Nautilus

From an Edtiorial in the current (April) issue of Nature Genetics (40, 375; 2008):
Communicating the details of science to nonspecialists is intrinsically hard because research entails specialized techniques for empirical testing of counterintuitive ideas. Public imagination may be more readily seized by stories that fit with preconceived models, and distortion can happen when communicators employ the most transmissible ideas. But when new concepts are successfully represented in everyday imagery, there is no reason the public cannot follow in detail the excitement of doing research. When engaged in the details of the analogy, nonspecialists can ask questions from a perspective that will be useful to the expert.
In an interview with Robyn Williams on Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Science Show [15 March 2008 edition], Oxford University researcher Kim Nasmyth explained molecular mechanisms of chromosome segregation with a riddle. In his allegory, chromosomes are represented as pairs of socks.

Continue reading "Analogies to describe science to nonscientists" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 31, 2008
Categories: Communication, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors. The Nature Network week column is archived here.

In the science writers' group, Angela Saini asks what science stories would be great for television, given that her non-scientist friends frequently tell her that "there is not enough science on TV". Among the responses so far are suggestions about heirloom tomatoes, better science for children, fun science and a magazine show. Matt Brown , who provides a weekly round-up of UK science TV on the network, comments that his favourite science programme on TV is "the recent BBC4 documentary about the lead singer of Eels discovering his father’s pioneering work on parallel universe theory. In other words, rock star learns extreme physics." Read on, and add your suggestions, at the Network forum.

At the NatureJobs careers forum, Paul Smaglik provides advice on roles in clinical trial programmes and starting a research career.

At the good paper journal club, Linda Cooper asks why so many scientific articles are difficult to read, and Heather Etchevers encourages more suggestions of well-written papers for dissection. Continuing the theme, Richard Grant at his blog The Scientist asks why most scientific papers are so boring. There is a very nice blog post by Mico Tatalovic, providing a student's perspective on students' science-writing skills -- including a round-up of undergraduate science journals.

Anna Kushnir initiates what has turned out to be a very informative debate about PubMed searches, at her blog Lab Life. There are plenty of tips and links in the long comment thread. You can also read an article on Partial Immortalization blog, "How to filter and read PubMed articles through RSS feeds", complete with screen shots, by Attila Csordas.

Jose Manuel Otero has started a Nature Network blog to discuss the difference and similarities between academic and industrial research. He is setting out to destroy some common myths. One such is that industrial research environments are not focused on problem understanding, but instead exclusively concerned with project milestones and product delivery, and therefore, will punish any type of mechanism-based efforts towards enhanced and deeper understanding. Wrong! Unsurprisingly, this blog is attacting stimulating discussion, which doubtless will continue.

John Willbanks writes about creative works, copyrights and publishing, providing some further thoughts after his talk at MIT on the question of how to extricate the “non-creative facts” from the creative, copyrighted work.

Perhaps the most intense and long comment thread for the week is Jennifer Rohn's post and discussion on Mind the Gap, "In which I utterly fail to conceptualize". Initially on the use of Excel spreadsheets to analyse genome-wide screens, the discussion becomes a full-blown debate on the contributions of bioinformaticans and "wet" (laboratory) biologists. And perhaps the most significant Nature Network group that started this week is called Collaboration: bringing Nature Network members together, set up by Bob O'Hara in direct response to this discussion. Can Nature Network create collaborations between its members? How can NN facilitate this process? Here you can discuss these details, and look for other people who are interested in working on the same topics as you are. I encourage you to sign up.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 28, 2008
Categories: Communication, Nature Network round-up, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is a paper under discussion at the Nature Network forum for good, clearly written papers.
SLAC1 is required for plant guard cell S-type anion channel function in stomatal signalling
Triin Vahisalu et al.
Nature 452, 487-491 (27 March 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature06608.
Download PDF here

