Nautilus

The proportion of the public that knows about nanotechnology has reached a plateau, which means that it is now necessary to develop new approaches to explore public perceptions in greater detail than before, according to the November Editorial in Nature Nanotechnology (4, 695; 2009). The Editorial draws attention to "the publication of the first meta-analysis of survey data on public attitudes towards the risks and benefits associated with nanotechnology (see page 752 of this issue). Terre Satterfield and colleagues looked at 22 publications reporting the results of surveys and found that the public response to nanotechnology has, so far, been different to the responses to previous new technologies in a number of ways. In particular, and contrary to expectations, unfamiliarity with nanotechnology is not strongly associated with risk aversion. The meta-analysis also reveals that twice as many people think that the benefits will outweigh risks as vice versa, but the authors caution that "a large minority of those surveyed (44%) is unsure, suggesting that risk judgments are highly malleable." Satterfield and colleagues also call for the development of new methods to understand public responses to nanotechnologies. In an accompanying News & Views on page 705 Dan Kahan concludes that "the meta-analysis suggests that public attitudes toward nanotechnology remain open to the guidance of sound science, but that it would be a serious error to take such receptivity for granted.".... It is important that the nanotechnology community — researchers, funders, regulators and others — continues to work hard to ensure that nano does not become the next GM, all the time accepting that there might always be new questions to answer and new challenges to address."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 13, 2009
Categories: Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

From an Editorial in Nature (462, 12; 5 November 2009):
Nature's first issue appeared on Thursday 4 November 1869. 7,269 issues later, a little bit of satisfaction may be in order given that the journal has survived wars and, so far, the Internet's onslaught on traditional models of publishing. Nature's papers are highly cited for what seem to us to be good reasons. Lots of people (millions online every month) want to read the journal. So where do we need to be self-critical? Readers will no doubt have many answers, but here are a few.

> Others sometimes put more weight on our judgement than it can justifiably bear. Large grants, philanthropic donations and personal chairs have been awarded on the strength of a paper in Nature — in effect, using editors' decisions as a surrogate for independent judgement. This is an abdication of the decision-makers' responsibility, and is a pitfall to be avoided.

> We endorse efforts to create systems that reach beyond the crudeness of the impact factor — systems that make transparent the citations and other effects of papers, and that record impacts of scientists' other work, such as their contributions to databases and the hard slog of peer review.

> We have enhanced our journalism and externally authored opinion in recent years, and readers can anticipate further developments ahead.

> Nature has to reflect the values of its authors and readers. The core values of science — objectivity, independence, self-critical thinking and a relentless urge to observe, experiment and explore — are also important principles of good journalism and editing. As an unusual hybrid of magazine and journal, Nature can only retain readers' respect if it follows those principles while adding substantial value to the lives and work of researchers and others seriously interested in science. Our commitment to fulfil these ambitions is as strong as it has ever been.

More about Nature.
Nature's own history website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 09, 2009
Categories: Communication, NPG special content, Public and media, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (1)

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)

According to an Editorial in today's Nature ( 461, 1174; 2009 - free to read online), "the temptation for scientists and their institutions to spin their research to the media, or to go publicity-mongering, is always there. And — as illustrated by the excessive public-relations campaign surrounding "Ida", a fossil presented as a missing link in human evolution (see Nature 459, 484; 2009 and Nature 461, 1040; 2009) — too many in the media will buy into the initial hype. Such behaviour is corrosive to the process of scholarly scientific communication. Research institutions must not allow it to become the norm."
The Editorial discusses the recent announcement of results from an HIV vaccine trial in Thailand, in which the trial's sponsors announced that it had been a success in that the vaccine had a statistically significant effect on preventing infection. But the full data for the claim were not made available for almost a month after the announcement - and included two other data sets in which the effects were not statistically significant.
Fortunately, states the Editorial, such stories are still rare in science. "Witness the way scientists have behaved since the beginning of the current H1N1 flu pandemic, in which the urgent threat to health creates legitimate tensions between getting results out fast and respecting peer review. Most researchers have negotiated this tension well, through a combination of fast-track publication by journals and online pre-publication sharing of preliminary data — but not through hyping their results."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 29, 2009
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the prescient visions of space travel in 2001: A Space Odyssey, through to the apocalyptic warnings presented in The Day After Tomorrow, science fiction cinema has examined many of the theoretical possibilities and consequences of science and technology. But just how plausibly does the genre interpret such possibilities and how accurately can it predict what the future holds? Have the futuristic celluloid visions of film-makers inspired scientists to fulfil some of these visions? And are movies the best way of promoting environmental awareness to contemporary societies? Join a lively debate organized by the weekly science journal, Nature.

