Nautilus

The research community needs to increase the number of minority students who choose scientific research careers, according to the September Editorial in Nature Immunology (10, 927; 2009). Black and Hispanic Americans compose roughly one third of the US population, yet the percentage of graduate degrees earned by members of these minorities is much less than 30%. Only 168 people of a minority background were listed as faculty members in biological science departments of the top 50 research institutions in the United States as of 2007. How can the research community encourage more minority students to pursue a research career?
The Editorial describes varous programmes and initiatives, for example the NIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) is increasing student diversity in its Maximizing Student Development initiative; the American Association of Immunologists has established a Minority Affairs Committee; the AAAS and other organizations are sponsoring the Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students, to be held this year in Phoenix, Arizona (4–7 November); and the Keystone symposia have initiated a Diversity in Life Science programme. The Editorial notes that such 'critical mass' networking interactions help to inspire confidence and can continue long after the attendees have returned home.
The Editorial concludes: "As the US population becomes less 'white dominated', more minority workers will enter the workforce. This scenario is no less true for scientific research, especially as a substantial number of white male faculty members prepare to retire in the next decade. Thus, the training of tomorrow's scientists and faculty must begin today. To achieve this, faculty chairs and administrators must identify those hurdles that might now preclude the career development of under-represented minorities on their campuses and take steps to ensure their education programs are sufficiently rigorous to train competitive minority scientists. There is no time to waste."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 31, 2009
Categories: Careers, Education, Support | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature's news coverage is evolving with this week's launch of News Briefing — a two-page digest of the key events shaping the scientific enterprise in the past week. With coverage encompassing policy decisions, funding announcements, market trends and business deals, News Briefing offers a complete overview of the developments that affect anyone working in science. The section also features a calendar to highlight important events, reports and initiatives occurring in the forthcoming week.
From the Editorial announcing the new section (Nature 460, 1057; 2009, free to read online):
"Science is inextricably linked with the messy details of politics and commerce, and it is vital for today's researchers to be aware of how political and business decisions can steer their research programmes — and indeed how their research can affect society. Similarly, policy-makers require the perspective that science can provide on the likely outcomes of their decisions. Yet it is all too easy to miss something important in the torrent of news that pours down on us every day.
By gathering all of the important events in one place, News Briefing aims to plug that gap. In doing so, it complements Research Highlights (example here), which for the past four years has brought you our editors' selections of the most interesting research results from beyond the pages of Nature. Both sections will guide you to longer analytical pieces and exclusives in the main news section or online at http://www.nature.com/news. Apart from breaking daily news stories, our news website also carries stories from the print edition before they make it onto paper, getting analysis and information to our subscribers as soon as possible."
Feedback from readers is welcome here or via email.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 28, 2009
Categories: Communication, NPG special content | Permalink | Comments (0)

The distribution of human cell lines used in research should not be hindered by restrictions from donors, states an Editorial in Nature last week (460, 933; 2009 ; free to access online). The occasion of the Editorial is a Corrigendum relating to a paper published in the journal last year ('Generation of pluripotent stem cells from adult human testis' by
S. Conrad et al., Nature 456, 344-349; 2009). In the Corrigendum, the authors explain how the original patient consent forms to collect the material used to derive the pluripotent stem cells precluded distribution to third parties under the regulations of the relevant hospital ethics committee. (The authors also explain that they are going to cultivate new cells, under different terms of consent, which they can then distribute upon request.)
As the Editorial points out, failures to distribute cell lines are incompatible with Nature journal policies and with the efficient progression of scientific knowledge. The Corrigendum alerts investigators to this situation and the steps being taken to rectify it. Even when clinicians, researchers and their local ethics board follow internal procedures that promote both donor safety and medical research, serious problems can arise regarding the unhindered distribution of samples.
Here is a slightly shortened version of the rest of the Editorial:
The community was not that surprised by this situation — six of seven researchers contacted by Nature thought this could happen again. Researchers developing cell lines must investigate the restrictions associated with the human tissue they are using, particularly if someone else collected the samples, if the samples come from multiple clinical sources or if they come from several legal jurisdictions. If a scientist needs to create cell lines that might be used for as-yet-unforeseen purposes, only tissue with no restrictions should be used.
Journals can remind authors in their policy guidelines that authors of submissions that involve consent forms must make editors aware of any limits that result from those forms. The Nature journals will be revising their policies to make this clearer.
Most importantly, patients, researchers, clinicians, and review and ethics boards worldwide need to agree on conventions that are acceptable to most parties under most circumstances. Internationally standardized consent forms for the donation of human tissue should cover new uses, genomic comparisons, patents and product development, and should discourage limiting access or lifespan.
Ethics and review boards are set up to protect individuals, but can also go much further to promote research. No one can deny that donors need to understand the risks and benefits of a procedure, trial or donation. However, it seems most ethically responsible, given the value of research, for the boards to explain the consequences that restricted access and time limits can have on the value of a donor's tissue.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 27, 2009
Categories: Data availability, Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)

