Nautilus

In an Essay, "Look who's talking too: graduates developing skills through communication" in the September issue of Nature Reviews Genetics (Nat. Rev. Genet. 8, 724-726; 2007), Eleni M. Tomazou & Gareth T. Powell of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, Cambridge, write that "greater opportunities for young scientists to present their doctoral research to large general audiences will encourage development of transferable skills and involvement in the scientific community." In their article, they describe how students communicate their research and explore the benefits of student-led meetings.

The entire article can be read via the link above, but it is worth reproducing another part of it here:
"One way in which students can overcome geographical and financial boundaries is through the internet. The recent First On-line EMBL PhD Symposium is an interesting new twist on the conference format that has great potential. Collaborations between students at different institutes can also help to gather sponsorship. A strong example of this is the PhD Student Conference, which was organized (in rotation) by young scientists from the Netherlands Cancer Institute in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, the Institute of Molecular Pathology–Institute of Molecular Biotechnology Research Centre in Vienna, Austria, the Friedrich Miescher Institute in Basel, Switzerland, and the Cancer Research UK London Research Institute in London. Most importantly, young scientists need not wait for opportunities to organize and communicate to be provided for them, nor must they arrange an international conference for every subject — events can be equally successful as small, simple and local. Talking to faculty members and senior scientists at one's own university or institute is the best way to find out what is possible. Exchanging ideas and experiences with other PhD students who have already been engaged in this kind of activity is also important. The PhD students at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute have created a Nature Network group in order to encourage discussions arising from SCAMPS (Sanger-Cambridge PhD Symposium) for University of Cambridge PhD students, but also for more general discussions about life as a PhD student. The group is open to all students participating in or planning similar events, and we hope that this will foster collaborations between institutes and lead to large, well regarded national and international PhD student meetings involving young scientists from around the world. So start talking!"
See here for the SCAMPS Nature Network group.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 31, 2007
Categories: Careers, Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nodalpoint has recently updated its list of high-quality computational biology and related weblogs. If you have a bioinformatics or related blog and want to be included, or if you want to suggest a blog for inclusion, please go to the Nodalpoint link above and submit your suggestion via the weblinks form. And if you don't have a blog and wonder why a scientist should want to blog, I borrow from a 2005 Nodalpoint post a quote from physicist Sean Carroll, who blogs at Cosmic Variance:

"It can serve a useful purpose in providing some expert commentary when something hits the news, like Hawking's ideas about black holes last summer," says Carroll. "And I like to think that it does provide a window into the wider concerns of an academic scientist when I talk about dinosaurs or theater or music. Writing it has made me more disciplined and careful about my ideas and how I express them; you can't get away with things in front of a thousand readers that you might in casual conversation."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 30, 2007
Categories: Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

In an article entitled Science reporting's dark secret , David Whitehouse (a former BBC science correspondent) writes in the Independent newspaper about his growing feeling that the embargo system is a thing of the past. According to Mr Whitehouse, the embargo system encourages bland, indistinguishable science coverage across newspapers; forces Sunday newspapers to publish "daft" science stories; acts as a marketing tool for the journals; and is disliked by scientists. Read his stimulating article (at the link above) for more details of this indictment.
The Nature journals use the embargo system, which is explained on our author and referees' website here. We believe that the embargo serves scientists, authors, journalists and the public. Our policy is to release information about our content in a way that provides fair and equal access to the media, allowing it to provide informed comment based on the complete and final version of the paper that is to be published. Authors and their institutions' press offices are able then to interact with the media ahead of publication, and benefit from the subsequent coverage. We have our own press office to assist authors in their dealings with the media, and to assist the media to find out about our papers (we provide contact details of authors, and where there is a News and Views article about a paper, the News and Views author, for journalists so they can easily obtain comments on the articles before their own deadlines).
The benefits of peer review as a means of giving journalists confidence in new work published in journals are self-evident. Premature release to the media denies journalists that confidence. It also removes journalists' ability to obtain informed reactions about the work from independent researchers in the field.
We also encourage scientists to communicate with each other about their results, before, during and after submission of their articles, as explained on the author and referees' website here.
We welcome your views on our policies, in light of the Independent article and the explanations for our policies that we provide on our website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 29, 2007
Categories: Pre-publicity | Permalink | Comments (1)

