News and Analysis



By investing in a computer cluster on the Virginia Science and Technology Campus, the University hopes to increase research on the campus by making it a destination for Foggy Bottom researchers. Hatchet File Photo

A computer cluster on the Virginia Campus for Science and Technology that will allow researchers to quickly crunch vast amounts of data could draw more faculty to the campus, giving the research camp a greater role within the University.

The $2 million cluster, called Colonial One, aims to increase interdisciplinary research, but also help raise the campus’ reputation in Virginia, where biotechnology companies are plentiful and could provide research opportunities for faculty and students. Professors across technical and medical fields often rely on high-performance computers to enhance research.

The 120-acre campus, located in Ashburn, Va., houses over 20 academic programs and will become home to a research centers focused on big data, genomics and computational biology that plan to open on the campus in the next few years. Those centers, in addition to Colonial One, will help shape the Virginia campus’s strategic plan, which is now being penned by Dean Ali Eskandarian.

“By virtue of being a rare valuable resource and an indispensable tool for complex problems requiring computational modeling, simulations, and calculations, Colonial One will be key in catalyzing collaboration among the researchers of the two campuses,” Eskandarian said in an email.

The plan will aim to further immerse the campus into the University. Students and faculty often have a difficult time getting to the campus, which sits about 45 minutes away from the Foggy Bottom Campus, because a shuttle system only goes back and forth a few times each day.

  • Permalink
  • Comments

The Virginia Science and Technology Campus will get $850,000 worth of new signs to help draw attention to the sparse but growing campus. Hatchet File Photo

The University will spend $850,000 on new signs to help its four academic and research buildings on the Virginia Science and Technology Campus stand out on its suburban highway in Ashburn, Va.

The funds, approved this month by the Board of Trustees, will help pay for GW-branded signs to help draw attention to the 120-acre Virginia campus, which the University is looking to build up by adding buildings, research centers and graduate programs there.

Now, the campus is sprawled along Route 7 in Loudoun County, where jobs have sprouted and the economy has boomed – making it an attractive location for GW to do research and make connections with the local government.

The new signs will be installed this summer and fall to help unify the campus, Virginia campus dean Ali Eskandarian said in an email. The campus will add 38-foot-wide entrance signs, pole-mounted flags, logos for its four buildings and signs to direct cars and pedestrians.

“The new signage will create a visual presence for the campus as well as increase the ease of wayfinding on the campus and enhance both the ‘campus feel’ and campus connectivity,” Eskandarian said in an email.

The approved funds were part of the nearly $8 million pegged for capital repairs next year. Of the about $17 million earmarked for capital repairs through 2016, nearly all will be covered by operating revenues, which are made up mostly by tuition dollars. Other capital projects, like new construction, are covered by fundraising and I.O.U.’s.

The Virginia campus, which is about a 45-minute bus ride away from Foggy Bottom, houses 17 research laboratories and nearly 20 degree programs. The School of Nursing is based on the campus, as well as several programs within the College of Professional Studies.

The University is also building a 22,000-square-foot museum and art storage facility on the campus, which is expected to be finished by the end of the year and has cost GW about $7 million so far. About 30,000 more square feet will be set aside for academic and research space in the building, which will hold collections for the GW Museum.

  • Permalink
  • Comments (4)

Updated: Monday, April 29 at 10:04 p.m.

A $1 million donation to the University will fund an exchange program for graduate students and faculty in South Korea and explore building a residence hall on the Virginia Science and Technology Campus.

The endowment from Joong Keun Lee, the founder and chairman of a Seoul-based construction firm, will focus on researching new ways to use ondol, or underground heating, technology, through traveling with Seoul National University.

Ondol technology is a 5,000-year-old heating method used in Korea to heat houses by directing heat from a fire outside the home to a chimney on the other side. Charcoal, glass bottles and soil keep the heat in the house.

“Ondol, traditionally utilized by Koreans for thousands of years, promotes a healthy housing culture with an energy-efficient and eco-friendly environment,” Lee, who runs the Booyoung Group, said in a release. He and University President Steven Knapp signed the agreement Tuesday.

