Nautilus

With sequencing costs dropping, it is likely that direct-to-consumer genetic services will soon include affordable whole-genome sequencing. Consumers who have familiarized themselves with the limitations of these data will be better equipped for the 3 gigabases of information that may soon come their way, according to the Editorial in the November issue of Nature Methods (6, 783; 2009). What is the right approach for direct-to-consumer genetic tests, asks the Editorial, given concerns about analytical validity, accuracy, clinical validity, clinical usefulness, helpfulness to consumers, and that the genetic variants tested for are actually associated with increased disease risk? Different countries are handling these issues in different regulatory and legislative ways, but the Editorial argues that a restrictive approach is not helpful, particularly given the huge range of genetic conditions and possible 'tests'. Although companies should do more in terms of providing unbiased information to the public, it is up to the consumers to educate themselves about the benefits, risks and limitations.
The Nature Methods editors invite readers to discuss this Editorial at the journal's blog, Methagora.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 02, 2009
Categories: Education, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Each year since 1951, young researchers and Nobel laureates have gathered on the shores of Lake Constance for a unique scientific conference. In 2009 the meeting was dedicated to chemistry, and laureates and students all came away enriched by their experiences. Martin Chalfie, one of the three recipients of the 2008 Nobel prize in Chemistry, reports what they learned from each other in the November issue of Nature Chemistry (1, 586-587; 2009) He writes:
"From their reading or from simply listening to my talk, the students generated a large number of fascinating questions. They wanted to know details of the experiments and they wanted to discuss potential future experiments. Conclusions about my research that had taken me years to realize (and which I have not written about or described in my talk) were instantly suggested by several of the students at the session. Seeing their excitement and quickness was humbling, but also invigorating.
The meeting allowed the students (as well as the laureates) to broaden their horizons, to have a chance to meet, exchange ideas, and learn about new areas of research from investigators from all over the world (the conference participants came from 67 different countries). The word 'exchange' is important here, because I don't believe that the real benefits were associated with hearing advice from a bunch of older scientists who had been fortunate enough to get some recognition for their work." The meeting's significance is "the acknowledgement it gives to young scientists, especially at a time when they do not get much recognition, that they are on their way to succeeding in science, and that we think that they are important. Although they really do not need any seal of approval, everyone likes to get the occasional pat on the back."
In a companion article in the same issue of Nature Chemistry (1, 587-590; 2009), Jeffrey R. Lancaster, a fourth-year graduate student in the Department of Chemistry, Columbia University, looks back at what he got out of the Lindau meeting: "two subtle points have ultimately distinguished the Lindau meeting for me as a unique event of which I was honoured to have been a part.
First, conversation and the sharing of ideas were fostered not solely between scientists with comparable levels of experience, but also across scientific generations and geographies. I had worthwhile discussions with my peers from Australia, China, India, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain (to name but a few), and was able to speak to scientists at various stages of their careers, from undergraduate to graduate students, postdocs, professors, governmental scientists and, of course, Nobel laureates. Second, the activities pursued by scientists outside of publishable, academic research also featured prominently at the meeting. That scientists might have a life apart from, and in addition to, their research is most often a topic best reserved for conference happy hours, not keynote addresses."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 27, 2009
Categories: Careers, Conferences, Disciplines, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Translating a basic finding into a new therapy requires us to speak many languages—scientific, clinical, legal and financial. Yet most of us are hopelessly 'monolingual', a limitation that substantially slows translational research. Steps have been taken to address this problem, but a lot remains to be done, as described in September's Editorial in Nature Medicine 'In the land of the monolingual' (15, 975; 2009). The Editorial begins optimistically:
"Congratulations! You've just published a paper in Nature Medicine identifying a new target to treat your favorite disease and are eager to take this finding to the clinic. Excellent, but where do you start? Are you familiar with all the steps you need to take from your discovery to a clinical trial?" It contiunes with much valuable advice and references for those wishing to navigate the translational pathway from bench to clinic, focusing on new initiatives in the main areas of resources and training. Even though there are some positive approaches, the Editorial concludes that "the best ways to facilitate translational research have yet to be discovered. However, their sheer existence offers hope that translational research will become smoother, speeding up the rate at which drugs and medical devices make it to the clinic. At the same time, it is clear that we need to do a lot more on a global scale to empower scientists with the education necessary to make a real translational impact. If each of us tries to become at least 'bilingual', we might feel a little less overwhelmed by the Tower of Babel that translational research has become."

Related article in the same issue of Nature Medicine (15, 1006-1009; 2009):
The advancement of translational medicine—from regional challenges to global solutions
Salvatore Albani & Berent Prakken
The Arizona Arthritis Center, University of Arizona, and the Center for Molecular and Cellular Intervention, University Medical Center Utrecht. Both authors are at Eureka Institute for Translational Medicine, Siracusa, Italy.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 14, 2009
Categories: Disciplines, Education, Support | Permalink | Comments (0)

Public trust in science is vital. But how do we ensure trust without imposing authority? An Editorial in the September issue of Nature Physics (5, 613; 2009) asks "where does evidence stop and trust in authority begin? Televisions, computers and other technological wonders are proof enough to convince most people of the validity of the physical principles on which they are based. But what of global warming, evolution and other issues in which science and politics or beliefs collide? Whom is the public to believe?"
Pointing out problems such as the media's tendency to provide "balance" - equal time to fringe or wrong science, which can inaccurately distort perceptions; the lack of scientificially trained journalists and programme-makers; and the inherent uncertainty of science, the Editorial suggests that more and better general scientific education is not enough. At some level, trust in scientific expert opinion is inevitable, coupled with "a better awareness of the importance of science to politics, policy and collective prosperity, coupled with healthy, informed scepticism of the claims of scientists and non-scientists alike."

Also in the September issue of Nature Physics (5, 613; 2009): Don't overdo it. 'Fun' science may grab summer headlines, but only the real thing has a lasting effect.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 09, 2009
Categories: Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

The Editorial in the July issue of Nature Methods is the journal's popular annual round up of summer reading (Nat. Meth. 6, 471; 2009). According to the Editorial, for those who look hard enough there are a few good fiction books to be found with refreshingly realistic biologists as central characters in laboratory settings. A mix of the old and the new follows, including brief accounts of Cantor's Dilemma by Carl Djerassi; Intuition by Allegra Goodman; Long for this World by Michael Byers; Arrowsmith by Sinclair Lewis; Experimental Heart by Jennifer Rohn; and Mendel's Dwarf by Simon Mawer.
At the journal's Methagora blog, Allison Doerr emphasizes one benefit of science-in-fiction: as a "medium for overturning stereotypes about scientists, and for getting more people interested in science and for educating them about what scientists do." Comments and suggestions of good science-in-fiction from readers are welcome at Methagora.