Two contrasting views on puns in science reporting are expressed in Nature's Correspondence pages. First, Jeff Craig of the Royal Children's Hospital, Victoria, Australia (Nature448, 864-865; 2007) writes: I beg to differ with Renée M. Ned and Lisa N. Steele's Correspondence 'Slang's not so slick when you remember its origins' (Nature 447, 775; 2007) about the use of the word 'pimp' in a News Feature headline ('Pimp my antibody' Nature 446, 964–966; 2007).
The word first appeared in sixteenth-century France as the verb pimper, meaning 'to dress elegantly', and as the adjective pimpant, 'alluring in dress, seductive'. In the seventeenth century, the word was associated with 'a knave, rascal, varlet, scoundrel', according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. The vulgar modern meaning probably derives from a combination of these. The sense in which it is used by the television show Pimp My Ride could imply dressing an automobile elegantly — admittedly with a hint of flashy style.
I personally find the use of puns, colloquialisms and cultural references more objectionable, as they are likely to be understandable to only a fraction of Nature's global readership. The English language is sufficiently complex without the need to understand these sometimes obscure references in the headlines of Nature News stories and other similar articles.
A quick scan of a few issues yields: "...over a pork barrel"; "Oceanography: Churn, churn, churn"; "...science in premier league"; "State of the donation"; "Astrophysics: The answer is blowing in the wind"; "Scot on the rocks"; and "The silence of the robins". As a native English speaker I may understand and appreciate these, but many others wouldn't.

Milan Hopkins, of Upper Lake, California, on the other hand, writes (Nature 448, 865; 2007): Beyond the excellence of the scientific reporting, I particularly enjoy the entertaining use of language and the enlightened levity of Nature. Consequently, I am somewhat concerned by the complaint of R. M. Ned and L. N. Steele ('Slang's not so slick when you remember its origins' Nature 447, 775; 2007) regarding the use of the verb 'pimp', because of its "immoral origins".
Should I take offence because the use of the terms 'wimp' and 'macho' to denote putative particles might perpetuate negative stereotyping of my gender?
The freedom and, especially, the humour of scientific reporting may be hindered by misguided attempts to avoid offending moralists.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 28, 2007
Categories: Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

In 2002, a bold initiative—the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization (IPSO)—was launched to bring together scientists from both sides to pursue common projects. Unlike other ventures, IPSO is administered jointly by Palestinians and Israelis, and grants awarded under its auspices require Palestinian-Israeli partnership. In its mission statement , IPSO proposes to build an infrastructure that creates and sustains development, collaboration and education between the communities through the universal language of science. Scientific research endeavors involving people working together as equal partners would produce practical results and would likewise engender personal trust and friendship between people living in the two communities.

The above is an extract from the Editorial in the September issue of Nature Immunology (8, 895; 2007)

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 28, 2007
Categories: Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)

Asha Gopinathan of GenSci-e-Tech, Kerala, India, writes in Nature's Correspondence pages (Nature 448, 749; 2007):
The difficulties facing women and under-represented minorities in science and engineering are highlighted in your Naturejobs Special Reports 'Beyond the glass ceiling' and 'Closing the gender gap' (Nature 448, 98–100 and 101–102; 2007). But women from developing countries who work abroad face additional problems, which are not addressed by efforts to help either women or minorities.
During our studies and beyond, we face financial troubles, assumptions of ineptitude by faculty members, harassment and lack of mentoring. In a survey I conducted among 13 women who graduated from the Indian Institutes of Technology and went to the United States, several reported problems with supervisors, including harassment or having to switch supervisors; two of them eventually left research because of lack of support. On top of that, the stress caused by problems with elderly family members at home can be enormous and is not always understood by people in Western societies, whose family ties and responsibilities may differ. Visa problems are also not unusual.
For those of us who return to our home countries, there are more hurdles to clear. Institutions in many developing countries do not open their doors easily to women, even if they actively seek out and recruit men who have studied abroad. Often it is hard to find a position that is appropriate for our education and experience. And the styles of working abroad and at home can be very different.
To make the best use of our talents and training — whether in the United States, Europe or elsewhere — a full survey of our concerns should be conducted and used to frame new policies and instil change within academic culture.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 27, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