Seoul National University is ranked No. 37 in the world by U.S. News and World Report, and is a destination for many GW students studying abroad in South Korea.

The Booyoung Group has donated to American organizations like UN-Habitat and has built more than 600 primary schools in 14 countries including South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and Laos.

  • Permalink
  • Comments (1)

Interview conducted by Hatchet reporter Amelia Williams. 

Stephen Forssell, an adjunct psychology professor who will direct GW’s new certificate program in LGBT health starting this summer, has researched how having gay parents affects children. (He found that it doesn’t really matter whether or not an adopted child’s parents are the same gender.)

Stephen Forrsell, who will direct GW’s LGBT health graduate certificate program, said his study on how gay couples raise children is part of a bevy of social science research that shows same-sex marriage does not have negative consequences for children. Photo courtesy of Stephen Forrsell

So Forrsell found himself with distinct insights into Tuesday’s Proposition 8 case arguments when Anthony Kennedy, the associate justice expected to be the swing vote in the cases, said social science research was murky on the consequences of gay marriage.

The Hatchet talked to Forrsell about how social science research has played into the same-sex marriage debate and what could happen if justices rule against gay couples.

Hatchet: You published a study called “Parenting and Child Development in Adoptive Families: Does Parental Sexual Orientation Matter?” How does the publishing of those journals affect the public’s perceptions of gay marriage and gay parenting?

Forssell: I think it’s a slow process. And I know that either [Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin] Scalia or Kennedy brought that up.

Hatchet: Yes. In today’s oral arguments, Kennedy said, “We have five years of information to pose against 2,000 years of history or more.” So he’s essentially asking, “Why do we need to talk about this right now?”

Forssell: Well, first of all, 2,000 years of history includes many years of history where gay people were parenting kids and they were coming out just fine. As far as research goes, we don’t even have 2,000 years on heterosexual parenting.

But there’s far more than 5 years of history on gay parents. One of my co-authors on my study was Charlotte Patterson, and she argued in the Hawaii case in 1996, in the very first state that had same sex marriage on its radar. Now, by 1996, Charlotte had already published several years of data, looking at lesbian moms—both adoptive mothers and artificially inseminated mothers.

Hatchet: Let’s go back to the study that you published. Why is it important to keep publishing studies? How do they affect public opinion and policy decisions?

Forssell: The way that this affects public opinion is that, the general public, as a rule, isn’t going to “do the homework.” They hear things when different studies come out, and they can be swayed by things like this. So we, as researchers, need to keep doing the work.

In my study, I looked at both same-sex males and same-sex females and opposite-sex parents in an adoption study. No one had looked at those kids in those situations that are raised from birth — and that’s what we did. Many things change when kids are adopted, and we wanted them all raised from birth. So that’s something we added, and then someone else will add more.

Hatchet: If Kennedy remains dubious about the legitimacy of the cases — and if the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 are upheld — what would be the consequences if they were dismissed? What would that mean for the future of LGBT social science research?

Forssell: Well, social science will continue pushing on regardless, because psychologists and sociologists are naturally curious. We like understanding how things work, so we’ll keep publishing and conducting studies.

There will certainly be more urgency because even if the two acts are repealed, there’s still a need for this work, because we need to know what makes a healthy family. But what we’ve found with social science research is that two parents are better than one. And what’s been made clear by the research we’ve conducted is that it doesn’t matter what gender those parents are. It has more to do with just having two sets of hands and more resources. That’s a valuable resource that we can do whether or not they’re repealed.

Interview edited for length.


  • Permalink
  • Comments

The U.S. Senate easily approved a measure Wednesday to strip down federally funded political science research – a cut likely to make grants sparser for some GW professors.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., has led the charge against political science research funding. The amendment he introduced last week passed the U.S. Senate Wednesday. Photo courtesy of Coburn’s Facebook page

The amendment, championed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., is part of a larger bill aimed at staving off another budget deadlock. It enforces stricter standards on National Science Foundation when the federal agency awards political science research grants.