To discuss this paper, please visit the Nature Network good paper journal club.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 27, 2008
Categories: Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Nature Reviews journals are presenting a collection of articles on stem cells, free to access online for six months. Stem-cell research has a history of more than 20 years, and has made some outstanding contributions to our understanding of haematopoiesis (the formation of blood cells) and embryology. The field has been transformed by successes achieved in culturing embryonic stem cells and in manipulating their differentiation in vitro. We are gaining a better understanding of both embryonic and adult stem cells at the molecular level and of how they behave in their biological context — progress that is of great significance in cell and developmental biology. An introductory editorial and summary of some of the articles in the collection can be read here.
Read more on the topic at Nature Reports Stem Cells, with its associated blog The Niche.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 27, 2008
Categories: Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

Noam Y. Harel of Yale University writes in Nature's Correspondence page (Nature 452, 409; 2008):

Writing grant proposals is difficult enough; keeping track of different deadlines makes for an endless cycle of procrastination and frantic preparation. The added stack of bureaucratic forms, with arcane variations from agency to agency, can tip one over the edge as a deadline nears.
Is it almost too obvious to wish for a centralized proposal repository? Investigators could submit proposals at any time, in a common format that highlights the science rather than obliterates it with red tape. Funding agencies could search the repository for proposals matching their interests. A minimum of bureaucratic information would be required up front. Budget details could be worked out between funding agencies and investigators as necessary.
Ideally, all proposals would be publicly accessible. However, most of the scientific community has not yet accepted the inevitable dawn of truly open science. Submissions to a central repository could therefore be made accessible only to funding agencies that agree to keep proposals private (unless a submitting investigator indicates a willingness to share his or her proposal publicly).
The repository would make life easier for scientists by eliminating the hassle of searching for suitable grant mechanisms and the stress of meeting various deadlines. It would make life easier for funding agencies by expanding the pool of applications from which to choose. Of course, the best proposals could attract offers from multiple agencies. Rather than forcing investigators to choose non-overlapping sources of funding for each project, why not use the repository to mediate shared funding agreements that could benefit everyone involved? In effect, it would serve as the mediator between grant-seekers and grant-providers.
In a world where eBay, Facebook and Google powerfully demonstrate the communal nature of the Web, it is a pity that scientists and funding agencies don’t have a similarly modern forum for matching their interests and offers.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 26, 2008
Categories: Access, Communication, Data availability, Support | Permalink | Comments (4)

Daniel C. Postellon of the Helen DeVos Children's Hospital, Michigan, writes in Nature's Correspondence pages (Nature 452, 282; 2008):

The career of the non-existent author Ann Arbor is well-known to connoisseurs of computerized databases and citation indexes. Usually listed as the last author, she is sometimes credited with the academic degree "MI". Ann is not actually a person, but the city of Ann Arbor, Michigan, home of the University of Michigan. Her 'degree' is a misinterpretation of the abbreviation for Michigan: MI. She pre-dates online computerized databases, and was often listed in the paper edition of Index Medicus.
Ms Arbor now has a UK rival in the team of Walton Hall and Milton Keynes. Like her, they are usually listed as last authors. The online database Google Scholar lists them as co-authors of 46 publications, in addition to their solo work. Walton Hall is actually a building on the campus of the Open University in Milton Keynes. These 'authors' have a useful role to play: they can be used to check the accuracy of the databases and indexes.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 26, 2008
Categories: Citation analysis | Permalink | Comments (0)

From a Feature by Barbara Nasto in Nature Biotechnology 26, 283 - 288 (2008):

Europe's biotech sector has tripled in size over the past decade, expanding to include 2,350 companies in 2006 compared with the 700 that existed ten years ago. At the highest political echelons, the European biotech industry enjoys the endorsement of its leaders, as demonstrated by the creation of the EU Life Science and Biotechnology Strategy in January 2002 and the Lead Market Initiative for Europe, announced early this year. But the difficulties that companies face in negotiating the EU's bureaucratic machinery, the poor availability of risk capital, the lack of harmonized fiscal and legal systems, and the slow evolution from a patchwork of largely uncoordinated national initiatives to more coordinated efforts across the continent mean that European biotech remains a work in progress.

