Dear Collegues, today I am of the opinion that, for science to show impact in human development, there must be some serious scientists devoted their career in scientific research. Even the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) recorgonize the importance of scientific research. Yet scientific rsearch are very expensive in terms of materials acquisition and time expenditure. This brings in the issue of costs associated with scientific research and thus calling for financial assisstance to be able to carry out scientific research. Where can such financial assisstance be obtained is obvious from donors or international organizations. To be able to secure funds from such organization you must have the necessary skills for writing fundable research proposals. I am therefore throwing this idea to my collegues so that we can think of how we can organize such an important training to build capacity among ourselves and thereby securing necessary resources for research.
SituÃ© au premier rang des principales maladies au BÃ©nin, le paludisme est retrouvÃ© chez quatre malades en moyenne sur dix consultÃ©s. On estime Ã 108%o lâ€™incidence du paludisme simple au BÃ©nin avec des chiffres beaucoup Ã©levÃ©s chez les enfants de moins de cinq ans. Depuis quelques annÃ©es, le paludisme est devenu tout comme dâ€™autres maladies une grande prioritÃ© pour la communautÃ© internationale en gÃ©nÃ©rale et le BÃ©nin en particulier, depuis lors des initiatives se sont multipliÃ©es pour venir Ã bout de ce Â« meurtrier Â», mais depuis 2002, des Ã©tudes ont dÃ©montrÃ© que la lutte contre le paludisme est confrontÃ©e Ã trois dÃ©fis majeurs :
ï‚§ La rÃ©sistance des parasites aux antipaludiques, notamment la Chloroquine (Taux dâ€™Ã©chec thÃ©rapeutique de 35,20%) et la Sulfadoxine-PyrimÃ©thamine (Taux dâ€™Ã©chec thÃ©rapeutique de 22,80%) ;
ï‚§ La non rÃ©imprÃ©gnation systÃ©matique des moustiquaires par les communautÃ©s ;
ï‚§ La rÃ©sistance du vecteur (AnophÃ¨le) aux insecticides utilisÃ©s (la PermÃ©thrine).
Face Ã ces dÃ©fis, le Programme National de Lutte contre la Paludisme (PNLP) a adoptÃ© une nouvelle politique dont lâ€™objectif est de rÃ©duire (dâ€™au moins 50 % par rapport Ã 2001), la morbiditÃ© et la mortalitÃ© imputables au paludisme dâ€™ici Ã 2010.
Au nombre des stratÃ©gies retenues pour la nouvelle politique on retrouve le remplacement de la chloroquine et de Sulfadoxine-PyrimÃ©thamine par les combinaisons thÃ©rapeutiques Ã base dâ€™ArthÃ©misinine (CTA) pour le traitement du paludisme simple. Les CTA retenues au BÃ©nin sont : Lâ€™ArtemÃ©ther-LumÃ©fanthrine (COARTEM) et lâ€™ArtÃ©sunate-Amodiaquine (ARSUCAM) utilisÃ©s en cas de non disponibilitÃ© ou en cas dâ€™intolÃ©rance au premier et chez lâ€™enfant de moins de six mois ;
Par ailleurs la quinine est recommandÃ©e pour le traitement prÃ© transfert du paludisme grave. Par rapport Ã la prÃ©vention, outre les mÃ©thodes traditionnelles, les responsables de lutte prÃ´nent lâ€™utilisation des Moustiquaires ImprÃ©gnÃ©es dâ€™Insecticide de Longue DurÃ©e dâ€™Action (MIILD) et lâ€™adoption du Traitement PrÃ©ventif Intermittent (TPI) Ã la Sulfadoxine-PyrimÃ©thamine (SP) chez la femme enceinte. Ce programme nâ€™occulte pas bien sÃ»re la surveillance Ã©pidÃ©miologique et entomologique, la recherche et la communication intÃ©grÃ©e aux initiatives Ã base communautaire.