Nature Methods' previous science-in-fiction recommendations.
See also: From Bench to Book by Jennifer Rohn (Nature 451, 128; 2008).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 13, 2009
Categories: Education, Public and media, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Biotechnology's June issue contains several articles of particular interest to scientists as communicators, authors and entrepreneurs. Here are a few highlights:

Nature Biotechnology 27, 514 - 518 (2009).
Science communication reconsidered.
Tania Bubela et al.
As new media proliferate and the public's trust and engagement in science are influenced by industry involvement in academic research, an interdisciplinary workshop provides some recommendations to enhance science communication. Among these are that graduate students need to be taught about the social and political context of science and how to communicate with the media and a diversity of publics; that the factors contributing to media hype and errors (largely of omission) are explicitly recognized to allow science institutions and media organizations informed communication policies; research on science communication should be expanded to include online and digital media; more investment in the systematic tracking of news and cultural indicators, including traditional news outlets but also radio, entertainment TV, religious media, the web and new documentary genres; and a new 'science policy' beat in journalism courses to fill in the gaps between the technical backgrounders preferred by science writers and the conflict emphasis of political reporters. Finally, the authors argue, if there is a major threat to science journalism, it is that science journalists are losing their jobs at for-profit news organizations; new models of support for science journalism are needed, in which online digital formats blend professional reporting with user-generated content and discussion.

Nature Biotechnology 27, 528-530 (2009):
Maters of their universe.
Genentech—the biotech venture that launched a thousand companies—is no longer its own master. In March, majority stakeholder Roche reached an agreement with the South San Francisco, California–based company under which the Swiss drug maker would take over the biotech for $46.8 billion. But many remember those first years when a small team of bright, intellectually disciplined young scientists—often rowdy and personally eccentric people—got the company up and running. Randy Osborne and Laura DeFrancesco caught up with a few of those pioneers to talk about that era, their time and how they felt leading the charge.

Nature Biotechnology 27, 531 - 537 (2009).
Wasting cash—the decline of the British biotech sector.
Graham Smith, Muhammad Safwan Akram, Keith Redpath & William Bains
Undercapitalization and overgenerous boardroom compensation for management have been major contributors to the poor performance of UK biotech. Despite historic leadership in European biotech, the UK's industry has suffered a near collapse in the past two years and now has little private or public investment and no candidates for world-class companies. Why do shareholders allow UK public biotech companies to accumulate top management that pays itself so much, is unmotivated to drive shareholder value and as a consequence apparently drains the company of resources, notably cash? These questions, and others, are addressed in the feature.

Nature Biotechnology website.
Nature Biotechnology guide to authors.
Nature Biotechnology conference programme.
Nature Biotechnology focuses and supplements.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 25, 2009
Categories: Authorship, Conferences, Education, Ethics, Public and media, Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

Various codes of conduct have been proposed for nanotechnology —and in the June issue of Nature Nanotechnology (4, 336; 2009), Richard Jones examines what they mean for individual researchers, particularly in the light of the European Commission's code, aimed at academic research rather than at businesses and other commerce.
"How is responsibility divided between the individuals who do science, and the organizations, institutions and social structures in which science is done? There's a danger that codes of ethics focus too much on the individual scientist, at a time when many scientists often feel rather powerless, with research priorities increasingly being set from outside and with the development and application of their research out of their hands. In this environment, too much emphasis on individual accountability could prove alienating, and could divert us from efforts to make the institutions in which science and technology are developed more responsible.
Scientists, however, should not completely underestimate their importance and influence collectively, even if individually they feel impotent. Part of the responsibility of a scientist should be to reflect on how to justify one's work, and how people with different points of view might react to it, and such scientists will be in a good position to have a positive influence on the various institutions they interact with, such as funding agencies. But we still need to think more generally about how to make responsible institutions for developing science and technology, as well as responsible nanoscientists."

About Nature Nanotechnology.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 23, 2009
Categories: Communication, Disciplines, Education, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

In its June Editorial Encouraging science outreach, Nature Neuroscience (12, 665 ; 2009) responds to US President Obama's recent call for more scientist involvement in education. Science outreach programs are very welcome, states the Editorial, but to be effective, they must include incentives for teachers and better training for scientist volunteers if true change is to be achieved.
According to statistics released by the US Department of Education at the end of 2008, neither US fourth or eighth graders showed any detectable change in science achievement in 2007 compared to 1995; and only 28% of US high school students are well prepared for college-level biology. Initiatives to bring professional scientists into the classroom have assumed that this involvement will provide better science content and allow students to imbibe an inquiry-based learning process. They should also benefit scientists and science, for example by encouraging public discussion of issues such as use of animals in experiments or ethics of stem-cell research.
Scientists are keen to become more involved in these processes.The US Neuroscience Public Education and Communication Committee surveyed members in 2007, finding that 50% of respondents would be interested in participating in educational outreach. The organization has launched the NERVE virtual encycloportal, maintains a list of scientists interested in high-school involvement, and has announced a wiki initiative aimed at making basic neuroscience information more accessible to educators and pupils. Several universities run outreach programmes with their local schools—volunteering scientific expertise at science fairs, running teacher-training programmes or arranging for scientists to visit classrooms.
The Editorial goes on to point out that many schools and teachers lack the resources to reform their science curricula, and that many scientists do not have the skills to educate and communicate effectively with many students. "Reforming how science is taught in schools, and the amount of it that is taught, will ultimately depend heavily on how many teachers think that scientists can contribute something to the primary and secondary education process and who thus incorporate those contributions into their lessons. Given the current burdens on educators, teachers need to be better rewarded for efforts to implement a more inquiry-based culture in their classrooms. For the most part, such changes will have to come from within the education system......to be truly successful at engaging children, scientists must be better trained to teach and communicate with the public. They also should be rewarded for participating in these efforts; one option would be to give young scientists teaching credits for participating in these outreach efforts. Designing training programs that would help young scientists acquire these skills and rewarding young scientists for sacrificing part of their time at the bench to participate in educational outreach would go a long way toward building effective teacher-scientist partnerships. "

Society for Neuroscience core concepts: essential principles of neuroscience.
Nature Neuroscience journal homepage.
About Nature Neuroscience.
Nature Neuroscience guide to authors.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 17, 2009
Categories: Education, Public and media, Support | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Editorial in this month's (May) Nature Chemistry (1, 93; 2009):
What are the aims of scientific conferences? Do they exist to provide a forum in which researchers can discuss their most recent results with their peers, make announcements of startling new discoveries, and help educate the younger members of the community who are fortunate enough to be there? Before the rise of the internet, these motives were almost certainly some of the more powerful ones. Scientific discourse by letter is obviously very slow; telephones are useful up to a point, but chemistry is a very visual subject — it was surely the case that convening large numbers of researchers in one location greased the wheels of collaboration and discovery. But is this still the case today? At larger mainstream conferences, the time devoted to scholarly discussion — at least in the official sessions — is somewhat limited at best.
After discussing various pros and cons, the Editorial concludes that it "seems clear that conferences are — in one form or another — an important part of science, but they need to adapt so that they better align with developments in information technology and our desire for a cleaner planet."