Europe is home to a potpourri of initiatives to support the biotech industry. Implementation of European-wide, national and local policies to support the industry help to create several unique environments not only within countries but also within regions and even individual cities. Many of its organizations, both governmental and private, are well aware of ways to further improve the environment. The overall trend is toward the increased adoption of technology and the creation of greater market uniformity within Europe. Growth in the sector promises to continue as all the nations have agreed that a knowledge-based economy is the way forward for Europe and biotech is a part of the endeavor to reach the goals laid out in the Lisbon Agreement.

Read the article in full in the April 2008 issue of Nature Biotechnology.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 25, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hearing about past and present issues in the world community of immunology can enrich all of us, according to the Editorial in this month's (April) issue of Nature Immunology (9, 331; 2008). The journal is publishing a series of commentaries on immunology in various places in the world, to demonstrate how, as a community, immunologists work and live together to advance the discipline.
Beginning with a piece by Agustin Lage on immunology, public health and biotechnology in Cuba in February (Nat. Immun. 9, 109-112; 2008), this series provides information on funding and infrastructure for immunology, special projects, and people, places and events. It also provides an opportunity for readers to compare and contrast the familiar scene in their own regions with that of other places. Commentaries now scheduled or under consideration survey the scene in India, the Middle East, Argentina, Russia and South Africa, and, in the current issue, Xuetao Cao discusses immunology in China (Nat. Immun. 9, 339-342; 2008).
The commentaries will not cover immunology comprehensively, but will present a few well chosen places—and well-chosen authors—to provide insight into new projects, ideas and concerns. In the words of the Editorial: "We hope that these commentaries, which will appear periodically over the next year or so, will enrich understanding of the familiar and the not-so-familiar in the world of immunology."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 24, 2008
Categories: Communication, Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

Corie Lok, Nature Network's Editor, was in Toronto over the weekend attending the world’s first Scibarcamp, where 120 scientists, writers, artists, technologists and business people discussed topics ranging from science '2.0'; science and art; and whether can technology can make us happy. Corie highlights a session led by Eva Amsen on '10 things everyone should know about science'. Eva asked conference-goers to write down their ideas for what everyone should know about science on a board, which is photographed at Corie's blog, together with a list of her favourites.

In a post called The condition of Denmark, Nature editor Henry Gee writes on scientific literacy and how "Selecting papers for publication in Nature is rather like standing in front of a firehose and picking out a few choice drops of water. Even then, Nature’s subeditors remain hardpressed, given that papers these days contain volumes (volumes) of accessory and supplementary material—none of which existed a decade ago. Online publication means that papers are published round the clock, rather than just once a week. And things are unlikely to get any easier."

The Fiction Lab, coming soon to the newly refurbished Royal Institution, will be a reading group dedicated to lab lit and other science-related or inspired literary fiction, introduced by Jennifer Rohn at her blog Mind the Gap. The first book to be discussed is The Sun and Moon Corrupted by Philip Ball, who will also be making a personal appearance.

In response to a question at the NatureJobs career forum from a Network user who has a medical degree and wants to start a job in research, Paul Smaglik advises that "it’s perfectly acceptable to start as a technician, learn a few skills, decide whether or not you like what you’re doing, and, if you do, seek further training. That’s perhaps a more rational approach than in investing seven years in a PhD, a few more in a postdoc, then learning you despise benchwork."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 21, 2008
Categories: Communication, Nature Network round-up, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