It's official: biology postgraduates in the United States face greater competition for tenure than ever before. A wealth of data released this month will reopen discussions about employment and training in the US biomedical system, writes Erika Check in a Nature news report (Nature 448, 848-849; 2007). According to data collected by FASEB (Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology) from several sources, the number of biology students in graduate programmes has increased steadily since 1966, but the number of biomedical PhDs with tenure has remained constant (See the Nature news report for a graph.)
A huge question, discussed in the News report, is why the doubling of the NIH budget from 1998 to 2003 seems not to have helped young scientists. According to anEditorial in the same issue of the journal (Nature 448, 839-840; 2007): "FASEB's data suggest that too many graduate schools may be preparing too many students, so that too few young scientists have a real prospect of making a career in academic science. More effort is needed to ensure that recruitment interviews include realistic assessments of prospective students' expectations and potential in the academic workplace. And training should address broader career options from day one rather than focusing unrealistically on jobs that don't exist.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 24, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (1)

Steven Shapin of the Department of the History of Science, Harvard University, discusses the art of persuasion in scientific writing in his review of the book The Scientific Literature: A Guided Tour, edited by Joseph E. Harmon and Alan G. Gross (University of Chicago Press). From his review:

"While the term 'scientific literature' is a commonplace usage, few scientists would acknowledge any connection between how they write and the works of novelists or poets. As long ago as the middle of the seventeenth century, the English originators of the scientific journal vigorously set themselves against all forms of fancy writing. The newly formed Royal Society of London separated "the knowledge of Nature...from the colours of Rhetorick". The aim of scientific writing was to report, whereas rhetoric worked to distort. Today, few scientists consider themselves to be rhetoricians. How many even know the meaning of anaphora, antimetabole or litotes?
But it's not that simple. The scientific literature reports, but it also aims to persuade readers that what it reports is reliable and significant. And the arts of persuasion are inevitably literary and, specifically, rhetorical."

"The accelerating incomprehensibility of scientific writing to the average educated person is not merely the fault of the much-lamented 'public ignorance of science'. Specialists have been so successful in constructing and bounding their own audiences that they rarely feel any need to address the laity or even scientists in other disciplines. Indeed, the plant physiologist is likely to be just as poorly equipped as any non-scientist to read a paper on superconductivity."

The complete review is in Nature 448, 751-752 (2007).
The Nature journals' advice on scientific writing can be found at our author and referees' website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 24, 2007
Categories: Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Andrew Biggin of the University of Utrecht writes in Nature's Correspondence (Nature 448, 749; 2007):
Many of the world's most reputable and best-placed scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society, have released strong and unequivocal statements regarding the dangers the world's population faces as anthropogenic climate change gains pace. Although such statements are effective in informing public opinion and thereby influencing policy on this important issue, they are not the most powerful means available.
A more potent approach would be for scientific organizations to make ambitious, high-profile moves to reduce their own contributions to climate change. Such activity could generate significant publicity and demonstrate that the organizations are taking the threat of climate change seriously. They would send a louder, clearer message that emissions reduction should be a priority.
Such moves, although necessarily bold, should not impair the organizations' abilities to achieve their primary aims. Rather, they should publicly demonstrate that reductions in any organization's environmental impact need not reduce its effectiveness. One example would be the more widespread inclusion of video-conferencing facilities in oral sessions at scientific meetings. Another could be the introduction of 'virtual poster sessions' with live audio connections.
If well-implemented, such measures would actually increase the effectiveness of a meeting while reducing its environmental impact. In particular, those who would otherwise not attend could now participate, which would lead to an increase both in the dissemination of research findings and in the interaction between members of the organization.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 23, 2007
Categories: Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)