Mais, il demeure dans les formations sanitaires le problÃ¨me de la disponibilitÃ© du COARTEM pour la prise en charge correcte des cas de paludisme simple, la pÃ©nurie de sang dans les unitÃ©s transfusionnelles et lâ€™insuffisance des moyens financiers des parents. Une Ã©valuation a dâ€™ailleurs montrÃ©e que lâ€™incidence du paludisme (simple+grave) semble plus Ã©levÃ©e dans les dÃ©partements du Littoral (182 â€°), de lâ€™OuÃ©mÃ© (169 â€°), du Borgou (148 â€°) et de lâ€™Alibori (162 â€°). Dâ€™autre part, la lÃ©talitÃ© pour le paludisme grave reste en progression. Ceci pourrait sâ€™expliquer par les raisons sus Ã©numÃ©rÃ©es et lâ€™amÃ©lioration du systÃ¨me de notification mis en place par le PNLP BÃ©nin qui en outre, depuis quelques annÃ©es met lâ€™accent sur la formation du personnel, la promotion des bonnes pratiques au sein de la communautÃ© et lâ€™approvisionnement en mÃ©dicaments et consommables. Toutes ces difficultÃ©s montrent la nÃ©cessitÃ© dâ€™une plus grande mobilisation de tous les bÃ©ninois et amis du BÃ©nin afin dâ€™assurer lâ€™accÃ¨s universel aux interventions de traitement et de prÃ©vention et obtenir un impact sur la morbiditÃ© et mortalitÃ©. La lutte contre le paludisme contribuerait Ã rÃ©duire le taux dâ€™absentÃ©isme et par consÃ©quent amÃ©liorer la productivitÃ© et le dÃ©veloppement de notre cher et beau pays : le BÃ©nin.
Par Dr Soliou BADAROU
Total photodetachment cross section of Hâˆ’ near a reflecting wall was studied
recently by Yang et al using closed-orbit theory (2006 J. Phys. B: At. Mol.
Opt. Phys. 39 1855). The main effect of a reflecting wall was shown to induce
an oscillation in the cross section. In this paper, we study the photodetachment
of Hâˆ’ near a reflecting wall using a theoretical imaging method, which is
very different from the method of closed-orbit theory. The theoretical imaging
method enables us to derive the total and differential photodetachment cross
sections in a straightforwardway. We considered both a softwall case and a hard
wall case, they differ by the values of phase loss when reflecting the detachedelectron
waves. The result of Yang et al for the total photodetachment cross
section is the asymptotic limit of our formula for the soft wall case. We also
calculated the detached-electron flux distributions on a screen placed at a large
distance from the negative ion. The distributions display strong interference
patterns. Such interference patterns are similar to those in the photodetachment
Young voices in research for health
The Global Forum for Health Research and The Lancet are sponsoring their second joint essay competition on the occasion of Forum 11, the 2007 annual meeting of the Global Forum for Health Research in Beijing, People's Republic of China, 29 October to 2 November 2007.
Entries relating to some aspect of the overall theme of Forum 11: Equitable access, research challenges for health in developing countries are invited from young professionals working in or interested in the broad spectrum of health research for development.
Deadline for submissions: 20 APRIL 2007
For rules, guidelines, principles, timeframe and prizes see:
New York Academy of Sciences has announced its plans for a new initiative, in support of the Mellennium Development Goals (MDGs), to launch an ambitious project entitled Scientist Without Borders.
For details, please see the following links:
Here are the stated goals:
"To generate synergies where they often donâ€™t exist, Scientists Without BordersSM will create a simple but powerful toolâ€”an online database that will consolidate contacts and information about the location, goals, needs, and other attributes of research-based and capacity-building projects, as well as a list of individuals and institutions that want assistance and a roster of experts who are willing to help. In so doing, we will tackle three major under-addressed opportunities in the developing world:
1. Aligning the many capacity-building efforts that take place in close physical proximity to one another, but without meaningful contact, thus losing out on advice and assets that could enhance and/or complement activities.
2. Creating connections among scientists, organizations, and funding agencies to match needs with available resources.
3. Linking individuals with institutions or projects that would welcome their expertise."
Here is a very interesting article about the plea of US scientist to the current administration to increase research funding. Most young scientists are turning away from research to the deterimant of US innovation and discovery. This affects young scientist most severly, but business, law, and other fields are enjoying the benefits of this highly qualified talented pool of eager employees.
New report: America's scientific and medical progress threatened by flat funding for NIH
Leading US universities call for increased NIH funding to protect health, retain nation's scientists, shore up US global leadership in research
(Washington, D.C.) â€“ Years of stagnant budgets outpaced by inflation threaten the progress of biomedical research and could thwart advances in treatments that are within reach, nine of the nation's most preeminent scientific and medical institutions told Congress today. In a new report on the status of U.S. medical research and its funding, the group explained how perennially flat funding of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has halted promising research in mid-stream, challenged seasoned researchers to continue to achieve scientific progress, and threatened the future of young investigators pursuing careers in academic research. And, if left unaddressed, these problems could undermine U.S. global leadership in biomedical research, the report warns.