The legislation is likely to pass the House of Representatives, which could be bad news for GW’s political science department. This year, the department is working with five NSF grants worth a total of about $690,000 on topics like how American’s attitudes toward social groups like Muslims affect their political beliefs.

The department also has secured grants from groups like the Carnegie Corporation and the Macarthur Foundation.

The legislation also kept intact most of the 5 percent cuts to the federally funded scientific and medical studies like those that prop up most of GW’s research arm imposed by the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration

Coburn took aim at political science research in a letter to National Science Foundation director Subra Suresh this month. Coburn belittled e organization’s funded research topics like Americans’ attitudes toward the filibuster and the rise of candidate-centered elections.

“[Those topics] hold little promise to save an American’s life from a threatening condition or to advance America’s competitiveness in the world,” Coburn wrote. “Research institutions and academic associations should support these investigations with their own resources.”

Some GW political science professors have been vocal in their opposition to the foundation’s defunding. Associate professor of political science John Sides has taken to his popular blog, The Monkey Cage, to petition against the measure.

Paul Wahlbeck, the department chair, said in an email earlier this month that defenders of political science research usually prevail despite harsh questioning from congressional critics.

“In a world filled with conflict, for instance, society benefits from better understanding of the role of political and international institutions,” Wahlbeck said. “Policymakers and citizens alike benefit from insights [from] basic research in political science.”

  • Permalink
  • Comments (2)

This post was written by Hatchet reporter Amelia Williams.  

Peg Barratt, in her final year as dean of the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, will travel to Japan in July to study early childhood practices. Hatchet File Photo

After Peg Barratt leaves her Columbian College of Arts and Sciences deanship in June, she will spend six months as a Fulbright scholar in Japan focusing on early childhood parenting.

The University announced Wednesday that Barratt, an expert in development psychology, earned a Fulbright U.S. Scholar award, a prestigious government-funded research program that sends 800 American faculty and professionals abroad each year.

Barratt will spend her six-month tenure at Japan’s Kyoto University, conducting research on the relationships between the country’s political and social policies and early childhood practices, like prenatal care, breastfeeding, income support, childcare and child safety

“Japan is a country that, objectively, is a lot like ours. But there are deep cultural differences that I find fascinating,” Barratt said in a release. “I’m interested in finding out how these cultural traditions and policy contexts influence the decisions families make.”

She has conducted research in Japan twice before, in the late 1980s and early 1990s at Osaka University.

She has spent some of her final year as dean in East Asia already, visiting China with other GW officials in November to examine potential academic space for the University’s first global undergraduate degree program at Renmin University.

Columbian College is knee deep in finding Barratt’s replacement, and will announce the next dean this month. Her deanship has helped faculty hiring and research funding improve in the college, but her leadership was bruised by faculty criticism in a survey last spring.


  • Permalink
  • Comments

Graphic by Nick Rice

Deal or no deal? The answer has big ramifications for GW.

The fallout from the fiscal cliff could harm the University’s research and fundraising efforts as lawmakers stare down massive spending cuts and tax reform.

As the hours tick by before the Jan. 1 fiscal cliff deadline ­– and with a deal only starting to emerge Monday – the impact on GW could be twofold.

First, if the $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts kick in, the federal agencies that dole out research contracts to professors would lose billions of dollars. 

University researchers have voiced big concerns over the 8.2 percent hole that the automatic spending cuts would puncture in federal agencies’ budgets if Congress can’t make a deal.

The effects would be real for researchers, with fewer grants up for grabs and less money for young professors, as well as a bump in the road for the University, which has aggressively tried to build itself up as a major research institution.

GW researchers earned $122 million, or 62 percent of their total research dollars, from federal research agencies in fiscal year 2010.

The deep cuts would reach across the board and slice the budgets of researchers’ most significant benefactors like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

If the “meat axe” to the federal budget, as one lawmaker called it, hammers down, professors would likely see more money for research coming out of GW’s pockets. As federal research dollars have remained stagnant for years, the University has looked to fill the void lately, tripling the amount of internal research funding between 2008 and 2010.

Through a spokesperson, GW’s Vice President for Research Leo Chalupa did not return a request for comment on how his office would try to offset potential cuts. In past interviews, administrators have shed some concern on the situation, but remained confident that the cuts would not go through.