Nature Chemistry journal website
Nature Chemistry guide to authors
About Nature Chemistry
All the Nature journals
About the relationship between journals in the Nature family.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 30, 2009
Categories: Communication, Conferences, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Via press release: Most scientific research goes largely unnoticed by the general public until media reports reveal major scientific breakthroughs or biosafety accidents. The most recent module in the Fedaration of American Scientists (FAS) Case Studies in Dual Use Biological Research series examines the public reaction to scientific research. It is designed to increase scientists’ awareness of the general public’s perception of their research, the possible consequences, and how scientists can engage the public to address their concerns. “Scientists have to realize that some people are afraid of research being done in their community,” said Michael Stebbins, FAS Director of Biology Policy. “They need to do a better job of reaching out to the public and communicating the benefits of science.”
The Public Reaction to Science Research module is the latest addition to the FAS Case Studies in Dual Use Biological Research multimedia online education material. The series illustrates the implications of dual-use biological research through case studies of researchers and provides a historical background on bioterrorism, bioweapons and the current laws, regulations and treaties that apply to biodefense research. This module is one of a series of case-studies in "dual use" of biological research.

The Nature journals' policies on biosecurity, including an archive of free-access journal editorials.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 01, 2009
Categories: Communication, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Strong science education is an important part of any modern education. To ensure scientific progress, however, students need to aspire to academic careers, states this month's (April) Editorial in Nature Materials (8, 243; 2009). The article discusses the Amercan Recovery and Reinvestment Act, of which education forms a substantial part, not least to keep the school system from collapse. After highlighting some international comparisons and ingredients of a good scientific education, the Editorial draws attention to some specific projects:

" ....it is important to convey experience of scientific research, and the excitement of state-of-the art scientific research. Examples of public outreach are science fairs at US high schools, international science Olympiads and exhibitions such as Strange Matter, organized by the Materials Research Society. Another notable scheme is PhysiScope, based at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. In his Commentary on page 245, Christoph Renner describes this initiative, where teenagers experience practical experiments centred on advanced scientific concepts such as superconductivity. The experiments are conducted by PhD students and postdocs, and the venue is embedded within the physics department, so that students can also peek into the research labs. What better place to inspire students with the work of scientists?.....To stimulate interest in an academic career, students need to be encouraged and supported from an early age. Public outreach programmes are essential, and scientists' duties as teachers begin far sooner than with beginners' classes in college."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 30, 2009
Categories: Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Frank Gannon writes a stirring Editorial in EMBO Reports this month (10, 193; 2009) about scientists and the global economic crisis. " Hubris and recklessness", he writes, " together with an insatiable hunger for money, have created a global crisis that is driving many of the world's economies into recession. One result is rapidly increasing unemployment and fears are rising that pensions will be rendered worthless; yet, there is no sign of an end to this economic disaster, which has been happening 'on our watch'."

After summarizing the energy, climate, ecology and humanitarian crises now facing the world, Dr Gannon concludes that "scientists should have been the first to identify these problems and sound the bugle call for action. Indeed, some researchers did voice their concerns and published their analyses back when corrective action could have taken place without major disruption. But they did not galvanize their community, or their community ignored their message or presented contrary analyses; in any case, the scientific community failed. But, even the scientists who voiced their concerns early and proposed corrective measures were largely ignored by modern societies in which sound bites trump evidence and in which 'academic' has become synonymous with 'practically useless'.

There are major challenges ahead and business as usual is no longer good enough. There is an increasing need for courage in the scientific community to both speak up and propose measures, however unpopular in the short-term, to bring about systemic change. We, as scientists, also need to become politically engaged as experts in the political world, rather than poking fun at and ridiculing it. We need to talk to the public directly, convince them of the evidence and present possible solutions to get us out of this mess. More importantly though, it is a time to reflect on how we have contributed to the current system failure and what we can do to help society recover from it. It is still our watch and we can make change happen."

Additional material is in Nature's Recession Watch, providing analysis and advice on how to survive the global economic downturn. Science is key to nation-building during a recession but scientists must learn to convince politicians of the need to protect research budgets. Building global links and breaking down the barriers between disciplines is vital if the world is to weather the financial squeeze. Central banks must also end their obsession with cutting interest rates and technology start-ups will need to cut costs and sell what they can. A stimulus package for the developing world could, however, benefit everyone. Nature's news and opinion coverage of the dangers and opportunities keeps scientists updated on the recession and its impact on institutions, funding, and careers.

See also the March Editorial in Nature Structural and Molecular Biology (16, 229; 2009), 'Stimulating Science', which argues that the economic benefits of biomedical research are recognized by governments around the world, but investment in science should go beyond profitability.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 11, 2009
Categories: Communication, Education, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

To help celebrate two notable anniversaries this year which I assume you have not missed (Darwin's 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of first publication of On The Origin of Species), the Elucian Islands in Second Life will play host to its very first interactive game, Notes from the Voyage, tomorrow (Wednesday 25 February 2009).
Joanna Scott tells us: "To complete the series of tasks in Notes from the Voyage, you will need to brave earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, swim among coral reef and uncover buried fossils, as well as encounter wildlife including jaguars, sloths and tortoises. Armed with your toolbag, compass and notebook, can you relive the highlights of Darwin’s famous Beagle voyage and rediscover his key scientific findings? Prizes await all those who succeed."
The new addition to the Elucian Islands archipelago, which includes a lush re-creation of South America and the Galapagos Islands, as well as a Second Life scale replica of HMS Beagle, will be opened on 25 February at 1800h GMT / 1000h PST and SLT (second life time), by Karen James, Darwin co-ordinator at the Natural History Museum, London and Science Director of The Beagle Project. Karen will talk to attendees about her work for the Darwin anniversaries. There will also be a showing of a short film from Nature Video of David Attenborough talking about his view on Darwin, natural selection and the Bible, before the game begins.
The Elucian Islands will also host a special series of talks on topics including the history of Darwin and Darwinism in research today, as well as themed podcasts and videos. All these events are free to attend and everybody is very welcome. To be kept up to date with all events, watch Joanna's blog or join the Nature group in Second Life.

Elucian Islands on nature.com: what it's about and how to get started.

Nature's Darwin special: all the magnificent content in the journal to celebrate Darwin, in one place.

