Nautilus

Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, and the End of the World, by Sidney Perkowitz, was reviewed in Nature last week (450, 481-482; 2007) by Emma Marris. From the review:

"Perkowitz's book is an affectionate examination of dozens of science-fiction films. If you don't want endings spoiled, avoid this book. Detailed plot summaries alternate with short, layman-level explanations of the research behind such staples as asteroids hitting Earth, computers taking over, atomic holocausts and alien invasions."

A list of the "five best and five worst" films from the book, together with links to their Internet Movie Database entries, can be found at this article in Discover magazine. I'm glad that Contact was included, not so much for the scientific credibility of the movie, but because of Jodie Foster's portrayal of a scientist -- a relatively normal person, compared with the megalomaniac, mutating, mass-conspiratorial or paranoid stereotype.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 30, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

December's editorial in Nature Neuroscience (10, 1501; 2007) describes how law-enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom are acting before trouble develops to protect researchers from threats and harassment by animal rights extremists. Other countries should consider adopting similar policies and tactics.
There has been "a sudden and very marked decline in targeting individual researchers around the country in a personal way," the director of the UK Research Defence Society (RDS, an organization that monitors such campaigns and receives police briefings) told The Guardian. The RDS website points to an article on Comment is Free, the Guardian blog, about the benefits of animal experiments for medicine.
According to the Nature Neuroscience editorial: "In contrast, Dario Ringach and Michael Podell received little support from law enforcement or their universities in the United States in dealing with sustained campaigns of threats and intimidation, which ultimately led each of them to stop studying animals. The passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act raised hopes that the United States might adopt a tougher approach, but one scientist in Los Angeles said that the situation has not improved. In October, the Animal Liberation Front took responsibility for flooding the house of a local researcher, causing $20,000–40,000 in damage. Because the new federal law applies only to crimes committed across state lines, it has not been effective against extremists who act within a state. To crack down on intimidation of researchers, legislatures will need to pass stronger state laws and the police will need to respond proactively to threats."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 29, 2007
Categories: Animal experiments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Following on a successful inaugural year of Postdoc Journal, Naturejobs is pleased to announce the launch of an international competition to select new writers for 2008.
The Postdoc Journal gives four postdoctoral fellows the opportunity to each write a monthly journal entry for Naturejobs. These writers will chart their ups and downs over the course of a year and describe how their experiences shape their future career choices. Some occasional blogging may be requested as well.
We ask that applicants provide three things:
--A cover letter saying why you want to be considered and what would make you a good journal keeper. Include your institutional affiliation, general area of research, the focus of your graduate degree, and how long you've been a postdoc.
--A sample first entry, 250 words long, that introduces yourself, identifies the biggest career question you will face in the upcoming year and how you plan to search for an answer.
--Your CV.
Deadline for applications is 17 December 2007. See here for previous journal entries.
The applicants will be judged by a panel including Naturejobs editorial staff and past postdoc journal keepers. Applicants must commit to submitting monthly for one year regardless of any changes in student or employment status. Please email the cover letter, sample entry and CV as Word document attachments to this address..
In the subject line, write 'postdoc journal contest' and state the country you are based in and your discipline (example: postdoc journal contest, Canada, cell biology).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 28, 2007
Categories: Careers, Writing | Permalink | Comments (1)

Ai Lin Chun, one of the editors of Nature Nanotechnology, writes about the column in the journal Top Down Bottom Up (example at this link), which highlights the multidisciplinary nature of nanoscience and nanotechnology by going “behind the scenes” to explore how collaborations occur and work together. Collaborations could be between two or more different disciplines (for example, physical scientists and biomedical researchers) or between academic departments and industrial researchers. The name of the section is intended to suggest how researchers with different expertise come at a problem from different directions.
If you have an interesting collaboration, please drop Ai Lin a line at her Nature Nanotechnology network group -- and she might pick your collaboration to highlight in the journal.

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

Via the SciDev.Net website, I read that a new phase of the international initiative 'Online Access to Research in the Environment' (OARE) was launched on 6 November. In the first phase of the project last year, institutions from 72 countries subscribed. Now, interested institutions from another 36 developing countries will have access to an environmental and related sciences research database.
The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and Yale University sponsor the public-private consortium initiative. Around 350 publishing and society partners also support it, including Nature Publishing Group journals.
Primary research papers and other content in our journals are made freely available online to readers in countries that are members of HINARI, AGORA and OARE, greatly extending the reach of the papers as well as providing information in a timely fashion to people who might not otherwise be able to obtain it or obtain it promptly.
SciDev.Net is an independent online science and development network providing news, views and information about science, technology and the developing world. It is a free access website and features several articles a week from Nature, selected by the SciDev.Net editors.

