July/August 2017 • Volume 44, Number 4 p. 6 p. 8 p. 9 Phenome 2018 Plant Scientists ANU Scientist Graham Tucson, AZ Elected to the U.S. Farquhar Wins Kyoto February 14–17 National Academy of Prize Sciences THE NEWSLETTER OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS President’s Letter 2017 ASPB The System Can Still Work, But Election Results Not Without Your Help Hearty congratulations to our new of- ficers! They will begin their service to BY SALLY MACKENZIE ASPB on October 1, 2017. Look for more Pennsylvania State University information about our new leaders in the next issue of the ASPB News. t is not easy to recall a time be funded. But during times when there was so much of funding uncertainty, it Iuncertainty about federal is especially important that support for science. Part of this everyone consider how they ambiguity is, of course, a con- might help a very lean system sequence of President Trump’s run effectively and fairly. In proposed budget for fiscal year particular, we should look 2018, which portends sizable for ways to address the topic reductions in funding for sci- of the most common hall- entific research. Such research Incoming President-elect already hovers below 2% of the way conversation among Rob Last, Michigan State University total federal budget, and most scientists who rely on grant recent federal funding rates Sally Mackenzie support for their research: have seemed alarmingly low the highly biased and seem- for years. Yet, funding rates for NSF (2017) ingly arbitrary tone of grant reviews. plant-relevant research programs averaged It is not clear whether this problem is 22% in 2016; for USDA’s Agriculture and more pervasive now than it has been in Food Research Initiative (2017), 17% in the past. However, a number of valuable 2015; and for NIH’s National Institute of commentaries have been published over the General Medical Sciences, nearly 30% in past few years addressing the importance 2016 (Miklos and Lorsch, 2017). of the peer review process and the increas- These rates, although not what we Incoming Elected Member ingly uncivil tone that characterizes reviewer would like them to be, nevertheless offer Christine Foyer, University of Leeds the opportunity for outstanding science to continued on page 3 Contents ASPB Council President Sally Mackenzie Immediate Past President, Chair Richard A. Dixon President-elect Harry Klee Secretary Alice Harmon Treasurer; Chair, Board of Trustees C. Robertson McClung 1 President’s Letter Elected Members Joe Kieber Maureen McCann 4 Plant Biology 2017 Chair, Membership Committee Jill Deikman Chair, Minority Affairs Committee Adán Colón-Carmona 6 Phenome 2018 Chair, Publications Committee Neil E. Olszewski Chair, Women in Plant Biology Committee Marisa Otegui People Chair, Education Committee Sarah Wyatt Chair, International Committee Leon Kochian Chair, Science Policy Committee Nathan Springer 8 Plant Scientists Elected to the U.S. National Sectional Representatives Academy of Sciences Mid-Atlantic Section Hua Lu Midwestern Section Ed Cahoon 9 Graham Farquhar Wins Kyoto Prize Northeastern Section Peter Melcher Southern Section Becca Dickstein Luminaries Western Section Camille M. Steber Council members highlighted in blue 10 Rajeev Varshney also serve on the Board of Directors. ASPB Staff Science Policy Chief executive officer Crispin Taylor, [email protected] Director of finance and administration Clara Woodall, [email protected] 13 Policy Update Executive and governance affairs administrator Sylvia Lee, [email protected] Accounts receivable and payable specialist Stephanie Liu-Kuan, [email protected] Education Forum Senior staff accountant Jotee Pundu, [email protected] Director of meetings and events Jean Rosenberg, [email protected] 16 Fascination of Plants Day 2017 Conference coordinator Teresa Myers, [email protected] Director, digital strategy and member services Susan Cato, [email protected] 17 Announcing the 2017 Summer Undergraduate Manager, member services Shoshana Kronfeld, [email protected] Research Fellows (SURF) Meetings, marketing, and membership assistant Melanie Binder, [email protected] Legislative and public affairs director Tyrone Spady, [email protected] Executive coordinator, Plant Science Natalie Henkhaus, [email protected] Obituary Research Network Education coordinator Winnie Nham, [email protected] 21 Thomas J. Guilfoyle Director of publications Nancy A. Winchester, [email protected] Publications assistant Diane McCauley, [email protected] Subscriptions manager Suzanne Cholwek, [email protected] Subscriptions assistant Linda Palmer, [email protected] Managing editor Patti Lockhart, [email protected] Science writer, Plant Physiology Peter Minorsky, [email protected] Production manager, Plant Physiology Jon Munn, [email protected] Manuscript