'Heritability in the genomics era — concepts and misconceptions' is the latest title in the Nature Reviews Genetics series on fundamental concepts in genetics. The article is published in the April issue of the journal, by Peter M. Visscher, William G. Hill and Naomi R. Wray (Nat. Rev. Genet. 9, 255; 2008 | doi:10.1038/nrg2322).
An at-a-glance summary of the key points in the article is available. Heritability is one of the oldest parameters in genetics, but also one of the most misunderstood. The authors explore exactly what heritability means, the pitfalls to avoid when using it, and its continued relevance in the genomics era.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 20, 2008
Categories: Disciplines | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Nature's Correspondence page (Nature 452, 282; 20 March 2008)
Animal-welfare extremism is spreading, as reported in your News Story ‘Animal-rights activists invade Europe’ (Nature 451, 1034–1035; 2008). For example, they blocked plans to build new laboratory facilities in Venray, the Netherlands, with a campaign that included painting threats on the lab directors’ houses.
Although many people are concerned about animal experimentation, most do not understand the rationale behind these illegal activities, which cause considerable fear in the research community. Researchers respond by wanting to reduce transparency and asking the government to increase repression of activists — following the UK example of stricter legislation.
Today’s understanding of animal welfare and of the motivation underlying both normal and abnormal behaviour indicate that this response could be counterproductive. A better solution would be to channel people’s frustrations into more constructive activities. The animal-rights extremists have now received positive reinforcement from their success in blocking the Venray plans. Reduced transparency will only increase societal concern, and repression risks exporting the problem (as it did from the United Kingdom to the Netherlands). Worse, as the extremists are motivated by frustration, repression may amplify the problem.
More constructive solutions include the provision of some form of democratic control, and perceived justice, to people concerned about laboratory-animal welfare. Membership of animal-protection organizations and voting for animal-friendly parties have not proved adequate. As with farm-animal welfare, society could opt for alternative routes. For example, people could request information from medical charities on their funding of animal experiments. Medical treatments developed through animal experimentation could be labelled, as food products are labelled with information about animal welfare. Increased transparency and transfer of at least part of the responsibility from the researcher back to society are key to resolving the wider problem underlying animal extremism.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 19, 2008
Categories: Animal experiments | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Publishing Group is looking for a dynamic, organized and creative science graduate with a background in structural biology to launch and maintain the forthcoming Protein Structure Initiative (PSI) knowledge base. The successful applicant will also have a keen interest in and ideas for making the site accessible to a broad audience of molecular and cellular biologists as well as geneticists.
Launching in 2008, the knowledge base will be an accessible online publication widely read by the research community. The site will encompass editorial content updated monthly on recent research, news and events, as well as databases and other information resources from the PSI. The Knowledgebase is an innovative publication of a type that is becoming increasingly important in academic publishing, and we are looking for someone who is eager to establish the Knowledgebase as a major information resource for researchers.
The Editor will take responsibility for site's content and high scientific quality, including writing summaries of key research developments. The editor will work as part of the existing teams in NPG’s Web Publishing department and at Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, and will liaise with the PSI. They will have, or will be shortly expecting to receive, a PhD in a structural biology-related discipline, and will have a broad interest and understanding of the structural biology field, including technologies and their applications. A sound knowledge of good web practice and a passion for the exploitation of the medium as a means of scientific communication are crucial.
Key personal qualities for this position include excellent writing skills, strong ability to communicate with leading scientists, an acute eye for detail, and the ability to work to firm deadlines.
The successful candidate will ideally be based in our offices in New York, although other localities may be possible.
To Apply: Send cover letter stating salary requirements and resume via email to admin@natureny.com (Nature Publishing Group, Human Resources Department) no later than 14 April 2008. Note “Online Editor” in the subject header. NPG is an Equal Opportunity Employer.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 19, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