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

Science and art on Nature Network
To celebrate its 208-year history in science, the Royal Institution of Great Britain is launching a competition in partnership with Nature, to find a work of art that conveys the excitement and beauty of science, as well as creative originality.
Nature Network publisher Li-Kim Lee was flicking through Nature recently and came across a notice about an initiative by the Wellcome Trust. The organization is providing a limited number of scientists with an intensive course in filmmaking. The deadline is 10 Dec 2007.
Matt Brown, Editor of Nature Network London, has put out a call for images of science in London and Boston, even offering his own camera as a prize.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 26, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

What's the point of blogging? is a question asked by Duncan Hull at Nodalpoint: are people wasting their time reading and writing blogs? As Duncan writes, "most leading scientists are too damn busy to pay much attention to the blogosphere, especially when it descends (as it frequently does) into "uncontrollable verbal discharge". " There follows a list of links to various articles about scientific blogging in Nature, Cell and other publications, including one with the title "Ten Reasons Why Blogging is Good for your career", with a perhaps predictable rejoinder, "Ten Reasons Why Blogging doesn't matter". Among other sentiments, this last article (written in March 2005) contains this summary of relevance to scientists: "Bloggers tend to have strong, acute viewpoints on niche issues - a lot like academia, in fact. Except that unlike research papers, blogging is not subject to peer review before going to press, nor does it need to have bibliography and references."

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

If you could make one change to the way young scientists are taught and trained, what would it be and why? If you could make one change to the way scientists communicate their latest experimental results, what would it be and why? Corie Lok, Editor of Nature Network, asked some Boston scientists these questions. You can see thir answers in Corie's Network news article How would you change the way scientists are trained?. Here are a few of the points made by the scientists, who are at different stages of their careers:

"I think that at the very least, young scientists in training should know who founded their field, when, and why."

"The postdoctoral period seems to be getting longer and longer. This is a tough pill to swallow when you are in your early to mid-20s. If this continues, more and more talented scientists will leave the bench."

"I would make books like Jared Diamond’s Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed essential reading at the high school level."

"No one in their right mind would give competitors ideas that would expedite their research. This mentality is necessary to stay on top of the field and remain competitive for grants. However, the “secretive” nature of science drastically slows our progress."

For more answers, and to add your own thoughts on these questions, please visit the Nature Network forum.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 22, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Michael Kenward starts a debate in Nature Network's science writers' group called Science experiments in accessibility, in which he highlights the journal Science's trial project of starting each Research Article with a one-page author's summary. Michael sees two benefits for science writers: one, to help authors to produce accessible summaries; and another to use the summaries to write more easily and confidently about the research.
Following this post is an online discusssion about the benefits to the reader of different types of summary which you may find stimulating, and to which you are welcome to contribute, or comment here. Typical summaries provided by journals range from News and Views-style editorials (articles by independent scientists in the field about a new finding), to short author summaries, to "making the paper" (interviews with an author featured on Nature's author page in the journal every week), to "inside the paper" (editors' accounts of how the paper evolved from submission to acceptance during the peer-review process) to one-paragraph editors' summaries, to science journalism, to blog posts, to podcasts. What kind of reader finds what kind of summary most useful? Would authors welcome the additional task of writing one-page summaries?

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 21, 2007
Categories: Author services, Authorship, Communication, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Q. Hello,
I am looking for the "Instructions to Authors" and I do not find them. I take care about bibliographic management systems and I want to know which style the journal Nature prefers regarding text citation and the reference list.
Thank you
A Scientist.

A. Dear Dr Scientist
On every page of the journal Nature's website is a column on the left-hand side containing information -- one of these states "for authors and referees". Clicking on that takes you to the journal's author information index page.
The section on reference lists can be found here.
Best wishes
Maxine Clarke
NATURE

For authors wishing to submit to other Nature journals, each journal operates a similar system. Each journal is described briefly here, with a link to the home page and submission system of each.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 20, 2007
Categories: Author Services Feedback | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ai Lin Chun of Nature Nanotechnology describes how to join Nature Network and one of its many groups:
1) Complete your profile (include a picture)*
2) Participate in the forum (post topics/replies; ask questions)
3) Read the notice board
4) Post your newest publications to the group profile for increased visibility
5) Set your account to receive at least one email per week to keep up to date on latest events/postings