"When scientists have to spend most of their time trying to get funded, caution wins out over cutting-edge ideas, creativity sacrifices to convention, and scientific progress gives way to meetings and grant applications," said report contributor and infectious disease expert Robert Siliciano, M.D., Ph.D., at The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "Right now, very, very productive scientists are doing too little research. Instead, they are spending their time trying to get their labs funded again," he said.
The report was co-authored by The University of California, Columbia University, Harvard University, The Johns Hopkins University, Partners HealthCare, The University of Texas at Austin, Washington University in St. Louis, The University of Wisconsin Madison, and Yale University.
The group says that to fulfill the promise of previous investments by Congress the country needs to provide more consistent and robust funding of NIH. According to the report, Within Our Graspâ€”Or Slipping Away? Assuring a New Era of Scientific and Medical Progress, the doubling of NIH's budget between 1998 and 2003 enabled advances in basic research that transformed understanding of diseases affecting millions of Americans. But the NIH budget has been virtually frozen since 2003 and has shrunk by at least 8 percent after inflation is considered, with recent estimates up to 13 percent. Most recently, a small increase approved by Congress in the 2007 budget would be virtually wiped out by the Bush Administration's proposed 2008 budget, continuing the downward spiral in inflation-adjusted dollars. The implications are far-reaching for science, medicine, the economy and U.S. leadership in biomedical science, they add.
The 21-page report says that the country reaped a strong pay-off from previous years of robust funding of basic biomedical research, achieving progress in treating and preventing many devastating diseases and conditions. But the American public will ultimately pay the price for slowing the pace of research as scientists downsize their laboratories and abandon some of their most innovative work.
The report argues that research momentum gains have slowed, and in some cases may be lost, if flat funding continues. For example, in the fight against cancer, "The number of drugs moving into the pipeline that are based on our new, more profound genetic and molecular understanding of cancer is extraordinaryâ€”and there's no money to handle the testing of these compounds," said Joan Brugge, Ph.D., who chairs the Department of Cell Biology at Harvard Medical School.
A similar situation faces the quest to cure spinal cord and brain injuries. "Ten years ago, the search for treatment of spinal cord injury was a daunting and hopeless task," said Stephen Strittmatter, M.D., Ph.D., a professor of neurology and neurobiology at Yale University's School of Medicine. Today that is changing, in part due to the discovery of NOGO, a molecule that prevents regeneration of spinal cord nerves. Scientists are investigating whether the molecule can be inhibited, allowing the spinal cord and neurons in the brain to repair themselves.
"The neurological sciences are on the launching pad of a revolution," according to Strittmatter. "We are at a juncture where we can begin identifying multiple molecular targets for the neurological diseases that have stymied us for so long. Without funding, they may go undiscovered, and we will have only weakly effective therapies."
The Threat to Future Scientific Endeavor
Despite the great push forward that accompanied the doubling of the NIH budget, subsequent flat funding has put many projects at risk. Today, eight of ten research grant applications are unfunded, according to the report. Those that are funded often require multiple submissions and suffer lapses in funding. Certain NIH institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute, report that they can only fund 11 percent of research project grant applications, rejecting many of exceptional quality.
The effects are being felt by both principal investigators and young researchers new to the field. For young researchers, the decreased funding contributes to another problem: a multi-year wait for receiving their first grant. In 1970, the average age recipient of a first grant was 34.2 years; today it is 41.7.
"Our product is not just our technology or medical breakthroughs," said Dr. Brent Iverson, Ph.D., The University of Texas at Austin. "Our College of Natural Sciences alone puts 1,000 undergrads in research situations in labs, most with NIH funding. That is a catalyst for creating innovative new scientists," he added.
Consequently, senior scientists fear that young people will turn away from science because the funding situation is so bleak. Scientists report that many of the brightest young minds no longer see the promise of a career in science, choosing law, business, and other professions. Losing young scientists today will cost the U.S. a lot later, the report warns. "That will have a generational impact that will take 15 years to fix," said Richard Davidson, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison.
In addition, scientists are increasingly having to abandon some of their most innovative and promising research in favor of more conventional projects with more predictable results that are more likely to be funded. Principal investigators also must spend enormous amounts of time fundraising and writing grants rather than conducting research.
Others are following research dollars overseas, to countries in Europe and Asia that are making investment in biomedical sciences high national priorities and actively recruiting star U.S. scientists, according to scientists interviewed for the report.