Professor Linda Cooper writes at her Time for a Change blog on Nature Network about initiatives in which authors write a one-page initial summary to explain their research paper to a wide audience. She makes the argument that clearer writing of the paper itself serves a better purpose, for the following reasons:
Scientists need to communicate clearly --"when scientists write manuscripts that accurately communicate their important findings, then everyone benefits including the researcher’s colleagues, educated readers, science journalists, and civil society. In other words, it isn’t the journalist’s role to reinterpret a scientist’s writing; scientists should learn how to communicate effectively in the first place."
Explain specialized terminology -- "a relatively easy thing to do. More egregious are articles that contain lapses in logic, assumptions about what readers know, and omissions of essential information. These issues can be easily addressed by careful editing" [by the journal office].
Compressed language -- "it’s not obvious why this should necessarily lead to poor writing. Several editing techniques exist to make writing more efficient by eliminating clutter and simplifying awkward constructions. Better editing also gives the writer space to include information that is essential for the non-specialist to understand the author’s story."

The crucial question is whether research articles can be made more accessible. Professor Cooper writes that "little will be gained if researchers fail to conquer errors of style and are simply made to write more. Greater effort by both authors and journals – rather than Authors’ Summaries – will go a long way to increasing a paper’s readability. Authors could do more to revise their manuscripts while journals could apply more rigorous writing standards. Delaying the publication of papers until they meet established criteria for clear and accessible writing could provide a strong incentive for scientists to write with greater care."
Please add your views to those being expressed by scientists at Time for a Change blog.
In addition, Dr Martin Fenner and Dr Richard Grant have started a 'good paper journal club' at Nature Network, to promote good scientific writing by posting examples of well-written papers, and by discussion of these papers. Please do join this group, add examples of papers you consider to be well-written, and comment on those examples arlready under discussion.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 18, 2008
Categories: Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

This month's Nature Reports Stem Cells newsletter explores banks and registries. Lawyers, ethicists and scientists meet in California to figure out what the field needs, and so does a global group of stem cell funders. A registry of human embryonic stem cells is colaunched by a country that has criminalized most research on these cells. Private stem cell banking firms criticize their competitors' approaches while claiming all stem cell triumphs.
Featured stories include:
Thickets and gaps blocking stem cell science
Cross-institutional collaborations could advance stem cell science
The European Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry — a personal view from Germany
Joeri Borstlap, technical coordinator of the registry, explains why a country that has criminalized work on some embryonic stem cell lines is participating in this effort
Related story: Q&A with Anna Veiga, the registry's scientific coordinator
Stem cell banking: lifeline or subprime?
Bryn Nelson reports that cell banks are charging high prices to store stem cells for therapeutic applications that may never be realized
Q&A: Head of the UK’s Medical Research Council ponders global stem cell efforts
At a meeting of the International Stem Cell Forum, Sir Leszek Borysiewicz describes the need for multiple registries and banks
Umbilical cord companies in Asia
Announcements of deals to bank and use umbilical cord blood in India, Vietnam and South Korea point to an industry that is both promising and prone to overpromising
For more stories, as well as research highlights, news, journal club and "featured editor", visit Nature Reports Stem Cells -- where you can also sign up for the monthly newsletter (see button at right-hand side of the page) and subscribe to the associated blog, The Niche.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 18, 2008
Categories: Communication | Permalink | Comments (0)

For discussion at the Nature Network good paper journal club.

Holocene dwarf mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic -- download article as PDF