Speakers
Adam Rutherford (chair) is an audio video editor at Nature, science writer and presents television and radio programmes, most recently Cell for BBC4.
Henry Gee (panellist) is a senior biology editor at Nature. He also edits the ‘Futures' science fiction column in Nature, and has written several non-fiction and fiction books.
Mark Henderson (panellist) is science editor of The Times and a double winner of the Norwich Union / Medical Journalists' Association awards. He is the author of 50 Genetics Ideas You Really Need to Know.
Gia Milinovich (panellist) is a technology writer and broadcaster as well as a new media consultant for the film industry. She has worked on various films, including Sunshine, 28 Weeks Later, X Files: I Want To Believe and Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

The Nature Autumn '09 Debate - Science in Cinema is at Kings Place, London on Monday 9 November at 19:00. For further details and to book, see the Kings Place website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 21, 2009
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bad journalism is best met not with red-faced indignation, but with good journalism. The truth is the best revenge. So concludes an Editorial in the current issue of Nature (461, 848; 2009) about an email campaign to a US climate scientist who backed out of participating in a documentary when he realized that the film-makers had not been clear with him about their intentions. Occasionally, scientists have been hoodwinked by the media, but these are rare events compared with the vast majority of programmes and other media articles. From the Editorial:
"Most journalists and documentarians are honestly trying to report the facts, and scientists have a responsibility to tell the public about their work — especially if it is supported by public money.
Fortunately, scientists can do much to protect themselves. When someone asks for an interview, for example, a scientist should enquire about starting assumptions, the intended audience and the identity of the project's backers. And, if possible, researchers should check the earlier work of the journalists and any companies behind the film for a partisan tone, or unacceptable levels of sensationalism.
But if these efforts fail, and it is discovered too late that the film-makers are bent on using an on-tape interview to promote a view that seems unscientific, the question becomes what steps to take. There is rarely a way to withdraw an interview that was given on the record, for good reason. In any case, making a fuss can be a gift of publicity to film-makers. Schneider admits that he might have spared himself the deluge of e-mails had he just ignored the makers of Not Evil Just Wrong.
A better approach might well be to complain to the television channels and broadcasting regulators, many of which have standards for their programming. The Great Global Warming Swindle was censured by Ofcom, Britain's broadcasting regulator, for breaking several rules in its broadcasting code. And when the same documentary was aired by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, it was followed by a point-by-point debate and rebuttal."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 20, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

In its October Editorial, Nature Structural & Molecular Biology (16, 1003; 2009) asks researchers if they know how it feels to have 2,500 pairs of eyes watch them work. "Imagine the crowd staring intensely at you as you set up a PCR, admiring your smooth pipetting action and wondering what on earth is so fascinating about the DNA sequence you have in front of you. Hold on, they don't have to just wonder, they can buzz on the intercom to ask you what you're doing. That is the daily experience of hundreds of scientists who work at the Natural History Museum in London. It probably takes some getting used to." The Darwin Centre is pulling in the crowds as the United Kingdom's latest—and perhaps bravest—approach to communicating science. Researchers are on show as they prepare specimens for analysis, sequence DNA and compare and classify species. Scientists also take turns to give daily talks on their work in the new Attenborough studio.
The Darwin Centre is a fascinating exhibit, but it follows a long trend of efforts to demystify science. This phase of science communication began in the late 1980s with the well-meaning, but sometimes high-handed, approach of trying to teach the public what scientists thought they should know. But through trial and error a more informal and more equal way of talking about science began to dominate, particularly through the Café Scientifique movement - described in more detail in the Editorial.
The Editorial concludes that In the tough times ahead, science needs all the support it can get. Without constructive engagement with the public over subjects such as cloning and the use of embryonic stem cells, scientists risk ceding control to special interest groups with political agendas. "Engagement and listening to the public do pay off, and now is the time to prove that not only do we value the intellectual pursuit of science, but we understand its implications for society."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 12, 2009
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