Said Nobel Laureate Eric Kandel at Columbia University Medical Center, who contributed to the report: "The scientific community is one of the driving forces of the economy. In biology, it helps drive the pharmaceutical industry, and helps people live longer in a productive way. Now, the rug has been pulled from under science in this country. We'll lose scientific manpower to European countries, and to India, China and Japan."
The funding problem is so great that the NIH's 2007 "Fiscal Policy for Grant Awards," urges decisionmakers to consider "the goal of not losing outstanding laboratories," as they allocate limited funds, says the report.
The group says that addressing the funding crisis now is imperative given the demographics of the population. "Medical treatments take decades to develop," says Harvard's Dr. Brugge. "If we wait until the baby boomers retire to find the most effective means for prevention and treatment for diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer, we will break the bank."
I enjoyed meeting you very much and am glad that we have started this group. I am in the process of getting my pictures together, as I returned yesterday. (Good thing, as we are getting a big snowstorm this weekend!)
As a part of the BioAction theme, I wanted to start off our conversations with mentioning "The International Association for the Exchange of Students for Technical Experience" (IASTE). I actually heard about this particular program, which is partnered with UNESCO by attending a meeting this past September (Environmental Mutagen Society). This program allows students to travel and gain technical experience in many fields. I feel that this would be a great opportunity for young scientists. (From the website: http://www.iaeste.org) Note that IASTE will help you to gain experience and also provide resources for getting visas, travel, etc.
"What does IAESTE offer to employers?
Sourcing and selection of high calibre technical students according to requirements
Hands-on service for easy and time-effective administration
Networking opportunities through foreign students and universities
Administration of work permit applications for placement students
Accommodation arrangement for placement students (Open exchange only)
Provision of pastoral and social care for placements students
What does IAESTE offer to students?
Provision of paid, technical work experience abroad for skill enhancement
Safe experience through IAESTE support network
Support with practical arrangements i.e. work permits / visa, accommodation and travel"
I look forward to working with you all in the near future!
this is to call your attention on a student competition, which will open soon:
This is not an ordinary competition, rather it aims to develop connections between youth and scientists. However, there are good prizes, too.
I recently got interested into cognitive biases and would like to explore a bit the potential of these concepts for crowds(collective vs individual cognitive bias). However, I do not have any academic background in psychology.
Does anyone know about these topics and would be ready to give me a quick introduction to the literature?
Set up in 2004 by "Sense about Science", the VoYS programme helps young research scientists in postgraduate study or at the early stages of their career to get actively involved in public debates about science, particularly when they are contentious.
Learn more at:
Bonjour tout le monde
Et encore bravo Ã ceux qui ont courageusement consacrÃ© une semaine de leurs vacances Ã la mÃ©canique quantique.
je soumets Ã votre attention cette confÃ©rence qui a lieu Ã la bibliothÃ¨que nationale (BNF). je crains que peu d'entre vous puissent y aller, comme elle a lieu le mercredi, mais si vous Ãªtes libres, elle promet d'Ãªtre intÃ©ressante et ludique.
Un mathÃ©maticien va partir d'une lettre d'Euler, grand mathÃ©maticien du XVIIIe siÃ¨cle, et suivre le parcours des idÃ©es qui y sont introduites. Comme il s'agit de combinatoire, on peut Â«voir et toucherÂ».
C'est le mercredi 14, Ã 18h30.
Plus de renseignements sur
Bonjour Ã tous,
Je vous fais suivre un message de Livio.
La Web-TV du dÃ©bat scientifique
Eclairer, comprendre, dÃ©battre
les questions scientifiques contemporaines,
en vidÃ©o Ã la demande (VoD)
messagÃ¨res des Ã©toiles
(visionnez un extrait de lâ€™Ã©mission en cliquant ici)
au Bar des sciences de Paris
Joe WIART, IngÃ©nieur des tÃ©lÃ©communications / Directeur de recherche, France TÃ©lÃ©com R & D
Etienne PARIZOT, Astrophysicien au Laboratoire "Astroparticule et Cosmologie" / Professeur Ã Paris 7
Comment savoir ce qui se passe dans une Ã©toile ? Comment savoir oÃ¹ se trouvent les Ã©toiles, comment elles se sont formÃ©es, ce quâ€™elles vont devenirâ€¦
Inutile de rÃªver les approcher â€“ exceptÃ© notre Soleil â€“ elles sont trop loin. MÃªme si le Soleil est bien proche de nous - quâ€™est-ce que 150 millions de km devant lâ€™immensitÃ© du ciel - il est bien trop chaud pour espÃ©rer lâ€™approcher sans se brÃ»ler les ailes. Alors, que reste-t-il ? RÃ©cupÃ©rer et analyser ce que les Ã©toiles nous envoient : les ondes, la lumiÃ¨re... Tout lâ€™art des chercheurs est de dÃ©crypter ces petits signaux - bien souvent invisibles Ã nos yeux. En outre, ces ondes ne viennent pas seulement des Ã©toiles. Qui nâ€™a entendu parler du micro-ondes ? des ondes radiosâ€¦ ? Sâ€™agit-il des mÃªmes ? Comment sont-elles produites ? De quoi sont-elles faites ?