*For examples of a Network profile, here is Ai Lin's (click on her name), and here is mine.
There is a huge variety of groups to join, including in every discipline of science, or arts/culture, or science/society, or general science-related: here is a listing. Select groups to suit your own interests and interact with like-minded scientists and other users. It's simple to do, and all free.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 19, 2007
Categories: Author services, Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Bronwen Dekker's charming Work Blog on Nature Network:

Q. What is the difference between Nature Methods and Nature Protocols?

A.This is a really good question! There are two important differences:
(1) Nature Methods publishes primary research, that is, methods that are new and have not been published before, while Nature Protocols publishes (hopefully) reliable methods that have already been used to generate results in primary research papers. Most of Nature Protocols’ content is commissioned.
(2) Nature Methods are formatted as a normal article, while in Nature Protocols, the procedure is written as a series of number steps in the active tense.

Protocol manuscripts are also structured slightly differently: The headings are Abstract, Introduction, Materials (Reagents, Equipment, Reagent Setup and Equipment Setup), Procedure, Timing, Troubleshooting, and Anticipated Results.
There are also cute little callouts. [See the Work Blog post for an example.]

I highly recommend subscribing to Work Blog for a window into a personal and always accessible mix of life as a "Protocols 2.0" pioneer.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 16, 2007
Categories: Author Services Feedback | Permalink | Comments (0)

Academic researchers have regularly ignored patents on key technologies as a strategy to maneuver around patent thickets and freedom-to-operate issues, but they may be more at risk than they realize, write Amy Yancey and C Neal Stewart, Jr of the Department of Plant Sciences at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the current issue of Nature Biotechnology (25, 1225-1228; 2007). From their article:
"The original proponents of patent protection could not have foreseen a world in which the very building blocks of life could be patented or farmers could be prevented from saving seeds from year to year, but our courts, regulators and political leaders are certainly aware of it now. Despite this fact, public policy solutions have been slow in materializing, and the problems may get worse before they improve. It may prove that no silver bullet exists, but with open-source solutions, pressure from open-science advocates like Richard Jefferson and open licensing from universities, anticommons effects can hopefully be avoided or minimized. In the interim, it seems prudent to conduct research on awareness of FTO issues among public university researchers, increase empirical evidence of the innovation-blocking effects of anticommons and patent thickets, evaluate the effectiveness of those organizations seeking to increase collaboration amount public institutions and create new workarounds."
For further advice, additional reading and references, read the full article at Nature Biotechnology's website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 16, 2007
Categories: Categories, Competing interests | Permalink | Comments (0)

Frank Gannon, Director General of Science Foundation Ireland and senior scientist at the European Molecular Biology Organisation (EMBO) highlights the women issue in his editorial in the current issue of EMBO Reports ( 8, 11, 975; 2007) about two studies published in the same issue of the journal that, "like many others preceding them—show once again that there are great inequalities in the career prospects of men and women in science." Gannon highlights "the blatant unfairness of the fact that, although an identical number of men and women get a PhD in the life sciences, only 15–20% of tenured positions are secured by women. Put another way, it means that men are almost three times more 'successful' than their erstwhile female colleagues."
The first of the two studies, Falling off the Academic Bandwaggon by E. D. Martinez et al. (EMBO Reports 8, 11, 977–981; 2007) documents that women are more likely to quit research at the transition of postdoc to principal investigator. The authors conclude that "the scientific community should wake up to the needs of female PIs by fully supporting—in both theory and practice—initiatives and policies that address the problems faced by women who could take up an independent position. Targeting this population of scientists will increase the number of women entering the PI track and will ultimately result in an increase in the number of women who hold senior positions—thus sustaining the involvement of women in academic science through future generations."
The second study, A Persistent Problem, by A. Ledin et al. (the authors include Gannon) (EMBO Reports 8, 11, 982–987; 2007) concludes that traditional gender roles hold back female scientists. "Employers, policy-makers, scientists and society all need to consider whether we can afford to lose such a large number of trained specialists from the workforce. The consequence of the current system is that a large percentage of higher education graduates are not reinvesting their skills in the economy, owing to traditional gender roles that are no longer in accordance with the demands of modern women and men. We need to ensure that men and women who want to have families are not prevented from also having careers and contributing to society in every way that they can. This can only be achieved by a significant change in the way that society and individuals think about the roles of men and women, and by taking positive action to improve the working conditions and available support for both women and men at all stages of their careers."
See also News in Brief, Nature 450, 149 (2007).