The latest Nature Insight (460, 813-862; 2009 - free to access online for six months from publication date) is on metalloproteins — proteins containing metal atoms or clusters — which are involved in a wide range of important biological processes. The articles in this Insight review recent advances in our understanding of metalloproteins, including how enzymes containing complex metal clusters metabolize small gaseous molecules, how proteins containing iron–sulphur clusters are assembled, and how enzymes containing a single metal ion catalyse the halogenation of small organic molecules. This Nature Insight is accompanied by a special podcast on metalloproteins, which features interviews with several of the authors.
More Nature Insights.
More Nature podcasts.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 26, 2009
Categories: NPG special content | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Editorial in the August issue of Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (16, 797; 2009) highlights a Pew/AAAS survey revealing striking differences between the public's and scientists' views of US scientific achievement and its societal benefits. According to the Editorial, this conclusion reinforces the fact that more must be done to effectively communicate with, educate and engage the public.
The survey involved 2,000 people from the general public and 2,500 scientists, including teachers, researchers and administrators, aiming to discover how we think about science and its impact on society. One of the disparities revealed was that whereas many participants from the general public (84%) acknowledged the importance of scientific contributions to society, only 17% felt that US scientific achievements are best in the world, in striking contrast to US scientists' own assessment — 94% of respondents thinking that US scientific achievements are best best or better than average compared to other industrialized nations.
The Editorial asks why there is an apparent disconnect between the public view of science's contributions and how scientists perceive the quality and importance of US-based research? Education may be one factor. Of the scientists surveyed, 85% viewed the lack of understanding of science by the general public as a major problem. Indeed, the general public barely passed a short 12-question quiz of basic textbook science (example question: "True or False: Electrons are smaller than atoms"). Scientists are also critical of science communication via television and newspaper coverage .
Some of the greatest differences in perception are on issues such as climate change and evolution. Whereas 97% of the scientists surveyed believe that humans and living things evolve over time, 61% of the public agreed, but roughly a third of these people felt that this was guided by a supreme being, with more than a quarter believing that there is lack of scientific consensus on this issue. Although most of the public respondents feel that climate change is occurring, only half think that this is due to human activity, as opposed to 84% of scientists surveyed.
The NSMB Editorial concludes that although improving the quality of education is obviously important, "the survey clearly reveals that the general public applies its own beliefs when absorbing and filtering scientific information. As scientists, rather than speaking down or lecturing to the general public (or even worse, throwing our hands up in despair), we may be better off showing them a bit more of the respect they have for us and trying to see things from their perspective."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 25, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