Language Log: Citation Plagiarism?
From the Language Log entry linked above: "Plagiarism normally involves either the unacknowledged borrowing of someone else's idea or the unacknowledged borrowing of someone else's words. A third kind of plagiarism is, however, occasionally mentioned, namely the citation of a reference without acknowledging that it came from another source. If author Jones reads a paper by Smith and thereby learns of a paper by Doe and cites Doe without mentioning that he owes the reference to Smith, he has committed this kind of plagiarism, if plagiarism it be."
Bill Poser, author of the Language Log entry, goes on to argue why this type of plagarism is not, in his view, plagiarism, as there is no deception involved. The authors of the original reference may, in Dr Poser's view, "deserve more credit than they receive, but that is a different matter."

See here for the JISC plagiarism advisory service, which provides generic advice and guidance on all aspects of plagiarism prevention and detection to institutions, academics and students.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 22, 2007
Categories: Citation analysis, Ethics | Permalink | Comments (1)

Dr Robin Rose writes: Recently, the scientific community was presented with a paper containing the names of no fewer than 21 authors in Nature. The race for recognition in certain areas of study appears to have many scientists battling for authorships on as many papers as will accept them. Any number of journals seem to find this acceptable. Thinking back through my long career in science I cannot recall ever seeing an article or "letter," in this case, with so many authors: 1/21 would suggest an average 4.76% contribution, with some contributing more and some less (!). While collaboration is often praiseworthy, I found myself asking more than a few questions:

(1) How does a paper with so many authors actually get written, accepted for review, and then revised? What does author mean in such a case?
(2) How does such a paper 'count' in terms of value in academic promotion and tenure? Did 20+ people have the same idea at the same time?
(3) What level of credit does each author take when such a paper is part of a resumé or when citation statistics are considered?
(4) After the first three to five authors, how is the contribution of the rest gauged?
(5) Does the author order have some significance when there are 20+?
(6) Is research more credible with 20+ authors? Should journals allow for 30+ authors?
(7) Are 20+ authors meant as some sort of statement, whether scientific, political or scientifically political?
(8) Were authors added as a way to strengthen the conclusions, but also implying that a few did most of the work, more did a bit of the work, and the rest did very little?
(9) Are the authors part of a collective group? Why not use the group name as the author?
(10) Are we witnessing "author inflation?"

Such questions are important for scientists, journal editors, and their supervisors to sort out. Maybe papers with high author counts are intended to display some harmony that exists in the international academic and research community. Maybe we need to stop using the vague "et al" and go to "first author name plus 20" (the specific number of co-authors) so as to better clarify multiple contributions. There may be more issues, questions, and possibilities but I'll leave those to countless other authors.

Dr Robin Rose, Research Cooperative College of Forestry, Oregon State University.

Maxine Clarke, on behalf of the Nature journals, adds: we welcome responses (in the comments section below) to Dr Rose's points. Our authorship policies do not specify a particular order or maximum number of authors, but we do strongly encourage authors to include a statement in the end notes to specify the actual contribution of each coauthor to the completed work.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 21, 2007
Categories: Authors, Authorship, Policies | Permalink | Comments (8)