More Nature videos.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 24, 2009
Categories: Education, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the text of an announcement in Nature 457, 8; 1 January 2009:
About a year ago, an Editorial in these pages urged scientists and their institutions to 'spread the word' and highlight reasons why scientists can treat evolution by natural selection as, in effect, an established fact (see Nature 451, 108; 2008).
This week we are following our own prescription. Readers will find a freely accessible resource for biologists and others who wish to explain to students, friends or loved ones just what is the evidence for evolution by natural selection. Entitled '15 evolutionary gems', the document summarizes 15 lines of evidence from papers published in Nature over the past 10 years. The evidence is drawn from the fossil record, from studies of natural and artificial habitats, and from research on molecular biological processes.
In a year in which Darwin is being celebrated amid uncertainty and hostility about his ideas among citizens, being aware of the cumulatively incontrovertible evidence for those ideas is all the more important. We trust that this document will help.

Nature's Darwin 200 Special collection.

Related posts:
Eugenie Scott of the US National Center for Science Education.
Brandon Kiem at Wired Science.
P. Z. Myers of Pharyngula.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 07, 2009
Categories: Education, NPG special content, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

There is a growing trend to take prescription stimulants (Adderall and Ritalin for example) in order to enhance cognitive performance – perhaps in attempt to obtain better grades or increase learning capacity. Nature has been reporting on developments in this controversial area and providing a forum for discussion. In a Commentary article (Nature doi:10.1038/456702a; 7 December 2008 - free to access online until 18 December) Henry Greely and co-authors, who include Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature, say that society must respond to this demand. The authors call for:
--a presumption that adults should be able to use drugs for this purpose
--an evidence-based approach to evaluate the risks and benefits
--legal and ethical policies to ensure fair and equitable use
--a research programme
--broadly available information about risks and benefits
Do you agree with the authors that new methods of improving our brain function should be welcomed, to improve quality of life and extend lifespans? Will safe and effective cognitive enhancers benefit the individual and society? Or should these drugs remain illegal for these purposes? A range of opinions is expressed in a lively Nature Network discussion. One example: "Not only would the rich continue to get richer and healthier, but they’d have the ability to get “smarter” as well. If we’re not careful, we won’t only end up with further social stratification— we’ll see speciation!" Another: " I do agree with the authors that the topic will not disappear, and needs to be confronted. I do not pretend to know what policies are best....As a scientist I do not relish my peers or younger colleagues taking such drugs for the extra edge in career success. I do not relish getting “confidential” advice from a tenure review committee member that next time I should try taking a daily dose of X." And another example: "The majority of mind-altering drugs discovered by humanity have side effects of one form or another. I would be very wary of using any of the current family of available drugs on a long term basis. In which case the call for evidence-based research in the Nature piece will have not inconsiderable ethical issues. These would presumably need to be both double blind and long term."
Please join the Nature Network forum discussion and add your own views to questions such as "why? What’s wrong with leaving your good old brain to do its thing without enhancement?" Previous Nature Network discussion responding to the question ‘would you boost your brain power?’, based on an earlier Commentary article by some of the same authors, can be found here, and the results of Nature's reader survey on the use of neuroenhancing drugs can be read and analysed here.
Initial media reports about the Nature Commentary's proposals are summarized at The Great Beyond, in which Philip Campbell is quoted as stating: “The article, while libertarian in spirit, is absolutely not saying: ‘use these drugs, everybody’. My advice is to avoid taking such drugs unless you have been prescribed them. It is a serious felony to sell such drugs off-prescription in the US; in the UK, Ritalin, for example, is a class B drug, so that un-prescribed possession is punishable by prison and a fine. Furthermore, these drugs have undergone no clinical trials for use by healthy people. And they do have side-effects.”

Posted by Maxine Clarke on December 10, 2008
Categories: Education, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Education, a new division of Nature Publishing Group, has launched Scitable, a free online educational resource for undergraduate biology instructors and students.
Scitable, which currently covers the field of genetics, is built on a library of overviews of key science concepts compiled by Nature Publishing Group's editorial staff. Scitable’s evidence-based approach explains science through the lens of the scientific method, with links to milestone research papers.
Topics of investigation include:
• Chromosomes and cytogenetics
• Evolutionary genetics
• Gene expression and regulation
• Gene inheritance and transmission
• Genes and disease
• Genetics and society
• Genomics
• Nucleic acid structure and function
• Population and quantitative genetics
Scitable is designed to help teachers engage students in a deeper appreciation of science by combining the site's content libraries with the kinds of social learning tools that students enjoy.
Visit Scitable to register, browse the content libraries, and create a classroom research space for your students.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on December 09, 2008
Categories: Education, Partners | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the text of a recent Editorial in Nature (456, 2; 2008):
Six foreign medics escaped the Libyan death penalty last year thanks to intense diplomacy, supported by the advocacy and decisive expertise of scientists. But the researchers' involvement was largely a matter of luck and serendipity. Science and scientists have much untapped potential to contribute to human-rights issues, but until now there have been limited efforts to systematically consolidate the interactions between science and human-rights groups. Two new initiatives of the Science and Human Rights Program of the American Association for the Advancement of Science are intended to help fill that gap.
Its On-call Scientists program launched last month aims to create a database of scientists who will volunteer time — be it a few days or a few months — and expertise, and human-rights organizations — including non-governmental organizations and international agencies such as the United Nations — seeking practical help or advice.
'Human rights' covers a gamut of issues, from exposing abuses to disaster relief. The range of scientific advice sought is correspondingly broad — statistical or methodological help to get a more accurate picture of conflict or ethnic cleansing, advice on water issues from hydrologists, or forensic help to document mass executions or overturn false convictions.
The service faces a steep learning curve in deciphering the diverse needs of human-rights groups, and how scientists might be able to help in ways perhaps not yet imagined. But better communication between scientists and the alphabet soup of human-rights groups — and between those groups themselves on technical issues — is long overdue.
Another welcome initiative is due in January 2009. Many learned societies, as well as academic groups such as Scholars at Risk, have a long history in upholding human rights and academic freedom — for example, defending scientists under threat from oppressive governments, using satellite imagery to expose human-rights abuses and speaking out on abuse wherever it occurs. To put such efforts on a firmer footing, American organizations are to launch the US Science and Human Rights Coalition, a forum in which scientific bodies and human-rights groups can share experiences and best practice. Given the US presidential election, the timing could not be better. For the past eight years, American human-rights groups have seen their international influence undermined by the US administration's diminishing moral authority and standing in the world. Scientists can, and should, help reinstate the fundamental principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948.