'The Middle & The End' is an EMBO Journal review series of free- or open-access articles focusing on different facets of centromere and telomere biology. The specialization of centromeres and telomeres, the middle and end regions of eukaryotic chromosomes, respectively, is reflected at numerous levels, such as chromatin, gene regulation, signalling or cellular function. Nine review articles, combined in this web focus The Middle & The End, and published in print over several issues of The EMBO Journal, summarize current understanding of these aspects of chromosome biology, especially in the light of recent advances, demonstrating parallels as well as differences in the function and organization of centres and ends.
The EMBO Journal home page.
The EMBO journal editorial process.
Guide for authors.
Editors and editorial board.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 24, 2009
Categories: NPG special content | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Nature News (published online, 30 July 2009), by Alison Abbott:
A paper reporting the creation of sperm-like cells from human embryonic stem cells has been retracted by the editor of the journal Stem Cells and Development. The work had garnered headlines worldwide after being published three weeks ago (see earlier Nature News story).
The journal's editor-in-chief Graham Parker says he took the radical step on 27 July because two paragraphs in the introduction of the paper, entitled 'In Vitro Derivation of Human Sperm from Embryonic Stem Cells', had been plagiarised from a 2007 review published in another journal.
He had been alerted to the plagiarism on 10 July — three days after the article had been published online — by the editors of Biology of Reproduction. Parker says that the corresponding author, Karim Nayernia of the North East England Stem Cell Institute in Newcastle, UK, and the University of Newcastle, had failed to provide convincing evidence that the two paragraphs had been included in the submitted version of the manuscript by mistake.
The retraction has surprised even critics of the paper, who had complained that the work had been over-hyped. "If there is nothing else behind this, it seems a little harsh," says Harry Moore, co-director of the Centre for Stem Cell Biology at the University of Sheffield, UK.
Parker insists that there were no other problems with the paper other than the copied paragraphs. Along with five other editors of his journal, he nevertheless decided that because the paper included "an act of scientific misconduct, retraction was the correct course of action in this instance".
Nayernia declined to comment to Nature, but an official statement from the university says that the paper's original first author, Jae Ho Lee, a postdoc who has since left the university, was responsible for the plagiarism and has apologized to the authors. "No question has been raised about the science conducted or the conclusions of the research," according to the statement. "The name of Dr Lee has been removed from the first authorship," the statement continues. "The paper will now be submitted to another peer-reviewed academic journal."
The statement also says that the "correct version of the manuscript, upon the request of the journal's editor, had been immediately submitted to the journal during the process of proof reading".
The paper had been published online 'ahead of editing' to avoid undue delay, with proofreading happening after publication to correct textual or copy-editing errors, explains Parker. "But plagiarism can come to light at any point in the publishing process," he says. "Proofing isn't a magical stage that allows authors to correct any inappropriate acts."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a heated online discussion about the circumstances of the journal's decision at the Nature News website. You are welcome to add your views, either at the Nature News article or as a comment to this post.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 21, 2009
Categories: Ethics | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Cell Biology's August Editorial (11, 915; 2009) focuses on the issue of why women remain under-represented in senior academic positions, despite similar numbers of male and female graduates. The imbalance is best addressed by focusing on the reasons for divergent career choices, according to the Editorial (the following is an excerpt):

"A 2007 survey of more than 1,300 NIH postdoctoral fellows (43% female) commissioned by the NIH showed that women with children were already under-represented at the postdoctoral level (10% fewer than men with children, same age distribution). Women were less likely to consider a Principal Investigator position (51% compared with 70% men), especially those with children (45% compared with 69% men with children), and they were more prone to consider family responsibilities as a source of conflict with professional life. Moreover, women were more ready to make career concessions for their partners. Women seem to have less self-confidence, as they were 20% less likely to persevere after a failed first attempt to secure a Principal Investigator position, which 19% more men were confident they would eventually obtain. Men seemed better at securing technical support and a transferrable project, and the salary differential might also relate to better negotiation skills. On the other hand, we found no evidence that male authors had more papers published in NCB. Also, two recent large bibliometric studies concluded that gender had no effect on peer review.
No country can afford to be complacent in pursuing gender and racial equality in academia and, as more subtle reasons for divergent career choices emerge, governments and funding agencies must have an active role in addressing them. Indeed, both the NIH and EC reports concluded that women were far more likely to find Principal Investigator positions with affordable childcare and flexible working arrangements attractive. Encouraging smaller labs would also serve to attract female Principal Investigators. Affirmative action yields neither equality nor quality. Crucially, "stating a family shouldn't be seen as a weakness", as Sally Shaywitz [co-author of a National Academy of Sciences study] puts it. According to the Association for Women in Science, most female PhDs who leave academia take on alternative jobs, indicating that an academic career is currently simply less attractive for them."