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

Is there an inherent conflict between public debate and free scientific inquiry? Patrick L. Taylor of Children's Hospital Boston and Harvard Medical School argues in this week's Commentary in Nature (450, 163-164; 2007) that earning public trust is essential to defending scientific freedoms. He writes:
"Public engagement in scientific research has gone viral. Today, public consultation is invoked for subjects as diverse as war veterans' responses to genomic research, responsible nanotechnology and the use of animal transplants in humans. It has also gone global, as demonstrated by the just-completed consultation on research using animal–human hybrid embryos by Britain's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), and the Singapore government's plan to consult on hybrid research and oocyte donation later this year. As groups of citizens mobilize and blog on science issues — from patenting to public health and drug development — it is time to reconsider the ground rules for public debates on science."
His proposals for what scientists should do:
First, when soliciting public engagement, we must be clear what the public is being asked to contribute.
Second, we ought to encourage the public to share in understanding the wonder of scientific developments.
Third, we need to respect and actively support the neutrality, credibility and independence of bodies of scientific expertise, particularly advisory committees and academic journals.
"Fourth, we must be continuously creative in public engagement. The whirlwind of scientific and biotechnological change must be met with complementary engagement, in which people's need to know and evaluate can be grounded in intelligent understanding of possible solutions to their concerns."
Please read this stimulating article in full at the Nature website.
In the same issue of the journal, you can also read the current Essay in the science and politics series, A Timely Harvest (Nature 450, 174; 2007), in which Pierre-Benoit Joly and Arie Rip opine that the public should be consulted on contentious research and development early enough for their opinions to influence the course of science and policy-making - using genetic modification of plants and nanotechnology as examples.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 14, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via email from my colleague Henry Gee:
Futures from Nature is an anthology of 100 very short stories from Nature’s award-winning back-page Futures SF series … and it’s published today [13 November 2007], as a hardback from Tor, at 25 [US] dollars (or about two bob on old money), so with the usual discounts, they’re practically paying you to take it away. It's the ideal festive gift for the constipated, insomniac trekkie in your life.
As well as stories from journalists, scientists and writers trying SF for the very first time, Futures from Nature is a parade of SF greats, featuring stories from the likes of Arthur C. Clarke, Frederik Pohl, Greg Bear, Gregory Benford, Kim Stanley Robinson, Dan Simmons, Alastair Reynolds, Charles Stross, Peter F. Hamilton, Vonda McIntyre and many more.
Here’s what Publisher’s Weekly said in their starred review: “Each vignette centers on a wondrous or devastating or simply mind-boggling what if, carried to an unsettlingly original logical conclusion—or left spinning in an extraterrestrial mental orbit… a perfect volume to awaken startling new thoughts on old SF themes, giant leaps into the future in delectably palatable tiny packages.”
Actually, I lied. The anthology doesn’t contain 100 stories, but 101. I wrote one extra, just for the book. Not that this alone makes the book an essential purchase, but, you know, every Greatest Hits package has to have its Bonus Track.

See here for the Amazon UK listing, and here for the Amazon US listing.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 13, 2007
Categories: Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the current issue of Nature, News in Brief (Nature 450, 148; 2007).
"US investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) may soon be compelled to publish only in journals that make their research papers freely available within one year of publication.
Congress is this week expected to take final votes on a bill incorporating this directive. The measure is contained in a spending bill that boosts the biomedical agency's effective budget by 3.1%, to $29.8 billion in 2008.
President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the bill, which will fund the Department of Health and Human Services and other agencies, because it includes what he calls “irresponsible and excessive” levels of spending.
But congressional Democrats have attached to the measure an unrelated but politically popular bill funding the Department of Veterans Affairs. They hope that this will generate the two-thirds support needed in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto.
The open-access requirement in the bill would apply only during fiscal year 2008; it would need to be renewed in yearly spending bills in the future."

When a manuscript is accepted for publication in a Nature or other NPG journal, authors are encouraged to submit their version of the accepted paper (the unedited manuscript) to their funding body's archive, for public release six months after publication. Nature journals are hence already more than fulfiling the conditions in the proposed bill. In addition, we encourage authors to archive this version of the manuscript in their institution's repositories and, if they wish, on their personal websites, also six months after the original publication. Authors should cite the publication reference and DOI number on any deposited version, and provide a link from it to the URL of the published article on the journal's website. See here for details of our licence policies.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 13, 2007
Categories: Access | Permalink | Comments (0)

Visit the blog Easternblot for a little relaxation in the form of a Renaissance people trivia quiz
"Ten famous people, all with an interest in science, but none of them famous for their involvement in science. Instead, you’ll know each of these for their contributions to music, film, literature, fine arts, or photography. Who or what are described here?"
You have until "mid November" before the answers are posted at Easternblot.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 12, 2007
Categories: Awards | Permalink | Comments (0)

