Scientific Societies in the United States

George Albert Boulenger was born in Brussels on 19 October 1858 and died on 23 November 1937. He was the son of Gustave Boulenger, notary of Mons, and was educated at the University of Brussels. From boyhood he was interested in animals and whilst at the University became known at the Musee d’Histoire Naturelle in Brussels, being appointed to the staff as an assistant naturalist in 1880. Two years later he was invited by Dr Gunther, the Keeper of the Department of Zoology, to join the staff of the British Museum, and was appointed a first class assistant in that year. This appointment he held till his retirement in 1920. He held honorary degrees LL.D. (St Andrews), Ph.D. (Giessen), and D.Sc. (Louvain), and was an honorary member of scientific societies in Belgium, Brazil, Chili, France, Germany, India, Italy, Luxemburg, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. He became a naturalized British subject soon after his appointment to the Museum and was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1894. After his retirement he returned to Belgium, working on the systematics of European roses in the Jardin Botanique de l’Etat in Brussels. In 1937 he was appointed to the Belgian Order of Leopold.

Download Full-text

SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES: The. Naval Consulting Board of the United States; Spring Meeting, American Chemical Society; Calendar of Meetings

Journal of Industrial & Engineering Chemistry ◽

10.1021/ie50111a026 ◽

1919 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 248-250

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

American Chemical Society ◽

Chemical Society ◽

The United States ◽

Scientific Societies ◽

Spring Meeting

Download Full-text

Defending scientific integrity in conservation policy processes: lessons from Canada, Australia, and the United States

10.7287/peerj.preprints.2946v1 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Carlos Carroll ◽

Brett Hartl ◽

Gretchen T Goldman ◽

Daniel J Rohlf ◽

Adrain Treves ◽

...

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

At Risk ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Scientific Information ◽

The United States ◽

Conservation Policy ◽

Scientific Integrity ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Scientific Societies ◽

Evidence Based Policy

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or non-governmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory: a perceived increase in scientific integrity abuses is followed by concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied, and are at risk of reversal under administrations that are publicly hostile to evidence-based policy. We compare recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communication from government scientists to public, we suggest that governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists’ right to speak freely in collective bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from non-governmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest that governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input with transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a civic responsibility to engage with the wider public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence-based policy and regulations that are in the public interest.

Download Full-text