Abstract Submission Instructions

Abstracts should be submitted via email to abstracts@stglobal.org. They should either be contained within the body of the email, or attached as a PDF or Word Document file.

Sample Abstracts from Past Conferences

These are some sample abstracts from past conferences:

"Examining Potential Futures; A Designer's Toolbox for Identifying Potential Social and Cultural Implications"

The production and consumption of design is a vital contribution to the larger social fabric we live within. For example, analyzing the types of products, services, or supporting infrastructure available within a society can speak to a society’s beliefs, values, or way of life. As a contributor to the complex socio-technological relationship, the design process can serve as a crucial stage for identifying potential future social and cultural implications.

My master’s thesis research is focused on developing a toolbox for designers to use during the design process that will engage them with a series of questions to ask about their design proposals. In order to add clarity and a deeper understanding of the questions, I am also developing mini-modules that include suggested readings on some of the prominent topics within STS literature. Topic areas include social equality, technology and values, environmental justice, technological momentum, technological determinism, and social construction of technology.

Within the product of my research I am trying to reach the widest design audience possible including members of the industrial design, interior design, architecture, urban planning, and landscape architecture communities. In addition there may be opportunity for my research to reach disciplines within the engineering community. As designers conduct this meta-analysis of their design proposals, they will obtain a deeper comprehension of the far-reaching effects their work can have on culture and society, leading to more informed and socially responsible end products.

Back to the Top

Earmarks and NIH Appropriations: Classifying Science

Millions of dollars each year are spent by disease-related lobbying organizations in hopes of gaining Congressional support for increased federal funding of disease-related research. However, there has been no rigorous examination in the literature of whether this money is well-spent. One measure of lobbyists' success is achieving mention of their disease in the National Institutes of Health section of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee reports. In these reports, updates on the scientific progress of the Institutes are interspersed with requests from the Committee for assignment of NIH resources towards disease-related causes.

These instances, called earmarks, have received criticism from scientists and research interest groups who claim that disease-related causes have increasingly gained undue influence over the NIH's research agenda. Until now, however, there has been no rigorous examination of temporal variations in disease-related earmarks in congressional reports. In this study, we develop and apply a classification system for instances of these earmarks in NIH Appropriations Committee reports. The system includes considerations of disease specificity (according to ICD9 classification), assignment of specific dollar amounts, and types of funding targets. Preliminary results from this assessment show that from 1975 to 2005, the number of disease-related earmarks increased greatly, over 250% in the Senate reports and 800% in the House reports. Further work will examine temporal variations in disease specificity, with special consideration of rare disease mentions. Correlation of disease-specific mentions with lobbying funds will provide insight on the influence of disease-related advocacy groups on shaping the national research agenda.

Back to the Top

Science & Technology Global