At the UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen this December, talk will turn to scientific, political and economic issues with a global reach and a long history — not easy to pick up from the daily news. Nature Reports Climate Change asked select experts on climate change what books we should be reading ahead of the big event. See Nature Reports Climate Change for the selections made my Mike Hulme, Tony Juniper, Mark Lynas, Oliver Morton, Ron Oxburgh, Rajendra K. Pachauri, Roger Pielke, Jr, Andrew Revkin and Joseph Romm, which range from popular scientific accounts to technical reports; and from explaining the controversies to passionate accounts of solutions. Some quotations from the recommendations:
--"a must-read book for those who want a primer on all the key solutions countries will be considering at Copenhagen."
--"Policymakers will have to forge a highly ambitious deal to avoid the crisis."
--" 'Climate change fatigue' is said to be an ailment slowly spreading through the media. As Copenhagen takes over the headlines, Bryan Lovell's lively new book — peering into the doubts, concerns and prejudices that have dogged climate negotiators — is an instant tonic for this malady."
--"The painful truth is that no one knows how to decarbonize the global economy.....— it's a lesson of history."
--"As governments head grimly into negotiations determined to avoid a policy failure, it's worth keeping in mind that the system they're hashing out is not the only possible one or even the best."
--"a grand agreement is less achievable than a set of specific deals on particular issues."
--"Beyond the frequently invoked battle-line between climate change 'believers' and 'sceptics', there is a deeper, and in the end more important, division of thinking."
--"This book is not going to help anyone get to grips with the intricacies of the UN climate negotiations, but if you want to lift your head from the trenches for an overview of the twenty-first century, it's a great place to start. "
--"it clearly maps out the serious consequences of inaction, as well as the feasibility and affordability of action both to adapt to the impacts of climate change and to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 09, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

The next Nature Debate is on 21 September at King's Place, London, and marries together ideas scientific and pecuniary. The 1980s saw the rise of the ‘rocket scientists’ of finance – as engineers, mathematicians and physicists rejected careers in science and technology and instead opted to work for banks. What part did they play in the financial crisis? And what is the future of science in finance? Join leading experts from science and banking as they debate whether the crisis was the result of bankers and regulators failing to grasp complicated, expert knowledge; and whether scientific knowledge – in particular fields such as complex systems, ecological economics and human behaviour – could help to ensure that economies are better understood and better regulated.
And those leading experts? Physicist turned financial mathematician Tim Johnson (Heriot-Watt University); researcher, entrepreneur and journalist John Browning; and Nature Consulting Editor Ehsan Masood. Nature Network community manager and London expert Matt Brown will be in the Rotunda bar before and after the event, and looks foward to meeting you there.
Book tickets for the Nature Debate.
Nature's Recession Watch special: with news, opinion, podcast, features and blogs, the journal keeps you updated on what it all means for science. Will your research funding be cut? How secure is your company or research institution? And can the meltdown actually create opportunities for science?

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 11, 2009
Categories: Public and media | 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)

Nature and Icon Films cordially invite you to a private screening of the feature film CREATION.
Please join us on Wednesday 16 September 2009 at the Science Museum in London for this advance screening. Director Jon Amiel and Oscar winning Producer Jeremy Thomas will introduce the film, followed by a screening on the Science Museum's IMAX screen.
CREATION is the powerful story of Charles Darwin and the single most explosive idea in history.
Based upon Randal Keynes’s book, Annie’s Box about the life of his great great grandfather Charles Darwin, the film stars Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones and Benedict Cumberbatch.
Drinks reception: 1830
Screening: 1915
Location: Science Museum, Exhibition Road, South Kensington, London SW7 2DD, UK.
Please RSVP by email. It is essential to RSVP in order to confirm that a seat is available.
From the Nature review of Annie's Box (Nature 411, 739-740; 2001), by Bruce Weber:
Keynes sees in Darwin's relationship with his daughter threads that tie together disparate aspects of his life and thought. He makes a compelling case and reveals an aspect of Darwin that should be incorporated into our total picture of him. The writing is graceful, the illustrations are apt and affecting, and the thesis is convincingly presented.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 08, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media | 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)