Sign up, learn more and become a volunteer for On-call scientists here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 27, 2008
Categories: Communication, Education, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Vaccination is one of the greatest achievments of modern science. Yet despite accumulating evidence that vaccines are safe, uptake is falling. This month's (December) superb Editorial in Nature Immunology (9, 1317; 2008) asks why more outbreaks of mumps and measles have occurred this year (2008) in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and other Western countries, when both diseases had been almost completely eradicated in the Western hemisphere before the 1990s because of the introduction of the measles mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1979.
From the Editorial: "A decrease in 'uptake' of the MMR vaccine fuelled by vaccine skeptics is the main cause behind the resurgence of these diseases in recent years. In 1998, Andrew Wakefield and colleagues published a paper in The Lancet linking the MMR vaccine to autism. This coincided with a growing belief that environmental cues were causing the increase in autism. The anti-vaccine movement jumped on this, and the ensuing media frenzy continues to this day.
Many studies have refuted Wakefield's claims. Furthermore, Wakefield had a serious conflict of interest, as his research was secretly funded by personal-injury lawyers whose clients were suing MMR vaccine makers. The paper was retracted and Wakefield is being tried for professional misconduct. Despite this, the rumors that the MMR vaccine causes autism persists."
The Editorial goes on to outline other vaccine scares dating back to the early nineteenth century, showing that arguments used by vaccine skeptics both past and present have changed relatively little. "They often suggest that vaccination is motivated by profit and is an infringement of personal liberty and choice; vaccines violate the laws of nature and are temporary or ineffective; and good hygiene is sufficient to protect against disease. Governmental conspiracy theories also abound."
The facts are that to achieve herd immunity and avoid disease outbreaks on a mass scale, mandatory vaccination is needed. "Huge numbers of scientific papers support the safety and efficacy of vaccination. If governments were determined to 'cover up' side effects, then why was the rhesus monkey–derived rotavirus vaccine immediately withdrawn once a side effect was noted?"
From the Editorial: "The internet is increasingly used as a source of health information. Unfortunately, vaccine skeptics have recognized this, and anti-vaccine websites have proliferated. Some are filled with anti-vaccine quotes from physicians linked financially to autism research. They use scare-mongering tactics with pictures of children allegedly injured by vaccines to feed on parents' concerns. Alongside such pictures, stories written by other parents who feel their child's disability was caused by vaccination, on the basis of temporal rather than causal evidence, abound. Risks associated with vaccination are exaggerated and the scientific literature is 'cherry picked' to deceptively support their bogus views.
In the West, where vaccine scares are more common, parents with unvaccinated children tend to be well educated with ready access to information sources. Fed misinformation by vaccine skeptics, such parents prefer not to immunize their children because they percieve the risk of vaccination to be greater than that of a disease they have never encountered. What vaccine skeptics fail to mention is that diseases such as measles can be lethal or can cause life-long disabilities. Another pro-vaccine argument often ignored is that healthy children perform better at schools, and healthy adults are more productive at work."
Irresponsible and ill-informed media coverage is partly responsible for this state of affairs, but according to the Editorial, governments are not blameless. The Editorial recommends that they should "be more proactive, funding mass-education campaigns to relay the facts simply and emphasize the many advantages of vaccination. Immunologists themselves should stand up and publicly promote the history, successes, safety and efficacy of the world's vaccination program."
Read the full Editorial here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 26, 2008
Categories: Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the text of a Correspondence from Nature 455, 1175 (2008) by Kenneth R. Jolls of Iowa State University:

In your 'Big data' issue, Felice Frankel and Rosalind Reid call for an "investment in visual communication training for young scientists" to prepare them for modern methods of data representation ('Distilling meaning from data' Nature 455, 30; 2008). But the problem goes deeper than that.
Graphic artists who collaborate with scientists have often been shaped by the other of C. P. Snow's 'two cultures'. Although well-intentioned, many artists' understanding of basic science is inadequate for meaningful participation in high-level technical work. Cognitive art is like commercial art and technical writing: it has never garnered respect from the artistic establishment, and its practitioners are left to fend for themselves.
From the start of schooling, distinctions are made between students with a talent for science and those with leanings towards the arts. In our technology-focused society, science receives more attention and an emphasis that does not include visual-thinking skills. Calculus, for example, is learned through symbolic operations, but portraying those procedures by using curves and surfaces and tangents and intercepts is typically considered to be an unnecessary frill.
Thus the two cultures diverge, and if we try to reassemble them later to let one benefit the other, we have serious difficulties: the world views don't match. Subjective ideas can be stifled by objective thought but, by the same token, physical reality can be mismanaged by well-meaning attempts at creativity.
We must indeed invest in visualization skills for science-bound students, but there should be a parallel path for science-illustrators-to-be to learn the basics of physics, chemistry and mathematics. Collaborators who understand each other's language have a much better chance of finding the common ground they need for the cooperation they seek.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 13, 2008
Categories: Authorship, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

G. N. Greaves of Aberystwyth Univesity and co-authors write in a Commentary in Nature Materials 7, 827-839 (2008):
"The world's first dedicated X-ray synchrotron radiation storage ring, the Synchrotron Radiation Source or SRS (Fig. 1), is closing down this autumn after 27 years of operation. Designed, built and commissioned at Daresbury Laboratory in less than four years, it thrust the United Kingdom into a world-leading position in 19801, delivering the first uninterrupted beams of intense X-rays. Since then, the use of synchrotron X-rays has led to major advances in both fundamental and applied science, which at the SRS has ranged from the structure of glass to catalysts in operation, from the crystallography of proteins to elements at high pressure, and from semiconductor surfaces to the magnetism of atomic layers, to take just a few examples. The SRS has had a substantial role in what has truly become a revolution in characterization science. With over 5,000 papers published, research and instrumentation from the SRS continues to influence facilities across the world."
The authors review the range of fields of science in which the SRS has made significant contributions, calculating that since 1981 "the SRS has served a staggering 11,000 individual users from 25 countries, and been the training ground of over 4,000 doctorate students and 2,000 post-doctorate researchers. With materials research making up around 40% of this research programme, the legacy of the SRS in this field is enormous. We have picked out examples where the international impact of the SRS has been particularly impressive, but there are many more: developments in industrial materials, biomaterials, electrochemical materials and, very recently, heritage materials. The international conference series, 'Synchrotron Radiation in Materials Science', which began in Chester, UK, in 1994, charts this progress and involvement of the SRS over the years. Indeed, many of the new concepts, experiments, theory and instrumentation in X-ray science owe their origins to research at Daresbury, starting 27 years ago when the SRS heralded the age of dedicated synchrotron radiation.
It is worth reflecting on the relatively short time taken for authorization to build the SRS by the then Science Research Council. The decision in the late 1970s followed the briefest of approval procedures compared with the current process-driven practice of seeking the widest consultation before dipping into the public purse. If the gut-reaction decision to build the SRS had taken any longer, it would have jeopardized its place as a world-first and, more importantly, the confidence to build new science over the next generation — much of which has been internationally leading and continues to influence the synchrotron radiation community worldwide."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 04, 2008
Categories: Authorship, Careers, Education | Permalink | Comments (1)