Le catalogue TÃ©lÃ©Savoirs : 80 sujets, plus de 400 sÃ©quences vidÃ©o exclusives
Les Ã©missions TÃ©lÃ©Savoirs sont accessibles :
1 - en libre accÃ¨s lorsquâ€™elles bÃ©nÃ©ficient de soutien (subventions, parrainage, mÃ©cÃ©nat, publicitÃ©,â€¦) pour leur production et leur diffusion
2 - par abonnement, notamment pour les mÃ©diathÃ¨ques, bibliothÃ¨ques, lycÃ©es, universitÃ©s, CCSTI, Espaces Publics NumÃ©riques, cyber-bases, centres multimÃ©dia, centres culturels et lycÃ©es franÃ§ais Ã lâ€˜Ã©tranger, Alliances franÃ§aises, TV locales, â€¦
3 - en vidÃ©o Ã la demande : Â«micro-paiementÂ» via Audiotel, SMS, carte tÃ©lÃ©phonique ou carte bancaire
TÃ©l. + 33 (0)6 89 67 73 49
Votre avis est prÃ©cieux, nâ€™hÃ©sitez pas Ã nous en faire part.
Nature has learned, a group of big scientific publishers has hired the pit bull to take on the free-information movement, which campaigns for scientific results to be made freely available. Some traditional journals, which depend on subscription charges, say that open-access journals and public databases of scientific papers such as the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) PubMed Central, threaten their livelihoods.
While the debate between the merits and pitfalls of Open Access and Peer Review rages on, those with the greatest economic stake in its outcome are pulling no punches in trying to ensure their survival.
What the big journals fail to mention is that open access is not meant as a subsitute for peer review, but as a companion to it. Open Access - essentially free online access to scholarly papers - is meant to complement peer review. In fact, the most succesful open access journals still use some form or another of peer review in their process. Indeed, current methods of achieving open access still use one form or another of peer review.
And what of peer review itself? While conceptually it is supposed to serve the needs of the scientific community (and therefore, by extension, the whole of humanity), there's evidence to prove that it has been responsible for more than its share of problems as well:
It has been suggested that peer review is an inherently
conservative process, that encourages the emergence of
self-serving cliques of reviewers, who are more likely to
review each othersâ€™ grant proposals and publications
favourably than those submitted by researchers from
outside the group. This could have a number of
consequences. For instance, it may:
- discourage researchers from moving into new fields in
which they have no track record;
- make it difficult for junior researchers to obtain grants
or publish their research;
- present difficulties for multidisciplinary work, since
peer review committees that do not contain individuals
qualified to judge all aspects of a proposal may be less
likely to approve the funding;
- result in the funding/publication of â€˜safeâ€™ research that
fits neatly into the conventional wisdom and work
against innovative, â€˜riskyâ€™ or unconventional ideas.
Peer review can be relatively slow and inefficient both for
funding and publication. Reasons for this may include:
- failure of referees to keep to deadlines -reviewers are
commonly given 3-4 weeks to complete and submit
reviews, but typically only 50% keep to this deadline;
- inconsistency between referees often means that more
must be sought, thus slowing the process;
- recruiting and retaining referees is increasingly difficult
(acceptance rates are typically as low as 50%);
- the lengthy time taken for editors and funding bodies
to reach a decision regarding the fate of an application
(sometimes up to six months).