manager, Plant Physiology Ashton Wolf, [email protected] Senior features editor, The Plant Cell Nan Eckardt, [email protected] Features editor, The Plant Cell Mary Williams, [email protected] Production manager, The Plant Cell Susan Entwistle, [email protected] Manuscript manager, The Plant Cell Annette Kessler, [email protected] The ASPB News is distributed to all ASPB members and is also available online. It is pub- lished six times annually in odd-numbered months. Its purposes are to keep membership informed of ASPB activities and to reinforce the value of membership. The ASPB News is edited and produced by ASPB staff from material provided by members and other interested parties. Copy deadline is the 5th day of the preceding even-numbered month (for example, April 5 for May/June publication). Contact: Nancy A. Winchester, Editor, ASPB News, 15501 Monona Drive, Rockville, MD 20855-2768 USA; [email protected]; 301-296-0904. © 2017 American Society of Plant Biologists 2 ASPB NEWS | JULY/AUGUST 2017 President’s Letter PRESIDENT’S LETTER possesses a competitive streak proposal for which we are an we can to make sure the current continued from page 1 that leads to critical dissection of expert leaves the task to others system works to its very best. And comments. Nichols and Ioannidis each and every technical detail, who are not. Anecdotal inquiry that means saying yes when asked (2012) made a compelling, data- appreciates risk and innovation in of NSF panel managers provides to review a proposal that aligns supported argument that the most a proposal, or prefers conformity. a reminder that not all reviews with our expertise and interests innovative research generally goes Unless the proposal is fundamen- are weighed equally in their and taking the time to provide unrewarded in the grant review tally flawed in its logic or design, impact. It is the thoughtful, care- cogent, expert, and carefully system. these factors, which reflect the fully worded, detailed review worded reviewer advice. n This state of affairs exists reviewer’s personal preference, that most often sways panel largely because there is nothing tend to take precedence over the opinion. More importantly, it is REFERENCES built into the grant review process proposal’s scientific soundness. the reviewer who spends as much Miklos, A., and Lorsch, J. (2017). to address its inherent and irre- What is to be done? Clearly, time describing precisely why the Stable success rates and other funding futable bias. Anyone who has ever the peer review system could be work is important, high priority, trends in fiscal year 2016. Bethesda, served as a review panel member significantly improved to reflect potentially transformational, and MD: National Institute of General Medical Sciences. http://bit.ly/2lZfHcU. recognizes the intrinsic subjectiv- an understanding of this inherent relevant to the broader field who ity of the process, with reviewer bias. Agencies might treat review- helps steer the discussion. Nichols, J. M., and Ioannidis, J.P.A. commentary often focused on ers as the highly biased experts Until federal agencies are able (2012). Research grants: Conform and be funded. Nature 492: 34–36. the relative “importance” of the they are and formally treat to incorporate into their review work, appropriateness of the reviewer input as advisory rather process a more sophisticated NSF. (2017). Biological Sciences (BIO) funding rates. http://bit.ly/2tbnxAu. technical approaches, and style than decisive to the process. approach to inherent reviewer of the proposal writing. These But each of us has a role to bias, and until our government USDA Agriculture and Food are clearly matters of individual play, too. What we tend to forget and the private sector resolve to Research Initiative. (2017). AFRI annual review funding portfolio: Fiscal taste, influenced by whether any with the many demands placed treat research funding as a critical year 2015. http://bit.ly/2uNySsP. particular reviewer serves as a on our time is that declining to investment in the U.S. economic champion of his or her own field, review a manuscript or grant future, we will have to do what ASPB NEWS | VOLUME 44, NUMBER 4 3 Plant Biology 2017: Five Days in Blue Hawaii Great science, new colleagues, creative ideas, and professional insights! 16 workshops 1,580 attendees 1,101 from 47 countries abstracts and 48 states in the United States 40 resume reviews 958 posters 4 ASPB NEWS | JULY/AUGUST 2017 22 elevator 20 blog posts pitch videos Documenting the Learning how to tell the meeting experience world what we do and through the written word why it’s so important http://bit.ly/2fnIXcy http://bit.ly/2fnqzk8 130 new Plantae 15 users video interviews 35 symposia 91% of attendees used the conference app 2017 ASPB award winners.