In its November Editorial, Nature Reviews Microbiology (6, 794; 2008) reports that the archive of the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (IJSEM) has been made available free online: a boon for scientists, historians and the public. The Society for General Microbiology publishes IJSEM on behalf of the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes of the International Union of Microbiological Societies. The society has now provided funding for the entire back archive of the journal to be made freely available worldwide without a journal subscription. (The current content, or past two years, remains subject to access controls.)
From the Nature Reviews Microbiology Editorial: Systematics is the foundation for studies of all types of organisms, because it helps us to understand how one organism relates to another. The value of systematics is often underappreciated, however, for bacteria and viruses. For example, there is a huge imbalance between the 7,000 named bacterial species and the 1,000,000 named insect species. This is particularly important given that it is now well-known that bacteria and viruses are the most populous organisms on Earth, and furthermore, that more than 99% of bacteria have yet to be cultivated. Why should we be interested in naming and characterizing different species of bacteria? The advent of metagenomics has swelled the literature with ever-increasing estimates of numbers and types of bacteria and viruses in the biosphere. An important adjunct to genomics-based approaches is the detailed characterization of these myriad species and investigation of the relationships between them. The availability of the IJSEM archive will hopefully spur renewed interest in this area.
Jean Euzeby, the IJSEM list editor, maintains an incredibly useful web resource that details all those species that have been ratified — the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature. Another useful site named Bacterial Nomenclature Up-to-Date has an up-to-date list of bacteria and is based on the work of Norbert Weiss, who maintained the database until his retirement in February 2003. The current database is maintained under the supervision of Manfred Kracht. Finally, a comprehensive taxonomy of the Bacteria and Archaea can be found in the Taxonomic Outline of Bacteria and Archaea (TOBA) Release 7.7, which was last updated in 2007.
Other useful resources are described in the Editorial.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 30, 2008
Categories: Access, Data availability, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Publishing Group has created a web focus ‘Metabolic Syndrome 2008’ — showcasing a collection of original research articles from our academic and clinical practice journals that provide further insight into this global disease. Metabolic syndrome affects nearly 50 million Americans — almost one in four American adults. Approximately seven per cent of adults in their 20s and about 40 per cent of adults over the age of 40 meet the criteria for the syndrome. Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions that occur together and increase the risk for heart disease, stroke and diabetes. Having just one of these conditions — increased blood pressure, elevated insulin levels, excess body fat around the waist or abnormal cholesterol levels — contributes to the risk of serious disease and in combination, the risk is even greater. There is no accepted or official definition of metabolic syndrome. Whether these risk factors actually can be referred to as a syndrome, they represent a growing medical condition involving multiple medical specialties. This free collection provides valuable insight into this emerging medical and public health epidemic.

‘Metabolic Syndrome 2008’ features content from the following journals:
• American Journal of Hypertension
• European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
• The International Journal of Impotence Research: The Journal of Sexual Medicine
• International Journal of Obesity
• Journal of Human Hypertension
• Nature Clinical Practice Cardiovascular Medicine
• Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism
• Obesity

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 21, 2008
Categories: Author services, Education, Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

Are you interested in innovation and how to promote and predict it? Check out Nature ’s series of commentaries on the subject and tell us what you think at a Nature Network forum for online discussion.
In June, Bill Destler, president of the Rochester Institute of Technology discussed his school’s plan to foster innovation through academic-industrial partnerships.
In July, Lan Xue director of the China Institute for Science and Technology Policy argues that pushes to globalize science must not threaten local innovations in developing countries.
In August, David Guston of Arizona State University discusses the inherrent contradictions in the idea of introducing innovation policies, and offers ways of anticipating change without predicting it.
In September, Fred Gault and Susanne Huttner discuss some of the ways the OECD is looking to apply metrics to measure the impacts of innovation policies.
Podcast Extra!
David Goldston talks with experts about policies to implement innovation in this run up to the US presidential election.
Do you think innovation can be directed? Can it be predicted? Encouraged? Measured? Join the discussion at Nature Network.
The Nature commentaries are collected in this web focus.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 20, 2008
Categories: Careers, Education, Policies, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

The hype that greeted the development of systems biology was followed by inevitable disappointment. But in reality, much groundwork has been done and tangible progress is expected. In a Nature Commentary (Nature 455, 730-731; 9 October 2008), Adriano Henney and Giulio Superti-Furga broaden a debate that began at a recent workshop in Portofino, Italy, on the application of systems biology to drug discovery by inviting readers to contribute their ideas. Delegates at Portofino drew up ‘roadmaps’ for three areas: metabolic disorders; cancer; and inflammation and infectious diseases — and are developing them as live documents to monitor progress. To comment on the article and related documents, visit the Nature Network forum 'Applying systems biology to benefit human health'.
At the Nature Network forum, Superti-Furga writes about the group's frustration about the scepticism within institutions, biopharmaceutical companies and funding agencies regarding the usefulness of systems approaches to medicine and in particular in drug discovery. Mindful of the danger of encouraging a climate of unrealistic expectations and delusions, "with genomics-like anticlimactic conservatism as consequence", Superti-Furga and colleagues have initiated a community-wide research roadmap proposal. "The purpose is to define the areas worth focusing on to obtain the facts that are needed as proof of concept for the entire community. In a careful process, we have engaged some of you first in interviews, then with on-line questionnaires and finally with a meeting restricted to 25 people that occurred in May (in Portofino, Italy). The outcome of the meeting is summarized in a Commentary that just appeared in Nature (enclosed). So far it has not been practical to engage all of you directly but we now need your help as we are preparing a white paper that covers much more ground of the Portofino discussions and following that measures for implementation."
"We got this rolling and would like to know if the community is willing to participate in the autodiscipline needed to achieve the goals of the recommendations. Moreover, we are looking for further focus and detail on the proposed ideas and on what could be additional ideas that the group may have overseen." The group will post on the following topics:
-Setting data standards
-Optimizing the application of existing tools
-Predictive toxicology
-Therapeutic area focus
-Communication and outreach
Please join the discussion at Nature Network by providing your feedback and proposals.
Applying systems biology to benefit human health forum at Nature Network.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 14, 2008
Categories: Disciplines, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Life in the twenty-first century requires an understanding of science and technology (see Nature Geoscience 1, 635; 2008) Students, educators and scientists will be celebrating the eleventh annual Earth Science Week from 12 to 18 October, with the theme 'No child left inside'. The event, organized by the American Geological Institute, aims to bring to life the relevance and importance of the science of the Earth and engender a lifelong interest in the topic.
According to Nature Geoscience, "the goal of this event is to engage students and their families in the geosciences, which are all too often relegated to early school years or removed from elementary and secondary school curricula entirely. The lack of exposure to the Earth sciences in school may be partly to blame for shrinking numbers of graduates with concentrations in geology, and it is probably compounded by the increasing tendency to rely on PowerPoint lectures and mail-order mineral kits instead of field experiences.
But the need for outreach goes much further than convincing the best students to take up a career in the geosciences. Earth science issues ranging from climate change to earthquake risks and from ocean acidification to sinking coastal cities confront politicians and voters alike. The science underlying these questions is complex, the impacts are potentially devastating and there are no quick fix solutions. It is impossible to make rational decisions on any of these issues without at least a basic understanding of the science behind the problems.
Unfortunately, the 2006 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) suggests that many young people advancing through the educational systems of their countries are essentially scientifically illiterate. The report shows that almost 20% of 15-year-old students, distributed equally across industrialized and developing nations, do not understand the most basic science."
.....
"In addition to the occasional open days offered by more and more universities and research institutions, much can be done by individual scientists. Local and national programmes such as TRIO and Upward Bound are looking for volunteer scientists to host secondary level students in their lab for a few weeks during summer. Meanwhile, programmes like ScienceQuest need scientists and graduate students to be interviewed, or to provide materials and guidance for projects and experiments. Secondary and elementary school teachers are often pleased if researchers bring experiments into their classrooms or offer to guide field-trips for a day. Your child's teacher is a great place to start. You could also volunteer to give a presentation at a museum or a school's career day, or spend an afternoon with a scouting troop earning their geology badges."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 07, 2008
Categories: Communication, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