In an article neatly titled the write position, Jonathan D. Wren et al. in the current issue of EMBO Reports ( 8, 11, 998-991; 2007 ) survey perceived contributions to papers in biomedical fields based on byline position and number of authors. They undertook the study because publications in peer-reviewed journals are a major criterion for assessing scientists for promotion, tenure or funding, yet not all authors are viewed as equal contributors. Qualitatively, those listed first or last in the byline are generally apportioned more credit for the work than middle authors, but it is not known exactly how much authors are perceived to contribute from their byline position.
To attempt a quantitative assessment, the authors surveyed chairpeople of promotion and tenure committees, and found that respondents felt that the first author in a three-person byline had made the greatest contribution to the work performed, whereas the last author deserved most credit for both the initial conception and supervision of the project. There was no significant difference in three-author compared with five-author bylines for the credit apportioned to the last author for initial conception, work performed or supervision.
In addition, nearly half of the repondents agreed that granting authorship to someone who does not meet journal authorship criteria is common. Adding authors to a publication apparently does not affect the relative overall credit afforded to the last author, but the perceived contributions of all other authors suffer a drop in value.
For details of survey response rates and percentages, as well as further information, please see the full report at the EMBO Reports website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 12, 2007
Categories: Authorship | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via Nature Network: On Friday 16 November at 1230 GMT, there is a virtual online tour of the Darwin Centre, the newest addition to London's Natural History Museum. Opened in 2002, the Darwin Centre contains more than 22 million specimens and is home to more than 70 scientists. From a giant squid and a Komodo dragon to sharks, worms, corals and snails, the tour will allow you to take a closer look at the museum's specimens as well as to see the work of some of the scientists.
Details of the museum's talks programme for real visitors can be found here. Virtual visitors can go here to see the range of online talks and other events.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 12, 2007
Categories: Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Nature Network:

"We are looking for contributors for a one-day event on popular science books to be held at Imperial College, London on 22nd Feb 2008. Literary critics, historians, writers, illustrators, publishers, prize-givers, reviewers, readers, booksellers, teachers (and others) are all invited to take part. Contributors will be asked introduce a book, collection, theme, or popular science author, perhaps with a small extract, and use it to raise a topic for discussion in or about popular science."
"If you are interested in contributing, please send us an outline of your presentation (500 words maximum) and a short bio (approx 200 words). The outline should list the source(s) you want to discuss, and preview the discussion topic your session would raise. Email this to popscievent@gmail.com by the 23rd November 2007." (See Nature Network for more details.)

Also, see The Science Project blog for information about the Third Annual ‘Science & the Public’ Conference, to be held at the University of Manchester, UK, on 21 and 22 June 2008. The conference "aims to bring together the wide ranging strands of academia that consider science as it intersects with non-scientific cultures." The organizers are currently calling for papers on topics including: notions of expertise in the public; public science and science policy; technological development and the public; and science on the internet. All submissions and enquiries should be emailed to scienceandpublic@googlemail.com by 14 March 2008. (For more details, see the Science Project posting.)

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 10, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

"PowerPoint is a joy to use — click a few highly intuitive buttons to animate your favourite model and the results seem the work of professionals with years of film school behind them. Customize your graphics to rival the finest glossy magazines. But does a visually striking presentation really make your research more accessible or memorable? Do bouncing phosphates really explain a kinase reaction better? We would argue that overbearing graphics tend to distract the audience from the science."
So begins the editorial in this month's Nature Cell Biology (9, 1217; 2007), which continues: ... "graphics tools ought to be used only when necessary. It is worth reflecting on the frustrating experience of watching a Hollywood movie so overloaded with special effects that it leaves the viewer drained from sensory overload but intellectually and emotionally unsatisfied. Less is more: after a day of back-to-back talks, nothing is more refreshing than a visually clear, logically constructed and well articulated presentation."
Read the full editorial here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 09, 2007
Categories: Communication, Conferences | Permalink | Comments (1)