As the EU continues to roll out FP7 (the seventh Framework programme for research and development), researchers are asking whether the prize of significant research funding is worth the effort that is involved in applying, according to the Editorial in September's Nature Reviews Microbiology. (Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 5, 654; 2007.)
Why are European researchers so negative about the programme? "The main complaint, as everyone who has submitted an application will testify, is the overwhelming amount of bureaucracy. The paperwork demands are off-putting for many researchers, especially those who are already well funded from other sources, a situation that might deprive many EU-funded projects of the researchers with the most appropriate expertise and experience."
The Editorial goes on to conclude: "being the world's biggest programme for research funding brings with it inevitable problems and it remains to be seen whether these changes will placate scientists, promote research and untangle bureaucratic constraints. What is clear is that, despite the programme's complexity, long bureaucratic procedures and the inevitable tough competition, many European researchers are witnessing increasingly tight constraints on their national funding sources and will have to look to FP7 as their best hope to make up the shortfall. Most agree, therefore, that despite the mountain of paperwork, the prize of EU funding is certainly worth the effort."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 21, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Journal of Investigative Dermatology now has a journal club group on Nature Network, a place to read, discuss, and learn more about cutting-edge research in cutaneous biology. Anyone can join Nature Network simply by registering for an account. It is all free, and once you've joined, you can join the Journal of Investigative Dermatology's or any other group from the large range that have been set up by users. You can also participate in the forum discussions or set up your own blog on the Nature Network -- the place for scientists to meet, communicate and socialise.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 20, 2007
Categories: Author services, Publications | Permalink | Comments (1)

At the recent Wikimania conference, coordinators of Wikiversity, the Wikimedia Foundation's wiki-based education project, said that they believed the project would really get off the ground in the next two to three years. Wikiversity is a community where free educational content can be created and hosted: this content includes multimedia learning materials, resources and curricula for all age groups in all languages.
A major part of Wikiversity learning is being organized around Learning Projects and Learning Groups. Wikiversity explains that it has adopted a "learn by doing" model for education. Editors are encouraged to provide learning activities for Wikiversity "students" (participants). Wiki technology promotes collaborative webpage editing, so Wikiversity collaborative wiki editing projects can be thought of as "learning projects" -- participants learn while they edit wiki pages and explore topics of interest.
Wikiversity is not going to become an officially sanctioned service recommended by schools or universities, because no-one has control over the content. But college students in the United States and elsewhere are already keen users of online educational resources (see this survey, for example), so there are certainly opportunities for educational publishers and Wikipedia to create links between online learning resources and textbooks, and for educators to consider these collaborations in choosing which learning sources to recommend.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 20, 2007
Categories: Education | Permalink | Comments (1)

In its 6 September issue, Nature will highlight Canada in the Naturejobs section of the journal. This feature offers an opportunity to advertise positions, conferences and other notices, as it will be read by an international audience of potential employees, investors, employers, potential conference attendees and others. Job advertisements will also receive a complimentary 8-week posting on naturejobs.com and will be matched to relevant content across nature.com. Event advertisements will also receive a complimentary 8-week posting on nature events. The deadline for submission of advertisements is 30 August.
Canada is a leader in the life sciences and biotechnology sector. With world-class institutes, research hospitals and universities, it leads the research in genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, immuno-therapies, protein engineering and new drug-delivery systems. Canada's government has invested more than $1 billion since 2005 to create new jobs and scientific opportunities, demonstrating a commitment to research and development. So if you are thinking of relocating, watch out for the 6 September issue of Nature to find out more about opportunities in the region.
For more information about participating in the feature, contact Helen Wu (western Canada) or Lhea Copeland (eastern Canada).
See here for our interactive map of our various spotlights and focuses on other regions around the world.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 20, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

In an Editorial this week entitled "Men [sic]" (Nature 448, 728; 2007), Nature opines that its 1869 mission statement is out of date. From the Editorial:

It was 1833 when the English polymath William Whewell first coined the word 'scientist'. Over subsequent decades, the word gradually replaced such commonly used terms as 'natural philosophers' and 'men of science'.
By the middle of the nineteenth century, this last phrase was already out of date: pioneering women such as Mary Fairfax Somerville and Caroline Herschel were proving their worth as astronomers, mathematicians, botanists and palaeontologists.
The original mission statement of this journal, first printed in Nature's second issue on 11 November 1869, was therefore running behind the times when it referred to "Scientific men" — even though, to be fair, the word 'scientist' did not enter general circulation until the end of the nineteenth century. In other respects it is well worded — which is why we print it every week in the Table of Contents.
The statement expresses two purposes for this publication. The first is "to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery ; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life". Today this is as important as it has ever been — although members of the public have important considerations to lay before scientists, and Nature reflects them also.
The second thrust was expressed as follows: "to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time."
In printing the statement verbatim every week as we have done, making it clear when it originated, we have hitherto assumed that readers will excuse the wording in the interests of historical integrity. But feedback from readers of both sexes indicates that the phrase, even when cited as a product of its time, causes displeasure. Such signals have been occasional but persistent, and a response is required.
There is a convention within the English language by which writers quoting text can indicate their view that a particular phrase is inappropriate. That is to insert sic, a Latin word meaning 'thus', after the phrase — in effect expressing the sentiment 'alas, dear reader, this is what was said'.
This is what we will do in the mission statement from now on. The small, belated change takes place against the vast backdrop of a scientific world where the upper echelons of academia, academies and prestigious awards are still numerically greatly dominated by men, and where outright discrimination can still rear its ugly head (see page 749). In this context, the insertion of a Latin word in a couple of paragraphs may be a tiny step: but it is at least one in the right direction.
(The modern version of Nature's mission statement can be read here.)

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 17, 2007
Categories: Communication | Permalink | Comments (10)

The August editorial in Nature Biotechnology, 'Time for leadership' (Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 821; 2007) describes how the example set by leading proteomics laboratories will be a major factor in determining the successful implementation of new reporting guidelines in the wider community.
The August issue of the journal includes two perspectives that propose reporting guidelines for proteomics and molecular-interaction data sets (p. 887 and p. 894). The "minimum information about a proteomics experiment" (MIAPE) and an associated module on molecular interaction experiments (MIMIx) were developed by the Proteomics Standards Initiative of the Human Proteome Organization with the aim of standardizing the reporting of proteomics research.
The editorial goes on to state: "Whether Nature Biotechnology ultimately elects to require compliance with the MIAPE guidelines will depend on their reception by the scientific community. This March, we began recommending (not requiring) that proteomics and molecular-interaction data sets be deposited in a public repository before the associated manuscript is submitted to this journal (Nat. Biotechnol. 25, 262, 2007). But we would not consider enforcing the MIAPE guidelines until such time as the proteomics community has reached a consensus that the benefits of compliance outweigh the burden.
Before this can happen, at least two critical pieces of infrastructure must be in place. First and foremost, appropriate software tools must be developed and made freely available to all. Second, databases must improve their capabilities for transferring and storing MIAPE-compliant data sets."
We welcome your comments as the Nature journals further develop their policies in this area.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 17, 2007
Categories: Data availability, Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

We are delighted to announce the launch of a new journal, Nature Chemistry, in the first part of 2009. Alongside the highest-quality original research, Nature Chemistry will cover news, commentary and analysis from and for the chemistry community, as well as striving to develop a voice that chemists care about.
Over the past five years, Nature Publishing Group (NPG) has expanded its portfolio of Nature journals in the physical sciences, with Nature Materials, Nature Physics, Nature Photonics and Nature Nanotechnology.
Nature Chemical Biology marked NPG's first major foray into chemistry publishing. Launched in June 2005, Nature Chemical Biology has established itself as the home for primary research covering the interface between chemistry and biology. Its first impact factor is 12.409, making it the number one primary research journal in related chemical sciences.
Nature itself has also expanded its coverage of chemistry, with the addition of several chemists as editors to select papers for publication and to report news on chemistry in the News and Views and News sections of the journal.
We have also created additional online services and publications, such as the Sceptical Chymist blog, chemistry podcasts, a chemistry subject area, and our bi-monthly chemistry e-alert about what is new for chemists and chemistry. We also regularly provide hundreds of job opportunities for chemists via naturejobs.