Reporting of scientific research is sometimes exaggerated or at worse inaccurate. Researchers need to change this and have the power to do so. So states the August Editorial in Nature Immunology (10, 795; 2009). Although attention-grabbing headlines might increase subscriptions or traffic to newspaper websites, such reporting is irresponsible to the public and to science in general. Even if the article itself is more balanced, many readers never get much beyond the headlines, which include: "Man flu is not a myth; "Burger fellas firing blanks"; red wine is a "cancer-busting antioxidant"; and a 47-million-year-old fossil of a lemur-like animal is a "missing link" in human evolution. Although the Editorial gives some pessimisitic examples of science journalism, it also reports some better news of initiatives to which scientists can contribute. "Several websites that critique the scientific press have started to evolve. In the UK, the National Health Service provides an unbiased and evidence-based analysis of health stories that hit the media. HealthNewsReview.org is a website dedicated to improving the accuracy of news stories about medical treatments, tests, products and procedures. The Yale Environment 360 website provides unbiased opinions from scientists and journalists on issues such as climate change. These are just a handful of examples." In addition, organizations such as the Voice of Young Science network are providing advice for researchers on how to stand up for science in public and correct misinformation in the mass media.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 22, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media | 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)

The US State Department promises to accelerate the visa process for foreign graduate students and postdoctoral researchers, a promise welcomed by Nature Structural & Molecular Biology in its July Editorial (16, 677; 2009). The Editorial decries the occasions when researchers have been severely delayed in trying to obtain or renew visas, leaving some stranded and others unable to travel to the United States for work or to attend scientific meetings.
The US State Department is now streamlining its procedures, aiming (eventually) to deal with routine requests within 2 weeks, an improvement on the current reported 4 months' average delay for applicants from China, for example. The Editorial concludes: "We must continue to attract and retain the best and the brightest from all over the world if we are going to retain America's global competitiveness, and reducing visa-processing delays is definitely a step in the right direction. If we don't, America's loss will be the rest of the world's gain."

Nature Structural & Molecular Biology journal home page.
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology guide to authors.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 09, 2009
Categories: Biosecurity, Careers, Communication, Conferences, Public and media | 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)

The UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology is hosting an evening of speakers and discussion on Thursday 25 June at the Institute of Physics,London, 6pm – 8.30pm (approx). There are some spaces left – men and women are very welcome, but booking in advance is essential.
The discussion:
Women in Science, Engineering and Technology – and the recession
Is gender equality key to recovery?
What is the impact of the recession on women in science, entineering and technology professions? We’ll look at the role of these disciplines in economic recovery, whether gender equality become a luxury in a recession, and the place of women in the new employmnet landscape that emerges.
Speakers include Ruth Sunderland (chair), Business Editor at the Observer; Anne Pettifor, an expert commentator and campaigner on financial systems, author of the Green New Deal and the Debtonation blog; Professor Douglas Kell, Chief Executive of the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, also a blogger; Mandy Clarke (Halcrow Ltd); Professor Ursula Martin (Queen Mary University of London); and Annette Williams (Director of the UK Resource Centre)
There will be refreshments and networking before and after. The meeting is upstairs at the Institute of Physics, but places are limited and prior booking is essential by email or by telephone (+44) 01274 436485.
About UKRC.
See also this Nature Network forum entry by Ruth Wilson.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 19, 2009
Categories: Careers, Conferences, 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)

This is the text of an online petition on the Sense About Science website:
The law has no place in scientific disputes
We the undersigned believe that it is inappropriate to use the English libel laws to silence critical discussion of medical practice and scientific evidence.
The British Chiropractic Association has sued Simon Singh for libel. The scientific community would have preferred that it had defended its position about chiropractic for various children's ailments through an open discussion of the peer reviewed medical literature or through debate in the mainstream media.
Singh holds that chiropractic treatments for asthma, ear infections and other infant conditions are not evidence-based. Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.
English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.
Freedom to criticise and question in strong terms and without malice is the cornerstone of scientific argument and debate, whether in peer-reviewed journals, on websites or in newspapers, which have a right of reply for complainants. However, the libel laws and cases such as BCA v Singh have a chilling effect, which deters scientists, journalists and science writers from engaging in important disputes about the evidential base supporting products and practices. The libel laws discourage argument and debate and merely encourage the use of the courts to silence critics.
The English law of libel has no place in scientific disputes about evidence; the BCA should discuss the evidence outside of a courtroom. Moreover, the BCA v Singh case shows a wider problem: we urgently need a full review of the way that English libel law affects discussions about scientific and medical evidence.

If you would like to find out more, and sign the petition, please visit Sense About Science.
Comments from some of the signatories can be found here.