A recent Nature News story highlights efforts to create a free digital library of mathematics (Nature 454, 263; 2008). From the Nature report:

All the mathematical literature ever published runs to more han 50 million pages, with around 75,000 articles added each year. Over the past decade there have been several attempts to make this prodigious body of work accessible in a single digital archive, but so far none has succeeded.
A group of mathematicians intends to change this. They have started small, with a handful of digitization projects in Poland, Russia, Serbia and the Czech Republic. In a few years they hope to unite these repositories with their western European counterparts in an archive to be hosted by the European Union, according to the organizer, Petr Sojka, an informatics scientist at Masaryk University in Brno in the Czech Republic. Eventually this pan-European archive could be expanded globally, he says.
To make such an archive easier to search, researchers have found ways to guess the subject of a paper on the basis of the frequency of symbols in it. But there will be many more-practical challenges, such as finding the funds to scan millions of old papers and striking deals with publishers who hold rights to them.
It may already be too late to build a single free mathematical archive, according to John Ewing, head of the American Mathematical Society, which maintains a list of more than 1,500 journals whose archives have already been digitized. “A few years ago, this model had the potential to change the mathematics journal literature in profound ways,” he says. But most publishers have rushed to scan their own archives in order to lock them up and sell them to libraries.
“While the effort to digitize the smaller collections is admirable, and it's certainly worthwhile, it's unlikely to effect a larger change,” says Ewing.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 06, 2008
Categories: Access, Communication, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

I am on holiday, so instead of the usual weekly round-up, I am highlighting a Nature Network forum discussion of interest. The regular Nature Network round-up will return on Friday 15 August.

What’s both radical and incremental? Aimless and goal-oriented? Process and product? Innovation, which is the subject of a monthly series of Nature Commentaries. Specialists from business, economics, law, policy and research are contributing to the series in an attempt to define innovation, explore how it arises, and how it can be managed, encouraged and facilitated. The commentaries reveal that the idea of a single innovator or inventor is fading, and probe how innovation is increasingly the product of an entire ecology which includes both basic and applied research but also the venture-capital system and external motivating forces coming together in the right mix. Each of these Commentaries is being discussed at the Nature Network Opinion forum, so please join the conversation there about the Rochester Institute of Technology's plan to foster innovation through academic-industrial partnerships. Do you think such partnerships will work? Future installments will be featured as they are published, so keep an eye on the Nature Network forum.

Previous Nature Network columns.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 01, 2008
Categories: Education, Nature Network round-up | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s baffling to many that education reform has been so absent in the campaigns of US presidential candidates. In the 1 May issue of Nature (453, 28-30; 2008), Hal Salzman and Lindsay Lowell of the Urban Institute provide their take on US competitiveness in science and technology. Every time international testing of students on science and technology is done, pundits fret over what it means for the United States’ ability to compete. But while the mean scores place the United States as underachievers, no one seems to be paying attention to the long tails of distribution: the impressive number of high performing students and the equally impressive and dismaying number of low-performers. What do you think needs to be done? The time for discussion is ripe as the National Academies convened this week to refocus congressional attention on their clarion call for change, Rising above the Gathering Storm. Join our online forum at Nature Network and let us know whether you think we are training too many scientists.

In another Commentary in the same issue of the journal (Nature, 453, 31-32; 2008), Andrew Moore of the European Molecular Biology Organisation chides the European education system for not including more instruction on molecular evolution. Are students being shortchanged by not seeing the bioinformatics-based evidence supporting Darwin’s theory? Do you think molecular evolution should feature more extensively on the curriculum in high schools? Please join our discussion at Nature Network, which includes a lively response to Moore's piece at End of the Peer* Show blog.

*apologies, this word should be "Pier". Thank you to rpg (see comments) for pointing this out. Maxine.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 01, 2008
Categories: Education | Permalink | Comments (1)

Amyloid-β and tau in Alzheimer's disease, by Frank M. LaFerla, May 2008.
Poster from Nature Reviews Neuroscience, available free online (PDF).
Alzheimer's disease is a devastating neurodegenerative disorder with a relentless progression. Its pathogenesis is believed to be triggered by the accumulation of the amyloid-β peptide, due to overproduction and/or the failure of clearance mechanisms. This peptide, together with the microtubule-associated protein tau and their associated signalling pathways, represent important therapeutic targets for Alzheimer's disease. The pathogenic mechanisms are described in more detail here, and are shown graphically in the Nature Reviews Neuroscience high-resolution poster.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 23, 2008
Categories: Communication, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