The real issue is - as always - a threat to the profit margins of established corporations who are unable or unwilling to adapt to the evolving scientific ecosystem. Even the AAP (Association of American Publishers) themselves are very blunt about it:
"We're like any firm under siege," says Barbara Meredith, a vice-president at the organization. "It's common to hire a PR firm when you're under siege." She says the AAP needs to counter messages from groups such as the Public Library of Science (PLoS), an open-access publisher and prominent advocate of free access to information
It bears repeating that this isn't a debate at all between Open Access and Peer Review. "Peer Review", by nature, is an essential part of scholarly editing and screening and will likely be present in one form or another for years to come. The debate is whether it will continue to be monopolized, commercialized and hoarded for personal and monetary gain by certain publishers, instead of serving to promote the quality and dissemination of scientific articles as it should.
Open Access is the natural evolution of scientific information availability on the world-wide web, and provides access to quality scientific publications to a much, much wider audience. Combined with a structurally sound, reformed peer review process, it can form the basis for a viable, self-sustaining, highly mobile, agile scientific publishing and dissemination platform - Peer-Reviewed Open Access (PROA). As young scientists, you are called on to do the Lion's share of the work to ensure the development of the protocols, standards and resources around this platform... but you are also those who stand to gain the most from it.
Concordantly, by engaging "pitbull" PR firms to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about Open Access, corporate scientific publishing firms are basically the moral equivalent of a child kicking at the waves as the ocean comes to bring down his sandcastle.
ENDA TM (Environnement et DÃ©veloppement du Tiers Monde) â€“ annonce le lancement de son programme de bourses 2006-2007 dans le cadre du projet DÃ©veloppement des CapacitÃ©s face aux Changements Climatiques (C3D), intitulÃ©: Â« Le renforcement des capacitÃ©s en Afrique:
comprendre la vulnÃ©rabilitÃ© aux changements climatiques et prÃ©parer des stratÃ©gies d'adaptation Â».
Ce programme de bourses est mis en oeuvre par ENDA Tiers Monde (ENDAâ€“TM), Programme Energie,Environnement, DÃ©veloppement, en partenariat avec l'Institut des Nations Unies pour la Formation et la Recherche(UNITAR) qui coordonne le projet C3D. Il rÃ©pond aux besoins de l'Afrique en termes de dÃ©veloppement des capacitÃ©s, de partage des connaissances et de formation dans le domaine de la vulnÃ©rabilitÃ© humaine et environnementale et de l'adaptation aux effets des changements climatiques. Il s'agit principalement, comme cela est
prÃ©cisÃ© ci-dessous dans les sections Â« Objectifs Â» et Â« RÃ©sultats attendus Â», de contribuer au dÃ©veloppement d'un vivier de connaissances et de d'expertises africaines sur le thÃ¨me :
La vulnÃ©rabilitÃ© socio-Ã©conomique et Ã©cologique et l'adaptation dans le domaine des changements climatiques, avec un accent particulier sur les moyens de subsistance.
Les intÃ©ressÃ©s ont jusqu'au 9 fÃ©vrier 2007 pour soumettre leur candidature.
Pour en savoir plus, consultez le site suivant :
http://www.jeunesse .francophonie. org/
Research grants for environmental economics issues in Africa
The grant will fund research projects for up to a maximum amount of US$12,500 each. Members of the research team of funded projects will also enjoy further support through technical and scientific mentorship mechanisms and participation in Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Africa (CEEPA) research workshops and other events.
CEEPA encourages research proposals that focus mainly on the broader environmental economics and policy in African countries. Proposals that seek to suggest alternative strategies, policies and programs to reduce present and future environmental burdens in African countries as well as proposals whose results would lead to improvement in the monitoring and measurement of environmental phenomenon are also encouraged.
CEEPA also particularly welcomes proposals contributing to development of new methods and extensions of the theories of natural resource and environmental economics. Collaborative arrangements for joint studies with members of sister departments are strongly encouraged, in which case additional funding will be considered.
Eligible candidates include all researchers working in the field in eastern, central and southern Africa. The research committee, in consultation with the secretariat and resource persons will apply the criteria given below in evaluating new proposals:
* policy relevance - whether the question being proposed is potentially useful to policymakers, academic community or civil society;
* academic merit â€“ whether the research objectives are clearly set out? Is the proposed methodology the right one and is it feasible? Is the relevant literature cited and correctly interpreted? What are the novel features in the proposal? and;
* collaborative arrangements for joint studies with members of sister departments â€“ in this case the research committee may consider additional funding for more than the above individual grant amount.
Contact details: Send all proposals to: DalÃ¨ne du Plessis, Centre for Environmental Economics and Policy in Afric, Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, Republic of South Africa. Email: email@example.com.
Website for further information: http://www.ceepa.co.za/EECS_research_grants.html