Related articles:
Nature News 3 June 2009: Science writer will appeal libel case ruling.
Nature Network: Using the law to stifle scientific debate.
Reciprocal Space blog: Keep the libel laws out of science.
Nature Network bloggers' forum: A message to Nature Network users.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 04, 2009
Categories: Communication, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Monday 8 June, Nature is hosting The Big Science Debate: A Biological Century? The event starts at 7 p.m. at Kings Place 90 York Way, London NI. Physics, biology and chemistry have all helped define the twentieth century. Many world-changing innovations from physics include electric power, the microchip and the internal combustion engine. In biology and chemistry, an agricultural revolution has helped to feed a growing population. But some of these advances have also helped to create climate change and a rate of species-loss not seen since the last mass extinction. What will physics and biology look like 50 years from now? And what might the impacts be?

Join three distinguished panellists -- a physicist, a biologist and a historian -- as they cast their gaze into the future of science, and its possible impacts. Will we resolve the riddle of dark matter and dark energy, and will string theory remain the best candidate for unifying the forces of nature? Will stem cells have fulfilled their promise and what of the potential of genetically modified crops in agriculture?
Panellists:
• David Edgerton, Professor of the History of Science, Imperial College London
• Lewis Wolpert, Professor of Biology as Applied to Medicine, University College London
• Alison Wright, Chief Editor of Nature Physics
Chair: Ehsan Masood, Acting Chief Commissioning Editor, Nature
Host: Nick Campbell, Managing Editor, Nature
For more info on The Nature Debate series, please email the organizers.
Tickets are available online, by email or via the King's Place Box Office on +44 (0)20 7520 1490.
Kings Place, and how to get there.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 03, 2009
Categories: Communication, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

A hyped-up fossil find highlights the potential dangers of publicity machines, according to one of the Editorials in today's Nature (459, 484; 2009 - free to access online). The Editorial describes last week's publication of paper describing a 47-million-year-old fossil primate with a remarkable degree of preservation, which quickly led to enormous media and internet coverage, including claims that the fossil is a "missing link" in human evolution. The Editorial describes how, "in the paper the authors explicitly state that Darwinius masillae "could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids". The authors also refrain from claiming that the fossil changes our understanding of primate evolution."
But the circumstances surrounding the paper's publication were anything but normal. Before the paper had even been submitted, a television documentary and an accompanying book about the find had been commissioned; a week publication of the paper, the book is out and the documentary has been aired on TV in several countries. The Editorial continues:
"Both book and documentary include the the suggestive words 'The Link' in their titles. A press release associated with the New York press conference at which the fossil was first officially described claimed that the fossil represents revolutionary changes in understanding. The History Channel website calls the find a "human ancestor", and the BBC website describes it as "our earliest ancestor".
To be fair, the authors' claims at the press conference were appropriately measured. Nonetheless, the researchers were fully involved in the documentaries and the media campaign, which associate them with a drastic misrepresentation of their research.
Another damaging aspect of the events was the unavailability of the paper ahead of the press conference and initial media coverage. This prevented scientists other than those in the team from assessing the work and thereby ensuring that journalists could give a balanced account of the research.
There is no reason to think that PLoS ONE's editors and reviewers did less than their duty to the paper. Nonetheless, the clock was ticking at the time of submission. Nature has over the years received occasional offers of papers associated with television documentaries, and the offers usually come with broadcast dates attached. Where the refereeing process might have been compromised, we have always said no to these papers. When time is tight, there is a risk that the broadcast will go out even if any problems uncovered by peer review cause the paper to be delayed or rejected.
In principle, there is no reason why science should not be accompanied by highly proactive publicity machines. But in practice, such arrangements introduce conflicting incentives that can all too easily undermine the process of the assessment and communication of science."
Amid all the vast quantity of media and internet coverage of this research, I highly recommend this excellent post, 'Why Darwinius is not our ancestor', by Karen James at her Data Not Shown blog. I also recommend this Nature Network blog post by senior Nature editor Henry Gee.
Nature journals' embargo policy.
Nature journals' policy on confidentiality and pre-publicity.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 28, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (4)