From a recent Editorial in Nature (451, 869; 2008):
"Seven years ago, Mitiko Go, a biophysicist then at Nagoya University, told Nature about a disturbing experience she had had at a meeting of the university's Division of Biological Science (see Nature 410, 404–406; 2001). The academics were considering a female applicant for a vacant chair, and one male member said: "I'm sorry to have to say this in front of Dr Go, but one woman is enough."
Go thought she might be scolded for relating the story (and indeed she says she was accused of "tarnishing the honour of the university"), but she was about to retire from the university and felt the time had come to say something radical.
Times have changed. Far from retiring, Go is now president of the prestigious Ochanomizu University in Tokyo and a member of the Council for Science and Technology Policy, the country's highest science body, which is chaired by the prime minister. Go and others have implored the government to do more in support of women. The science and education ministry has responded."
Read the rest of this free-access Editorial here, which addresses the questions of why, when Japanese science needs its women more than ever, it does not treat them accordingly.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 05, 2008
Categories: Careers, Education | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two scientists writing a Commentary article, "Professor's little helper", in the current (20 December) issue of Nature (450, 1157-1159; 2007) want to stimulate your brains – in more ways than one.
Barbara Sahakian and Sharon Morein-Zamir from the Department of Psychiatry at Cambridge University argue that the increased usage of brain-boosting drugs by ill and healthy individuals raises ethical questions that cannot be ignored. An informal questionnaire Sahakian and Morein-Zamir sent to some of their scientific colleagues in the United States and United Kingdom revealed fairly casual use by academics, and we now want to hear your views on the topic.
The authors' arguments can be read in more detail in their Commentary at Nature (450, 1157-1159; 2007). A Nature editorial in the 15 November issue (Nature 450, 320; 2007) also discussed some of the ethical issues surrounding drug-based enhancement in healthy individuals inspired by a longer discussion paper from the British Medical Association.
To trigger broader discussion of these issues Sahakian and Morein-Zamir propose the following questions:
> Should adults with severe memory and concentration problems be given cognitive enhancing drugs?
> If such drugs have only mild side effects, should they be prescribed more widely for other psychiatric disorders?
> Do the same arguments apply for young children and adolescents with neuropsychiatric disorders, such as those suffering from ADHD?
> Would you boost your own brain power?
> How would you react if you knew your colleagues – or your students – were taking cognitive enhancers?
> How should society react?
Please contribute to this online discussion. We especially want to hear from you if you’re already using these drugs – or if you know people who are. What are your reasons for taking, or not taking, them?
For the next two weeks, the authors of the Nature Commentary will be joining in the conversation at the Nature Network forum: we look forward to meeting you there.
See also the related post, Brain doping, over at Action Potential.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on December 20, 2007
Categories: Disciplines, Education, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

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)

Via Washington University, St Louis' Biology Library News, I read that the National Academy of Sciences has made its entire historical collection of biographical memoirs freely available online, as PDFs. Fom the National Academy website:

Published since 1877, Biographical Memoirs are brief biographies of deceased National Academy of Sciences members, written by those who knew them or their work. These biographies provide a personal and scholarly view of the lives and work of America's most distinguished scientists and a biographical history of science in the United States.
Over the next several months, the entire collection of Biographical Memoirs will be available online as PDFs. Although memoirs published since 1995 have been freely available online, more than 900 memoirs published prior to 1995 were available previously only through archives and libraries. Among the 500 memoirs published recently online are those of famed naturalist Louis Agassiz; Joseph Henry, the first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; Thomas Edison; Alexander Graham Bell; noted anthropologist Margaret Mead; and psychologist and philosopher John Dewey.

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

"A few years ago I took part in a debate at the Royal Institution on ‘who was the first scientist?’ ", writes Brian Clegg in the science writers' forum on Nature Network. Brian continues: "Lewis Wolpert championed Archimedes, I stood up for Roger Bacon ....and Frank James spoke for James Clerk Maxwell. Archimedes won, with Bacon a close second. The arguments were loosely that Archimedes was the first to use maths in science, Bacon the first to emphasise the importance of experimental verification, maths and the communication of results, and Maxwell because the word ‘scientist’ wasn’t invented until his time.................I know it’s a very arbitrary point, but who out of all scientific history would you call the first, and why?"
Predictably, there is a bit of an argument among the replies about the terms of the question, but remarkably few suggestions other than a first-removed nomination of Galileo (attributed to John Gribbin). Here is my contribution: "Eve is my vote. She was the person who did the first scientific experiment, isn’t she? If you won’t count her, I suggest the unnamed man, woman or ape who first worked out how to make fire by rubbing two sticks together. I believe that suggestions such as Galileo and Bacon far too late to be considered “first” (and also show a bit of cultural influence, perhaps?)." Pierre Lindenbaum has helpfully responded with a link to a YouTube clip of the fire experiment (but not Eve's).
What are your thoughts? (Bearing in mind Brian's exhortation: "Come on guys, lighten up! I know it’s not possible to really say who the first scientist was, any more that it’s possible to say what was the best scientific idea – but we still have a Nobel Prize. The idea of this exercise (more contributions, please!) is to nominate the person you would like to be thought of as the first scientist and to give a reason.")

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 25, 2007
Categories: Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

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

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

Scientists tend to complain that Congress rarely pays heed to what they have to say. But the issues are often as much about values as they are science, says David Goldston in his monthly Nature column Party of One (Nature 448, 119; 2007) .

"For many US scientists, the demise of the OTA [Office of Technlogy Assessment] has taken on inordinate symbolic significance. Scientists often suggest that in eliminating the agency, Congress chose a path of wilful ignorance that has led to poor decisions over the past decade. But has the absence of the OTA really hampered policy-making? Not particularly. Congress is awash with information provided by scientific groups, and it still formally seeks scientific guidance — particularly from the National Academies, which arguably have more prestige and credibility on Capitol Hill than the OTA had. And reports from the academies can make a difference. For example, the 2006 report on the palaeoclimate record, specifically on the 'hockey-stick' graph (see Nature 441, 1032–1033; 2006), helped quieten congressional debate over whether recent decades have been unusually warm.
Other reports have been equally prominent, if less decisive. The academies' 2002 report on fuel-economy standards has become the bible on that subject, although, like the Bible, it is quoted by all sides. That's partly because of the report itself — it concluded, for example, that the standards had cost lives in the past but that, because of new technology, they needn't in the future — but it is also because scientific information does not usually point ineluctably to a single conclusion on policy.
Policy-making needs to be informed by both science and values. Is stem-cell research ethical? That's not a science question, although one needs to understand the potential of stem-cell research to answer it. Should clean-air standards be strengthened? That is not a science question, but one needs to know what researchers think the health impacts of dirtier air would be."

See here for the full article (subscription or site licence required).

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

Robert J. Birgeneau, the Chancellor of the University of California at Berkeley, writes about the challenge for universities in a Commentary in the current issue of Nature Matierials (6, 465 - 467; 2007).From his article:

As information technology fuels the expansion of knowledge at an ever-accelerating pace, universities everywhere are confronting the question of how a successful university should be structured in the next century. In the past decade, changes have swept European university systems from Britain through Switzerland to Germany. In the United States, publicly funded universities are facing a growing gap in trying to remain at the forefront of higher education and research while competing with private universities with wealthy endowments. My own institution, the University of California Berkeley, widely regarded as one of the world's leading public universities, must consider how to maintain and enhance its success as a pre-eminent academic leader while still retaining its distinct public mission and character. This is our challenge for the twenty-first century.

Read on at the Nature Materials website (subscription or site licence required).

A related Editorial in Nature Materials (6, 463; 2007) can be read here.

Frank Gannon, in the current issue of EMBO Reports (8, 7, 611; 2007), looks at different countries' ways of funding scientific research, and asks whether the "pinnacle" or "plateau" model is optimal.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 03, 2007
Categories: Careers, Education, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)