The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year (FY) 2021 appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage Congress to provide NSF with at least $9 billion in FY 2021. Additionally, we request that Congress consider economic options that can help scientific societies and organizations withstand the economic losses associated with the COVID-19 pandemic.

On behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), thank you for your leadership in preparing our national response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), thank you for your leadership in preparing our national response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

On behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), thank you for your leadership on behalf of science and to ensure our nation has the scientific capacity to inform and respond to significant public emergencies, such as the current COVID-19 pandemic.

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution, United States Geological Survey (USGS), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year (FY) 2021.

An American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) member has anonymously donated $13,000 to help endow the AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leadership Award program. The award recognizes graduate students who demonstrate outstanding leadership potential at the intersection of biology and science policy.

AIBS has announced a new webinar, Life Finds A Way - An Overview of the Nagoya Protocol from the U.S. Government, which will take place February 27, 2020 at 1:30pm ET.

AIBS published findings from an analysis of scientist participation levels in the grant peer review process, as well as their motivations to do so. These results, generated from a survey sent to over 13,000 scientists, show that while 76% of respondents participated in the peer review of research applications, an uneven distribution of participation was found across this sample, with a sub-set of reviewers shouldering higher review loads (the top 10% reviewing 3 times the amount of the bottom 40% of respondents). This sub-set was estimated to be close to maximum capacity in terms of review availability, highlighting concerns about the sustainability of the peer review system. However, most reviewer respondents indicated that participating in peer review has positively affected their careers, and that giving back to the scientific community is the most important motivation for reviewing.

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF), a client of the AIBS Scientific Peer Advisory and Review Services, has recently published a correspondence article examining potential sources of gender bias in grant selection processes and what can be done to improve gender equity.

AIBS presented results from recent retrospective studies at the Health Research Alliance (HRA) Members Meeting.