Nature 362, 337 - 340 (25 March 1993); doi:10.1038/362337a0
Holocene dwarf mammoths from Wrangel Island in the Siberian Arctic
S. L. Vartanyan*, V. E. Garutt† & A. V. Sher‡
*Wrangel Island State Reserve, 686870 Ushakovskoye, Magadan Region, Russia
†Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1 Universitetskaya naberezhnaya, 199034 St Petersburg, Russia
‡Severtsov Institute of Evolutionary Animal Morphology and Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 33 Leninskiy Prospect, 117071 Moscow, Russia
THE cause of extinction of the woolly mammoth, Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach), is still debated. A major environmental change at the Pleistocene–Holocene boundary, hunting by early man, or both together are among the main explanations that have been suggested. But hardly anyone has doubted that mammoths had become extinct everywhere by around 9,500 years before present (BP). We report here new discoveries on Wrangel Island in the Arctic Ocean that force this view to be revised. Along with normal-sized mammoth fossils dating to the end of the Pleistocene, numerous teeth of dwarf mammoth dated 7,000–4,000 yr BP have been found there. The island is thought to have become separated from the mainland by 12,000 yr BP. Survival of a mammoth population may be explained by local topography and climatic features, which permitted relictual preservation of communities of steppe plants. We interpret the dwarfing of the Wrangel mammoths as a result of the insularity effect, combined with a response to the general trend towards unfavourable environment in the Holocene.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 17, 2008
Categories: Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Multiple Sclerosis: From Pathogenesis to Therapy, 6 June 2008, Espace Charles-Louis-Havas, Paris.
Organizers: Eva Chmielnicki (Nature Medicine, USA), Laurie Dempsey (Nature Immunology, USA) and Yves Christen (Fondation IPSEN, France).
Multiple sclerosis is an inflammatory autoimmune disease targeting the central nervous system, leading to demyelination and axon degeneration and to severe disability as the disease progresses. It presents as a clinically heterogeneous disease, which has been problematic for efforts to develop appropriate animal models. Many environmental and genetic factors have been identified that may initiate disease. Various immune and neural cells have been found to play key roles in disease pathogenesis and progression. An Emergence & Convergence mini-symposium organised by Fondation IPSEN, Nature Medicine and Nature Immunology will address open questions in multiple sclerosis research, with the goal of identifying future directions that may lead to therapy. The application deadline is 31 March 2008. Attendance at this meeting is free on acceptance of application (register here); a free conference poster is available here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 17, 2008
Categories: Conferences, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

A few useful links and some weekend light reading suggestions via Nature Network:

Who's got an opinion on public engagement with science? asks Nature Network London editor Matt Brown.

An overview of science-related "stuff" at Second Life, by T. Troy McGonaghy of Science in the Metaverse. Via the link, you can see the slides and a video of Troy's presentation at the recent Virtual Worlds: Libraries, Education and Museums conference.

On the Visualization and Science forum, Hilary Spencer posts what she calls a "rant" about powerpoint, public speaking and blog posts. I'd define it as a strongly opinionated article: it contains her reactions to presentations at a recent conference she attended, and provides some useful advice about how to make and how not to make helpful slides. In a post with a related theme, Nuruddeen Lewis at his blog Lab Daze provides a very useful primer about how to give a talk: 'Tips for nailing your next presentation'.

Martin Fenner on his excellent blog Gobbledygook writes on the "complicated" aspects of paper writing: all those policy and format requirements, ethical bodies' requirements, and international nomenclature committees' pronouncements. And Richard Grant, at The Scientist blog, hosts a discussion on writing style: 'On the care and training of students, especially the training.'

Stew at Flags and Lollipops picks up on various recent posts and articles about the lack of take-up among scientists of the online commenting facilities often offered by journals on the papers they publish. Stew takes previous suggestions with a pinch of salt, homing in on the two main reasons he believes inhibit people from writing comments on published papers.

LabLit publishes the first installment of Private Investigations, a four-part story about the adventures of a very special scientist-for-hire. The author? He or she is not unknown to Nature Network, as a small amount of detective work will reveal.

What is the best way forward for Eastern Europe's science? asks Mico Tatalovic at Cambridge Student blog, in an article featuring the new life-sciences institutue MedILS at Split, Croatia.

If you are in reach of London, there are some unusual science-related events coming up, listed by Li-Kim Lee (see links for further details): Elizabethan Sea Charts and Maps (behind the scenes); Francis Crick - DNA and beyond; Leonardo's philosophical anatomies; and my favourite, Prince Rupert, Cavalier and Scientist.

Today (14 March, which in the US style is 3.14) is Pi day; see Gobbledygook for links to the Pi day website, but also to some music, including the American Pi song -- as Martin points out, best listened to at 1:59 today.