A court case between one of Britain's leading science writers and an organization representing alternative medicine practitioners is causing renewed concern about the potential for libel laws to stifle debate on scientific issues (Nature News, 13 May 2009).
Simon Singh, author of Fermat's Last Theorem and other books, is being sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association over an article he wrote for the Guardian newspaper last year. In an unusual move, the BCA is suing Singh personally, and not the newspaper.
The case has international implications for science reporting and journalism more generally, warns Singh. It comes against a background of increasing concern in many quarters that litigants opt for British courts as they are seen as easier places to get a favourable result; a problem labeled 'libel tourism'.
Neil White, a partner at legal firm Taylor Wessing (which undertakes some legal work for Nature), says the case should serve as a warning not just for science writers, but more generally for scientists and all who write about similar topics. "I think there is a degree of ignorance on the part of scientists about libel law, particularly UK libel law," he says. "I do think there are some scientists who are rather arrogant about it, and think because they're scientists with a view to express on a matter of potentially considerable importance they can say what they please. That is just not the case. The lesson I think they need to learn is you can usually say what you want to say in a way that doesn't expose you to litigation, by taking a bit of care and taking a bit of advice."
Edzard Ernst, professor of complementary medicine at Peninsula Medical School in Plymouth, UK, says, "Recent history shows quite clearly there is a danger people can be silenced by the financial and legal might of their opponents."
What are your views? Please let us know, either by commenting at the Nature Network Opinion forum or at the Nature News website (where there is a comment in favour of the BCA, as well as others taking the opposite view). How confident are you about expressing a scientific opinion publicly? How well-informed are you about the legal consequences of what you might write on your blog or for a publication?
See also this Nature Network blog post by Stephen Curry and this alert at Nature Network by Brian Clegg .
Readers' comments at Nature Network or here will be considered for publication in Nature as Correspondence.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 20, 2009
Categories: Communication, Ethics, Public and media, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Centre for Synthetic Biology and Innovation is the first publicly funded UK centre dedicated to synthetic biology – the science of designing and building biological components that can perform useful functions, such as producing drugs or biofuels, according to an online Nature news story (published 12 May; doi:10.1038/news.2009.464).
From the news story: "One of the centre's senior staff is sociologist Nikolas Rose, director of the BIOS Research Centre for the study of Bioscience, Biomedicine, Biotechnology and Society at the London School of Economics. Rose says he aims to make public engagement a key priority for the centre, to avoid a repeat of the public outcry that genetically engineered foods provoked across Europe. "The usual position of the social scientists it to be right downstream, this is a rare opportunity to work right at the beginning," says Rose.
Rose's team will train graduate students and staff to consider the social and ethical implications of their research. He says the centre will also work with government and industry to develop a suitable framework to regulate the products of synthetic biology, and to make intellectual-property claims.
"If the Imperial centre works, it's going to be setting the standard for this," says Pam Silver, a synthetic-biology researcher at Harvard University. Silver is in the process of setting up a synthetic-biology centre at Harvard University, but "so far there's been no real discussion of social scientists' role", she says.
The need for researchers to consider the societal and ethical dimensions of their work in synthetic biology was a key recommendation of a report published by the UK's Royal Academy of Engineering on 6 May. Richard Kitney, a bioengineer at Imperial, who chaired the working group behind the report, is co-director of the new centre, along with Paul Freemont, from Imperial's molecular biosciences division."