Nature is currently running an Essay series on science and politics. In the Essay in this week's issue (Nature 450, 33; 2007), Sheila Jassanoff cautions on the partiality of scientific knowledge and the need for disciplined methods to accommodate uncertainty, at a time when society and policy makers demand ever more science-based evidence.
Essays published so far in this eight-part series are by Richard Garwin, on the demise of the US President's Science Advisory Committee; Hans Wigzell on the gratifying results that can be obtained when science advisors enthuse and inform government members; David A. King and Sandy M. Thomas use a new report on obesity policy to highlight challenges for scientists and politicians working together; and Andrew A. Rosenberg says that science advisers should have confidence in their data, or risk being undermined by more dogmatic and vociferous stakeholders during the policy-making process.
All these essays, and the rest of the series, can be accessed from an online table of contents in Nature's web focus archive.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 08, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Plus has teamed up with Nature to bring maths to the Nature Network. Plus's blog calls Nature Network a "stage for science discussion, allowing scientists to meet, interact, comment on the latest news, debate current topics or exchange information. Members can create groups for their own labs or organisations, or for their own subject area. The mathematics forum is now brought to you by Plus. We're aiming to provide a platform for anyone who wants to discuss maths, whether it's actual maths, maths teaching, the portrayal of maths in the media, or good and bad maths content elsewhere on the internet." Plus is also organising a science writing competition, open to new writers who can explain a mathematical topic or application they think the world needs to know about. The winning entries will be published in the June 2008 issue of Plus, and the winners will receive an iPod and signed copies of popular maths books. Closing date 31 March 2008.

About Plus: "Plus is an internet magazine which aims to introduce readers to the beauty and the practical applications of mathematics. Plus provides feature articles, which describe applications of maths to real-world problems, games, and puzzles; reviews of popular maths books and events; a news section, showing how recent news stories were often based on some underlying piece of maths that never made it to the newspapers; a puzzle for you to sharpen your wits against; a lucky dip of mathematical curiosities; and opinions on various maths-related topics and news stories. We have a regular interview with someone in a maths-related career, showing the wide range of uses maths gets put to in the real world. And all past issues remain available online, which besides making for good browsing is, we hope, a useful resource for maths school students and teachers."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 08, 2007
Categories: Disciplines, Partners, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the Nature Nanotechnolgy forum on Nature Network, editor Ai Lin Chun asks readers what they mean by the term "nano" technology. She writes about the manuscripts recently submitted to the journal that, although interesting, "were hardly in the nano regime. For example, fibers that were 400-600 nm were called nanofibers." She asks whether we are diluting the term ‘nano’, and if so, why? How strict/flexible should we be? Some peer-reviewers of these papers indicated that even though the materials were 400-600 nm, the work is in their opinion publishable because it is interesting and thorough. The ensuing debate is well worth a look -- please add your own answers and definition of what you consider to be nanoscale.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 07, 2007
Categories: Writing | Permalink | Comments (1)

It can take twice as long to get a PhD in biomedical sciences in the United States as it does in other countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. This month's Editorial in Nature Medicine (13, 1265; 2007) asks whether US PhDs are worth more, or whether there are advantages to a speedier system.

Which is the better system probably depends on who you ask. Ask the students and they would probably prefer the short PhD, as it allows them to try out research within a shorter time frame and get out early if they decide it's not for them. And if the purpose of a PhD is not simply training for a life in academia, but also training in the sort of intellectual discipline that can be used in activities aside from the bench, there are clear advantages to not lingering around. Even for those students who are keen to continue on in research, completing a PhD in three years allows them to pursue the next step in a different, perhaps more successful lab if they are not happy with the lab they chose as green, inexperienced novices. Principal investigators might have a different viewpoint: why should they spend three years training a student, only for that student to leave the lab and pursue a postdoc elsewhere as soon as he or she becomes competent enough to do experiments without close supervision? It's only natural for researchers to want to maximize the return on their investment.

Read the full Editorial at Nature Medicine's website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 07, 2007
Categories: Careers, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Publishing Group (NPG) has announced that it will be contributing the cash received by winning the Principe de Asturias Award to a philanthropic fund, NPG Awards. Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature, and Annette Thomas, CEO of Macmillan, accepted the 2007 Principe de Asturias Award for Communication and Humanities at a recently held ceremony in Oviedo, Spain. The award was made jointly to NPG’s flagship title, Nature, and the journal Science.
The two publications will share a prize of €50,000 and NPG will use Nature’s share to boost the NPG awards, which help researchers from the developing world attend Gordon Research Conferences. Launched in June 2006, the NPG awards provide funds of up to US$1,500 to help delegates from developing countries attend the internationally renowned conferences. The awards are made based on nominations made by conference chairs, and are open to those who live and work in eligible countries and have been accepted to attend.
The addition of €25,000 to the philanthropic fund will allow NPG to support many more researchers to attend the conferences. In 2007, NPG awards were made to 26 participants who attended 21 different conferences and were from Kenya, Venezuela, Brazil, India, South Africa, Argentina, Chile, China, Poland, Mexico, Zambia and Romania.
Nature also runs a mentoring awards scheme.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 06, 2007
Categories: Awards, Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0)