And finally, again from Matt Brown, Nature Network's ten most prolific bloggers over the past six months, with links to the blogs concerned. They'll give you a good taste of the lively discussion on the network - do join us there.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 14, 2008
Categories: Communication, Partners, Publishing, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

The mission of the Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF) is to provide both the European and the international science communities with an open platform for debate and communication. It presents and profiles Europe's leading research trends in the sciences, humanities and social sciences. It is an opportunity to discuss and influence the future of research and innovation in Europe. The scientific programme for ESOF08, "Science for a better life", to be held in Barcelona from 18 to 22 July, has just been finalized, and is made up of 83 scientific sessions from 10 scientific themes, 10 career sessions and 70 outreach activities, with the participation of more than 450 speakers and session organizers from 30 countries. The final scientific programme schedule and list of speakers is available at the ESOF website or can be downloaded here as a 97KB PDF. Among the speakers and organisers of the sessions are Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature publications and Editor of Nature, who will be talking in the session "Sharing scientific data: who benefits?"; Alison Abbott, Nature's senior European correspondent, who is organizing a session "Looking inside your brain"; and Karl Ziemelis, Nature's chief physical sciences editor, who is organizing the session "An organic revolution".
You can register for the conference here. There is a reduced fee for participants who register before 15 March (tomorrow).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 14, 2008
Categories: Conferences, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

Paul Smaglik writes on Nature Network's NatureJobs careers advice forum:
Taking longer in grad school? Undergoing multiple postdocs? Waiting for independent-investigator status?

"Naturejobs diagnosed these symptoms four years ago and prescribed some solutions. But we’re seeing signs that the maladies hampering young scientists’ career progression might be getting worse. One underlying cause? The US National Institutes of Health has caught the budget-crunch bug since then. Funding has been flat the past five years. This chronic condition hits young scientists hardest. Over that time, new faculty have seen their grant success rates drops and the age to independence increase. Grant renewals have also been harder to come by over that time period—especially for younger faculty. Now the NIH has frozen postdoc stipend levels; for fellows, this is like coming down with a stomach flu when they already have a cold. I’m loathe to just point out a problem, without pointing to any solution. But I’d like to hear the health of your career at this stage. Is your career feeling under the funding weather? Or are you budgetarily healthy? Please let us know. And I’ll soon follow up with some bright spots and ways to boost your career’s immune system."
Please join Paul at the Nature Network forum, and let him know your views.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 13, 2008
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

An Institute of Medicine report recommends that the United States government create a programme to provide consistent guidelines for clinical interventions. The reliability of the guidelines will depend on the availability of the clinical data to be assessed, according to this month's (March 2008) Editorial in Nature Medicine (14, 223; 2008).
The problem is that "Widespread regional variation in how health care providers treat some conditions in the United States reflects the sobering fact that, for many interventions, there is no consensus about what constitutes effective clinical care. Physicians and health care providers must try to make sense of innumerable and conflicting guidelines in order to choose the best available intervention for their patient. Scientific, systematic review of data from medical literature and clinical trials is crucial to forming a reliable evidence base of what actually works in health care. With this in mind, professional medical organizations, patient advocacy groups, government agencies and others have synthesized available data on the efficacy of particular interventions and have produced guidelines recommending certain courses of action for specific conditions. The problem is that there is no consensus among the approaches to systematic review, and, more troublesome, no clear understanding of the best methods for assessing the evidence."
The Institute of Medicine has stepped in to recommend a plan to help resolve conflicting medical advice (reported in a news story at Nature Medicine 14, 226; 2008) by three methods: first, identify interventions that are priorities for evaluation; second, develop standardized and reliable methods for performing systematic reviews of all the available data about a given intervention; and third, develop standards for producing clinical guidelines. The Editorial discusses some of the practical difficulties, concluding that the Institute of Medicine report is an important step forward but will require legislation if it is to work.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 13, 2008
Categories: Data availability, Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Hilary Spencer, Nature Precedings has just introduced some new features.
Comment notifications: authors can opt to receive notification when new comments are added to their Nature Precedings document by checking a box during the submission process. Commenters can also opt to receive notification of when someone responds to their comment.
Watermarks on PDFs: the DOI (or Handle) and date of posting are now embedded in all PDFs on Nature Precedings. By embedding the identifier in the document, readers can correctly reference or cite the document, even when they have received the document via email or accessed it via a “deep-link”.
Document thumbnails serve as a memory aid and preview; they can also be embedded in blogs and webpages.
Please join the Nature Precedings group on Nature Network to receive updates and make suggestions about the site, as well as to join the conversations between Hilary, Timo Hannay and Nature Precedings users and authors.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 12, 2008
Categories: Author benefits, Author services | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via Ai Lin Chun at Nature Network:
The Keio medical science prize is awarded to researchers in recognition of their achievements in the medical or life sciences. The prize consists of a certificate of merit, a medal and 20 milion yen (approx. US$ 180,000). Nominations for the 2008 prize are now open, with a deadline of 20 March 2008. The winner(s) will be announced in October. A list of previous prize winners can be seen here, and further details about the prize are available here. Last year (2007), the prize was shared by Brian J. Druker for the development of a molecular-targeted therapy for chronic myelogenous leukaemia, and Hiroaki Mitsuya for the development of anti-AIDS drugs.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 12, 2008
Categories: Awards | Permalink | Comments (0)