Neil Buchanan, a professor in the GW Law School who studies tax law, said one message needs to be clear: Don’t panic yet.

People who rely on unemployment benefits would endure the harshest blow from the automatic cuts, as that program will immediately run out. But lawmakers could reach a budget deal in the coming weeks to still stave off the brunt of the cuts.

“There’s nothing that’ll happen January 2 that couldn’t be reversed quickly. It’s not like we’re going to go into an abyss,” he said.

Second, lawmakers may negotiate changes to the tax code by lowering deductions for charitable giving , affecting GW’s philanthropy operations.

To add more revenue to the federal government’s coffers, Democrats have proposed lowering the tax break for charitable giving. In past negotiations, President Barack Obama has pitched lowering the deduction for the wealthiest Americans from 35 percent to 28 percent.

If lawmakers approve that change and raise marginal tax rates for the wealthy overall, charitable giving would fall by 2.4 percent, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

“It’s important to acknowledge that people don’t give because of tax deductions,” said Patrick Rooney, executive director of the Center on Philanthropy. “But we know changes in tax policies do affect how people give and affect large-end donors who give mega gifts to colleges, universities and hospitals.”

Mike Morsberger, GW’s vice president of development and alumni relations, said his office is business-as-usual as Congress contemplates changes to the tax code.

“Donors give to GW because they know and love the institution and what we do – tax advantages are only one of many factors affecting donor’s decision,” he said in an email. “Some donors may care about it more than others, but very seldom would it be the main reason to make a gift.”

The University has expanded fundraising efforts in recent years to fulfill some of its big ambitions for construction, financial aid and academic programs, like a $275 million Science and Engineering Hall. GW had its most successful fundraising year last year.

Democrats also want to raise the estate tax, which could actually spur more estate gifts to universities because the deduction for charitable giving would remain in place. GW pulled in 56 percent more gifts left in donors’ wills last year.

This post was updated Dec. 31, 2012 to clarify that the fiscal cliff deadline is Jan. 1 but automatic spending cuts go into effect on Jan. 2 because federal offices are closed New Year’s Day.

  • Permalink
  • Comments
This post was written by Hatchet reporter Jasmine Baker. 
The Global Women’s Institute launched Tuesday with big ambitions for international partnerships and grant funding – but for now it’s starting small.

Mary Ellsberg, director of Global Women’s Institute, said the institute’s Tuesday launch would be the start of a research center with big ambitions to empower women. Photo courtesy of the Office of Media Relations

The University’s newest research center got off the ground with a 14-day series of events against gender violence, culminating in a launch event with big-name speakers like the White House advisor on violence against women. And director Mary Ellsberg said it wants to aim higher.

“We’ve got to go deep. We aren’t just going to have talks and activities on the yard,” Ellsberg, who was hired in May, said. “We really want to have partnerships with universities and groups all over the world, but right now we are starting at home.”

The institute is working as a three-person office without outside funds, usually a requirement for any research center to find success. Housed and funded by the Office of the Vice President for Research – not a specific school – Ellsberg said the institute will work across  fields like law, economics and public health. The center will also add a faculty member next year in the Elliott School of International Affairs.

The center has a partnership lined up with the White House to research where it should funnel foreign aid. It’s also looking to link up the World Health Organization and Central American universities for research, Ellsberg said.

Ellsberg, who was vice president for research and programs at the International Center for Research on Women before coming to GW, is also planning a trip to the United Nations to discuss women’s issues next spring.

She said she has found a unique springboard for women’s activism at GW, where “people are just really anxious to see how they can help and how they can get involved.”

“I’ve worked for the Swedish government, the Nicaraguan government and usually women’s issues are not something people want to talk about.  You spend a lot of time banging your head against the wall, trying to get people to listen to you and I’ve just had the opposite experience here,” she said.
The idea for the institute came after University President Steven Knapp prioritized two years ago women’s issues as a top field for GW research.

The organization is one of several to be launched over the next decade, according to a draft of the University’s strategic plan, which tentatively set aside $20 to $30 million for the GW-run think tanks.