We are looking for a Chief Editor who is able to develop, launch and establish Nature Chemistry as the essential publication for the chemistry community. The role will be based in NPG's Boston office.
Applicants must have a strong track record of research in a chemistry discipline, as well as significant editorial and/or senior research experience. They must demonstrate a good understanding of the challenges faced by researchers in both academic institutions and industry.
This is a demanding and extremely stimulating role, which calls for a keen interest in the practice and communication of science. The successful candidate will therefore be dynamic, motivated and outgoing, and must possess excellent interpersonal skills.
Applicants should include a covering letter stating their suitability for this post, as well as their salary expectations, a current CV and a statement (maximum 1,500 words) that encapsulates their vision for the content, competitive position and longer-term development of Nature Chemistry.
Applications should be sent to Denise Pitter, Personnel Assistant at londonrecruitment@macmillan.co.uk. Applicants should clearly mark on their submissions the reference number. Incomplete applications will not be considered. Closing Date: 24 September 2007

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 16, 2007
Categories: Careers, Disciplines, Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

As the world’s largest scientific recruitment site with over 4,000 jobs globally within academic institutions, industry and government, naturejobs.com provides everything you need to find your next position.
The naturejobs team is now redeveloping and improving this site. As there are so many open positions, the site has been updated to make it easier for job seekers to find the right position. The job search function and the way in which your search results are presented are in an iimproved and simpler format, making it easier for you to find the most relevant positions. You can also apply directly using the ‘Apply to job’ field below the job description -- just paste in your application and CV with no need for attachments.
If you have an existing Resume/CV with naturejobs.com you will be able to retrieve this information up until October 2007. To do so, please login here.
To start searching our new jobs database, please do so here.
Naturejobs.com is continuing to evolve, so watch out for more information. The naturejobs team welcomes your questions or comments via email.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 16, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature, the leading international journal of science in print and online, seeks a full-time Books & Arts Editor to play a key role in the development of its growing Opinion section.
The Books & Arts Editor will be responsible for producing timely, authoritative, urbane, informative, useful, competitive, entertaining, opinionated and engaging culture coverage in print and online, from commissioning to publication. Their section must review, preview and reflect upon the most important developments and trends in books, media, film, theatre, dance, music and visual art of interest to a broad, literate, global audience of working scientists and science-interested opinion leaders.
The ideal candidate will be passionate about science, books, the arts and the internet, educated to Masters level or beyond, with exemplary scientific and cultural contacts and at least 3 years editing experience, preferably in running a similar magazine section. S/he will thrive on ideas, deadlines, collaboration and innovation. The post is London based, but may involve some travel to Nature's overseas offices.
All candidates must demonstrate the right to live and work in the UK to be considered for the vacancy.
Contact Details:
Applicants should email a covering letter, 3 clips of their writing and editing, a CV of no more than 2 pages, and an outline of no more than 400 words of how they would cover Autumn 2007's biggest books and arts stories, quoting reference number NPG/LON/694, to Geetika Juneja at londonpersonnel@macmillan.co.uk by 29 August 2007.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 15, 2007
Categories: Careers, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0)

For the past 20 years, David Goldston has been at the heart of forging US science and environmental policy. His regular Nature column provides a seasoned insider's take on the interaction between science and politics. His latest article, Making room for dissent (Nature 448, 524; 2007), explores the effect of political dissent on scientific progress.

For now, Congress is likely to move ahead with the Administration's proposal to double the budgets of key physical science programmes over ten years, while providing more money than requested for other science agencies. And it is poised to pass legislation authorizing the approach called for in the Gathering Storm.
What needs to happen next is one of those rare, but essential periods when Congress is perplexed enough to scan the full horizon for new diagnoses and prescriptions — including some that are yet to be formulated. The next consensus will have to rely less on a reflexive turn to politically safe, time-honoured ideas if the United States is to keep enough high-value jobs to sustain its standard of living.

You can read the collected Nature columns of David Goldston here, and hear him talk about the intersection of science and politics on the Nature podcast.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 15, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

The articles that have been downloaded most often, in PDF format, from the Nature website in July, are listed below and can be accessed online from this page. The chart does not rank the quality, scientific significance or citation impact of the content. However, it may bring articles to your attention that you might not have otherwise noticed. We hope you enjoy them.

Continue reading "Nature's July top ten PDF downloads" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 14, 2007
Categories: Author services, Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)

For advice about how to get your stem cell paper in Nature, senior editor Natalie DeWitt, will answer your questions about how the editorial process works, common misconceptions and other topics in the stem-cell field. Please send Natalie an email containing your question.