In an editorial in Molecular Systems Biology (3, 158; 2008), Synthetic biology: promises and challenges,
Luis Serrano of the Centro de Regulación Genomica in Barcelona addresses wide-ranging and fascinating aspects of this nasent field. He asks why Europe is "lagging behind the US? Perhaps it is due to a general problem in Biology research and the way Europe has structured its research. In particular, Europe will need to take more and bolder initiatives in funding and building new institutes to create the necessary critical mass, and should raise its ambition for starting novel research areas. Competitive European groups in areas related to Synthetic Biology definitely exist, mainly amongst the very top EU institutes, where the system is more flexible and excellence is actively pursued. But these few world-class laboratories are usually small, scattered and in many cases have just entered into the field of Systems Biology and, therefore, do not have the capacity to fully embark into Synthetic Biology. As in many other fields, if Europe wants to stay competitive, we will need a major overhauling of the system, promoting excellence, flexibility and young investigators with new crazy projects. In this sense the European Research Council (ERC) initiative may represent a decisive step forward."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 11, 2008
Categories: Careers, Disciplines, Support | Permalink | Comments (0)

Frank Gannon in his EMBO Reports editorial this month (9, 207; 2008), Language barriers, writes about the stark contrast between his own ability to write in English and "the difficulties faced by scientists for whom English is a second language, and who have to cope with the much more restricted style of a scientific report." Dr Gannon goes on to discuss the differences between standard English language and the arcane, depersonalised style favoured by (or taught to) many when writing scientific reports, quoting the view that "the public would not bother to read scientific papers even if the journals were lying around for free, simply because scientific prose is largely unreadable for the non-expert—and often only barely readable for the expert."
Although English seems set to be the main language of science for the foreseeable future, it is worth noting that the Nature journals do encourage authors to use direct, plain prose. Our subeditors and copyeditors help authors of accepted manuscripts who are not native English speakers, and we provide advice on our website which we hope will be useful to scientists preparing a paper before submission to one of our journals. Advice is also available at Nature Network, for example at Linda Cooper's excellent advice blog Time for a change, and Ai Lin Chun's forum Nature Nanotechnology -- Asia Pacific and beyond.

See related article in the same issue of EMBO Reports as the Editorial discussed here:
Six senses in the literature: the bleak sensory landscape of biomedical texts by Raul Rodriguez-Esteban and Andrey Rzhetsky (EMBO R. 9, 212–215; 2008).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 11, 2008
Categories: Publishing, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)