Further reading via Connotea.
Nature Cell Biology journal website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 20, 2009
Categories: Careers | Permalink | Comments (0)

IN a Correspondence to EMBO reports (10, 800-803; 2009), Beatrix Groneberg-Kloft, David Quarcoo and Cristian Scutaru of the Free University Berlin and Humboldt University, Berlin, describe a combination of scientometric tools and new visualizing techniques such as density equalizing mapping to show that research in the European Union has developed well so far this decade. Despite static levels of research spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP), the authors write that success of European science should not only be measured in terms of 'work force' and spending, but also in terms of its actual output—that is, publications.
The authors report that the total number of publications from European research groups in all journals listed in PubMed increased between 2000 and 2006, an increase of 49.37%. The growth in scientific publications ranges from 24.09% in Finland, to 37.02% in the UK and 44.09% in Germany, to immense increases of 162.12% in Portugal and 402.70% in Lithuania, correlating significantly with the GDP of each country.
As well as this quantitative marker, the authors used citation indices—total citation numbers or average citation per publication—from the Web of Science (WoS) database as qualitative or semi-qualitative parameters. They analysed the data for the total number of articles from a specific country; the total number of citations for a specific country; the average number of citations per published item for countries with at least 30 published articles; and bilateral research cooperations.
After presenting a number of maps, charts and tables, the authors conclude that scientometric tools combined with visualizing techniques can track and analyse scientific progress, displaying the results in an easily accessible manner.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 19, 2009
Categories: Quality measures | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Nature Methods 6, 547 (2009): It is difficult to dispute the idea that some methodological developments have the power to strongly influence the pace and direction of scientific inquiry. For each of the last two years, Nature Methods has celebrated this by selecting a methodology we felt had demonstrated the potential for such an impact.
In 2007, we picked next-generation sequencing, and this class of methods has already had a profound effect on the conduct of biological research. Only time will tell what the impact of super-resolution fluorescence microscopy—our choice in 2008—will be.
Last year, we invited you—our readers—to participate by nominating and voting for methodological developments. We are now halfway through 2009, and it is time once again to ask for your input. Visit our Method of the Year webpage and vote on a selection of methodologies or nominate a method yourself.
You may nominate any recent method or class of methods, published anywhere in the scientific literature, that you believe is likely to have a profound impact on future biological research. You are welcome to nominate a method that you yourself developed, but please acknowledge your connection to it.
We will take the results of the popular vote into consideration when choosing the Method of the Year 2009, and the votes will also serve as inspiration for picking the Methods to Watch that accompany it. So start thinking about methods to nominate, and vote for your choice of Method of the Year 2009!

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 18, 2009
Categories: Awards | Permalink | Comments (0)

EMBO reports' latest web focus reconciles life sciences and social sciences in a series of articles on Convergence Research. To view and access the full list of articles, which are freely available for the month of August, please visit the Convergence Research web focus. This series of thought-provoking articles highlights research that aims to reconcile genomics with the social sciences and the humanities, introducing readers to multi- and transdisciplinary developments taking place in this field. The articles explore the ethical, legal and social issues surrounding genomics research, present the results from a wide range of projects, and/or critically analyse the future of convergence research in language accessible to a broad scientific readership. The articles were published in consecutive issues of EMBO reports between February and July 2009.
While visiting the journal, you might like to take a look at the 2009 EMBO reports Special Issue on Systems and Synthetic Biology, bringing together the ideas and opinions of leading researchers and commentators who spoke at the 2008 joint EMBO/EMBL Science & Society conference. This special issue, which is only available online, makes these broad and ever-changing research areas more accessible to experts and lay-persons alike.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 17, 2009
Categories: NPG special content | Permalink | Comments (0)