Conference registration: how people react to a deadline : Article : Nature Physics

Valentina Alfi, Giorgio Parisi and Luciano Pietronero in their Correspondence in the current issue of Nature Physics ( 3, 746; 2007) draw on their recent experiences of organizing and planning meetings to investigate the behaviour people show when they are asked to register for a conference and provide an abstract. They conclude: "People's behaviour around a deadline does indeed seem to be universal. If the action is reversible (as is simple registration), the pressure to do it is inversely proportional to the available time before the deadline. For an irreversible action (such as payment), there is a tendency to postpone it until even closer to the deadline, which can be described by a utility function. The rule of thumb to guess the final number of registrants is to consider the extrapolation of the initial linear behaviour and multiply it by three — a result that may be useful for organizers of future events."
Their data and analysis are shown in the full Correspondence article at the link provided above.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 06, 2007
Categories: Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0)

The need for data storage is enormous, and is expected to increase even further in the near future as new technologies such as on-demand television or high-definition video make it to the consumer. This Nature Materials Insight, published in the November 2007 issue, aims to capture the dynamic research efforts that span the wide range of related disciplines. The Insight is free online to registered users until 31 December 2007.
This Insight contains a collection of Review articles, together with a Commentary, that span the wide range of disciplines related to information storage. One of this year’s physics Nobel laureates, Albert Fert, reviews the recent advances in spintronics that, starting with his Nobel work, allow for dramatic advances in hard-drive technology. In an intereview, Intel’s Chief Technology Officer Justin Rattner talks about recent advances in microprocessor design. Find out more by viewing the Insight for free online.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 06, 2007
Categories: Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you are looking to fill an appointment, looking for a position yourself, or wanting to advertise or announce an event, award or conference in the fields of biotechnology and phamacuetical R&D, the 15 November isssue of Nature will feature a special focus in these disciplines in the Nature Jobs section of the journal. The contact details for placing your advertisement or announcement can be found at this PDF -- the deadlines are 8 or 9 November, depending on where you are located. The main Nature Jobs website can be seen here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2007
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

"A decade ago, glia were the neglected stepchildren of neuroscience. Although glia outnumber neurons by about ten to 1 in the adult human brain, providing support for neurons has traditionally been viewed as their primary function. Glial biology has come into its own recently, as researchers have shown that glia are critical for the development of the nervous system and have key roles in various disorders." So writes Sandra Aamodt, Editor of Nature Neuroscience, in her introductory Editorial to the journal's focus on glia and disease (November 2007), which highlights recent efforts and discusses how advances in understanding glial biology may lead to new treatments.
Glial cells regulate brain vasculature and the blood-brain barrier, modulating ischemia and blood flow changes in response to neural activity. Moreover, they are important in brain repair after injury and contribute to neurodegenerative diseases. The Nature Neuroscience special focus on glia and disease contains four reviews and two perspectives that highlight recent research in these areas and discuss how advances in understanding glial biology may lead to new treatments.
The November issue of Nature Neuroscience is available online here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2007
Categories: Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Importance of Patents to Scientists is the title of today's talk at Second Nature island in Second Life. Sue Scott, a patent attorney, will talk about patents in science, why they exist and are controversial, explain the basic things all scientists need to know about patents, and attempt to dispel some of the most common misconceptions. Please see this Nascent posting for more details: Jo Scott writes that "Voice will be used, so if you need any help setting up, come along a few minutes early."
Date: Monday 5 November
Time: 11am SLT/PDT, 7pm GMT
Location: Second Nature Island
Contact: Joanna Wombat

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2007
Categories: Author services, Communication, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

As part of our ongoing discussion about the accountability of authors and co-authors (comments are still very welcome), I decided to take a snapshot look at the popularity of Author Contributions statements in Nature. We strongly encourage authors to make these statments, specifying the ways in which the authors contributed to the paper, but we do not make it mandatory. Should that change? Part of the answer to that question lies in how useful authors find the idea. So it is of interest to note that in the past three or four issues of Nature, about half of the Articles and Letters (primary research) carried contributions statements. Here are some examples, all from the same issue of Nature (1 November 2007):

J.L., J.R.S. and J.W.L. conceived the Brainbow strategies. J.R.S. and J.W.L. supervised the project. J.L. built initial constructs and validated them in vitro and in vivo. T.A.W. performed all cerebellar axonal tracing and colour profile analysis with programs developed with J. Lu. H.K. performed all live imaging experiments. R.W.D. generated Brainbow-1.0 lines expressing cytoplasmic XFPs, and R.A.B. generated Brainbow-1.1 constructs and lines. J.L., T.A.W. and R.W.D. screened mouse lines.

