The Yellow River Game Ranch is open from 10:00 to 5:00 Monday through Friday and 10:00 to 6:00 Saturday and Sunday. For more details visit the Web site.