Melissa Wong, co-president of the student organization GlobeMed, said the institute would enable students to get more involved in feminist activism.

“While the institute will hold fantastic events related to gender equality, it will also act as a powerful tool for faculty, students and administration to come together on global women’s issues,” she said.

  • Permalink
  • Comments (2)

This post was written by Hatchet reporter Katherine Willard.

A public policy professor earned a $2.6 million grant this week to help lead a research team that will test the success of Advanced Placement high school science courses.

Dylan Conger, director of GW’s public policy program, will undertake a four-year study funded by the National Science Foundation to determine the effectiveness of courses designed to prepare college-ready scientists.

College Board, which administers the AP tests, recently revised its chemistry and biology offerings to test deeper knowledge of topics. This is the first study of inquiry-based science learning.

“[College Board is] very eager to get information that gives them rigorous evidence on their courses and what needs to be done to make them better, if anything,” said Conger, who will work alongside researchers from University of Washington and the nonprofit SRI International.

The study will include more than 4,000 students in 40 high schools. It will not only track the students’ progress in the AP class, but see if the class affects the students’ college and career performances.

Tracking the success of AP sciences courses is critical to understanding U.S. students’ progress in technical learning, Conger said. Education leaders and policymakers have stressed the need for schools to bolster its science, technology, engineering and mathematics teaching to help the country compete globally.

“U.S. students and workers tend to be less competitive in these skills,” Conger saide. “This gap has triggered widespread policy investments and how to promote and increase our student’s scientific and STEM reasoning abilities.”


  • Permalink
  • Comments (3)

Keith Crandall, Brigham Young University's biology department chair, will head up GW's Computational Biology Institute starting July 1. Photo courtesy of the Office of Media Relations

A research center that Vice President for Research Leo Chalupa called a top priority in 2009 now has its first director.

Keith Crandall, chair of the biology department at Brigham Young University, will steer GW’s Computational Biology Institute as it gets off the ground this fall. After an 18-month director search, the University announced Crandall’s hire Monday. He will start the job July 1.

“We have an amazing opportunity in this new genomics era to be world leaders in developing and implementing computational approaches to broad questions from biodiversity crisis issues to translational medicine,” Crandall said in a release. “With the exceptional faculty and outstanding leadership at GW, the institute is sure to be a huge success. I can’t wait to get started.”

Once it moves beyond its developmental stage, the research center will weave biology with computer science to study the data found in genetic mapping and DNA sequencing. The institute, to be housed on the Virginia Science and Technology Campus, will have an interdisciplinary focus – a research strategy trumpeted by GW administrators and researchers.

Chalupa pointed to computational biology as a key research area when he took on his role as the University’s first chief research officer in 2009. In May, the Board of Trustees also set aside $3.1 million for the coming fiscal year to hire research-oriented faculty in the Columbian College of Arts and Sciences.

“I believe Dr. Crandall’s recruitment as the founding director of the Computational Biology Institute will be the driving force toward more cross-campus research in many fields, including computer science, evolutionary biology and personalized medicine,” Chalupa said in the release.

Crandall boasts several research credentials, including a distinction as a “highly cited” researcher by Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge in 2010, which only one-half of 1 percent of all publishing scholars receive. Two GW researchers got the nod that year.

His research on how oil spills affect crustaceans is a key piece of a $6-million Gulf of Mexico Research Initiative – money that he will bring with him to GW. He also earned a $350,000 grant from the National Science Foundation last month that will outline the first comprehensive “tree of life” for all 1.8 million named species.

Chalupa has said hiring researchers who bring significant grant money to the University was critical to boost its reputation as a premier research university.

That grant money will also be important for Science and Engineering Hall funding. A December report from Executive Vice President and Treasurer Lou Katz projected a $55-million net increase in indirect cost recoveries from research grants, which compensate the University for lab and equipment use, to pay for the $275-million building through 2022.

The Office of the Vice President for Research is also trying to play catch-up to launch an autism research institute – trying to raise $10 million for the project.

  • Permalink
  • Comments