S.H.C. designed and performed experiments, analysed data and wrote the paper; N.C., M.T. and J.M.G. designed and performed experiments; D.R. and M.B.G. developed analytical tools; and C.I.B. designed experiments, analysed data and wrote the paper.
(more on the post continuation page)

Continue reading "Author contributions audit" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2007
Categories: Authorship, Categories, Policies | Permalink | Comments (4)

Tim O’Reilly, head of the company bearing his name that, since 1978, has been a “chronicler and catalyst of leading-edge development, homing in on the technology trends that really matter and spurring their adoption by amplifying "faint signals" from the alpha geeks who are creating the future”, recently visited Nature Publishing Group’s London offices. Rosamund Daw, a senior editor in Nature’s physical sciences team, attended his talk, and here reports her impressions.

Tim O'Reilly's talk was a fascinating insight into the mind of someone who thinks about new ways of getting people together in real life and on the internet to generate new stuff (ideas, information, products). His presentation was a Q+A forum, which he kicked off by introducing the concept of “Web 2.0” as the phoenix rising from the ashes of the dot-com bust of the early 2000s. The concept of Web 2.0 seems to be based around harnessing the interactive networking power of the internet to provide new functionality and information.
Topics discussed in the forum included concerns with privacy on networking websites. O'Reilly believes that attitudes to privacy more generally are changing: that privacy is something that people are prepared to compromise if they can clearly see the benefits – one of his examples was surveillance cameras, and another is the relaxed attitude that can be seen at the social networking site Facebook.
Another topic was open access. When asked whether making content free led to mediocrity in publication quality online, O'Reilly responded he didn't believe that this had to be the case, giving Wikipedia as an example.
Anther question concerned what's at the "edge" of Web 2.0 ? O'Reilly discussed the idea of sensing: generating, for example, new information content through combining imagery posted on the internet. Imagine wandering through the streets of Paris on a virtual site generated from thousands of images of Paris posted on the internet from different people!
O'Reilly was exceptionally kind about NPG's efforts at the frontline of web developments. He and his colleagues blog at O’Reilly Radar , and you can find out more about his company’s activities here .
You can read another account of Tim O’Reilly’s talk, including a picture, over at Nascent, NPG’s web publishing blog.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 02, 2007
Categories: Communication, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Seven Stones blog:
Molecular Systems Biology (published by a partnership of the European Molecular Biology Organisation and Nature Publishing Group) has changed its publishing licence for all articles accepted after 1 October 2007 (see updated instruction to authors). The new procedure allows the journal's authors to choose between two Creative Commons licences: one that allows the work to be adapted by users ("attribution-noncommerical-share": by-nc-sa), the other that does not allow the work to be modified ("attribution-noncommercial-no derivative": by-nc-nd). The first articles to be published under the new licence are appearing online at the beginning of this month. The journal's content is therefore not only freely available to all, but also authors can decide to make their research fully open for reuse and adaptation.

Thomas Lemberger, EMBO editor of Molecular Systems Biology, who runs the Seven Stones blog, notes that he initially wanted to make this announcement only after the first paper published under the new licence (accepted after 1 October) had appeared online, but in light of a recent Editorial in PLoS Biology (“When Is Open Access Not Open Access?”), reviewing in detail the subtleties of publishing licenses and the concept of “open access”, he bought forward the announcement of Molecular Systems Biology's new policy. "Unfortunately, this Editorial, at the time of its publication (16 October), included erroneous information on Molecular Systems Biology, given that we had updated our policy on 1 October.", Thomas writes. "In any case, it is somewhat ironic that MacCallum chose to stigmatize Molecular Systems Biology as an example of a journal that “promulgates” confusion about open access. As it turns out, Molecular Systems Biology is dedicated to the concept of making research freely available and to engage authors themselves in decisions that would achieve this goal with their own research. It is in this spirit of openness and respect for authors that we have recently adapted our license to publish."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 02, 2007
Categories: Access, Policies, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0)

With a combination of genetic tricks and fancy proteins, Jean Livet et al. in the current issue of Nature (450, 56-62; 2007) report their work in which they have colourfully labelled hundreds of individual neurons with distinctive hues to create a "brainbow". The authors have labelled neurons with approximately 90 different colour combinations, providing a significant step towards modelling how the nervous system works normally and in diseased brains.
As well as reading the paper, you can listen to this week's free Nature Podcast to find out more, and read the Nature editors' summary of the work here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 02, 2007
Categories: Author benefits, Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)