Highlights from this month's Nature Reports Stem Cells include:

California stem-cell research: assessing return on investment
Read our commentary by Stanford researcher Michael T. Longaker that explores how Californians can figure out whether its landmark, debt-funded investment in stem-cell research will pay off.
Why are recipients of California stem-cell grants using lines that are eligible for federal funding?
A Nature Reports Stem Cell survey of researchers examines the grants designed to bring new researchers into the stem-cell field.
Bureaucracy blocks work on embryonic stem cells in Japan
Kyoto University's Norio Nakatsuji argues that irrational regulations stifle research in his country.
What experiments should be legal on animal-human chimaeras?
With new legislation covering the use of animal-human chimeras in the works in the United Kingdom, Nature Reports Stem Cells summarizes the report from the UK Academy of Medical Sciences.
Embryonic stem cells for drug discovery
In Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, experts from Monash University describe the advances needed to make assays feasible.
Also read about a survey finding that most fertility patients would donate left-over embryos for stem-cell research and the latest news and views on engineered pluripotent stem cells from Nature.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 14, 2007
Categories: Author services, Publishing, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

What do Eric Lander, Frank Wilczek, James Randi and Martha Stewart have in common? Answer: they were all attendees at the second Science Foo Camp from 3 to 5 August, co-organized by Nature Publishing Group, O'Reilly Media and Google, and hosted at the Googleplex in Mountain View, California.
The 'Foo Camp' format has been pioneered by O'Reilly, a publisher of computing books and organizer of technology conferences, as an antidote to the often overly restrictive nature of formal conferences, where most of the best conversations seem to happen in hallways and during coffee breaks rather than at the main sessions. Foo is self-organizing, unpredictable and rather anarchic - but also quite wonderful.
For fuller accounts, see Henry Gee's End of the Pier Show blog on Nature Network, this Edge essay by George Dyson and Timo Hannay's account on Nascent. There is lots of other blog coverage which can be accessed from this summary page .

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 13, 2007
Categories: Author benefits, Communication, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fern Wickson of the Centre for the Study of the Sciences and the Humanities, University of Bergen, writes in Correspondence (Nature 448, 644; 2007):

The Editorial 'Enough talk already' (Nature 448, 1–2; 2007) concludes that governments should respond to the public concern expressed in engagement exercises, and invest in research on the health and environmental risks of nanotechnologies. I agree. I would, however, suggest that this is not enough.
Although we need more scientific research on the risks of nanotechnologies, we also need to encourage broader dialogue on notions of progress, quality of life, human needs and our visions of the future — both with and without nanotechnology.
In the social sciences, the concept of uncertainty has been extended beyond that of risk and a lack of research. First, within complex, open and interacting social and natural systems, there is an inherent and irreducible form of uncertainty that prevents the full range of impacts being delimited. An additional form of uncertainty results from the diverse values, interests and positions held on questions such as what actually constitutes social and environmental health. Finally, given the novel properties used within nanotechnologies, there will also inevitably be novel impacts that we are currently simply ignorant about. This is ignorance about the right questions to ask, rather than ignorance about the answers.
This means that we need a broader dialogue to take place, about the real-life value of potential applications coming from nanotechnology. Otherwise we risk falling into the trap of believing we can base decisions about nanotechnologies on an assessment of their potential impacts alone, disregarding our values in the face of multiple forms of uncertainty.
Public-engagement exercises can begin this kind of dialogue — but not if their purpose is simply building public trust in order to win acceptance of potentially controversial technologies.

In the same issue of Nature, (448, 2; 2007) Richard Wilson writes: As director of the public-participation organization Involve , I would like to add [to the Editorial's argument] that we need a more mature relationship between science and society, whereby both sides are open about their concerns and aspirations and realistic about what they can offer.
Too often science is equated to evidence. But having, in an earlier role, commissioned scientific research for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am aware that the answer you get can depen