Nature journals' author polices on bioethics.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 14, 2009
Categories: Biosecurity, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Nature Medicine Podcast reports on cutting-edge news in biomedical research from around the globe, featuring interviews with experts and a review of the advances that scientists hope to translate from bench to bedside. Tune into the podcast to learn about breakthroughs and policy developments in medical research. The presenter, Molly Webster, began her broadcasting career at National Public Radio's Science Friday, where she is still a guest producer. She also creates shows for The Takeaway, a radio production spearheaded by Public Radio International, and writes for various scientific and environmental magazines and journals.
To subscribe for free to the Nature Medicine Podcast copy and paste this URL into iTunes or your preferred media player.
The archive page for Nature Medicine podcasts list all programmes from January 2009 to the present edition (currently 7 May 2009, in which you can listen in to find out how scientists are overcoming disabilities in the lab and for a recap of the biggest headlines in biomedicine).
Nature Medicine Podcast: current edition.
Nature Medicine journal home page.
Nature Medicine guide to authors.
About Nature Medicine.
All podcasts at nature.com.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 11, 2009
Categories: Author services, Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Cross-posted at Nature Network.
Its attack on poverty and arrogance is what makes C. P. Snow’s ‘two cultures’ lecture relevant 50 years on, according to a Nature Editorial published today (Nature 459, 10; 2009). Three Essays in the same issue of the journal look back on the lecture and its effects. In Dissecting The Two Cultures (Nature 459, 32; 2009), Martin Kemp contends that the real enemy of understanding is not the ‘two cultures’ identified by Snow, but specialization in all disciplines. Georgina Ferry (Nature 459, 34; 2009) suggests that today’s division lies between optimists and pessimists rather than between scientific and literary intellectuals. And Nature’s Books and Arts Editor, Joanne Baker, introduces a passage from Extract from Science and Government by C. P. Snow (Nature 459, 36; 2009). This month's Editorial in Nature Physics (5, 309; 2009) also discusses the impact of the 'two cultures' concept.
The boundaries between the arts and the sciences — and between the sciences themselves — that Snow identified have long since been removed. But other challenges remain. Snow would not have approved of the narrow-mindedness of some researchers who consider the significant costs of their work to be no more than their due from society, nor of their blind resentment when its value is questioned. What Snow urged in particular was an awareness of the problems of poor countries — and of putting scientists at the disposal of solving those problems, for reasons both moral and strategic. The disparities between rich and poor countries may have shrunk since Snow’s time, but are still unacceptably large. Snow’s overriding message — whether about awareness of artistic and scientific experience, or about the applied sciences, or about ‘remediable suffering’ — was that the best and the brightest should not be blinkered. That message still has resonance.
All three C. P. Snow articles in this issue of Nature and linked here are free to access online until Thursday 14 May (the Editorial is permanently free access), so let us know your views on the opinions expressed in them. As usual, contributions to the Nature Network online forum will be considered for publication in Nature as Correspondence contributions.

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

James Lovelock fears that humanity faces widespread death and mass migration as Earth's systems become further unbalanced by climate change. Andrew Watson of the University of East Anglia reviews Lovelock's new book, as well as a biography of Lovelock and his ideas, in Nature (458, 970-971; 2009). From the review:
"Lovelock's vision of sudden and imminent collapse is apocalyptic, but for our long-term future and that of the planet it might be preferable to some of the alternatives. Suppose, for instance, that our profligate ways and expanding population are sustained for the rest of this century, but at a huge cost — the complete loss of all the natural ecosystems of the world. Most of us, living in cities and insulated from the natural environment, would barely notice until it was too late to do anything about it. This is what many politicians, economists and industrialists seem to want — their mantra of unceasing economic growth implies that we should take for ourselves all Gaia's resources and squeeze from them the maximum short-term gain, leaving nothing for the future."

James Lovelock sounds a final warning for planet Earth and enthuses about his upcoming space trip in a free NatureVideo interview with Oliver Morton, Nature's chief News and Features editor.

Books reviewed:
The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning
by James Lovelock
Allen Lane/Basic Books: 2009. 192 pp./ 288 pp. £20/$25
By at Amazon: US site; UK site.
He Knew He Was Right: The Irrepressible Life of James Lovelock and Gaia
by John Gribbin & Mary Gribbin
Allen Lane/Princeton University Press: 2009. 256 pp/272 pp. £20/$24.95
Buy at Amazon: US site; UK site.

Many other NatureVideos can be accessed via the journal's video archive.
See also the Nature video channel at YouTube.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 29, 2009
Categories: Communication, NPG special content, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Four decades after the first Moon landings (Apollo 11 on 16 July 1969), the original space-racers have been joined by China, India, South Korea, even Nigeria. Why do we still need manned missions? Does human space exploration need countries to cooperate, or does it benefit from the oxygen of international conflict and mistrust? Join a lively debate on the Moon and beyond at London’s premier new arts venue – Kings Place - on 11 May 2009.
Hosted by Nick Campbell (Managing Editor, Nature) and chaired by Christine McGourty (Science Correspondent, BBC News), come and hear Kevin Fong, Oliver Morton and Martin Sweeting debate these stimulating questions.
Racing to the Moon is the first of two Words on Monday events organized by Nature to be held at Kings Place over the summer season.
More details of the programme and speakers are attached (Word document).
Alternatively, see the Kings Place website for details and booking information.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 27, 2009
Categories: Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Those scientists interested in the idea of starting a blog but who are unsure how to start, or even understandably nervous about the prospect, might like to read an excellent article at Real Climate blog, "advice for a young climate blogger", which equally well applies to old bloggers in any field of science - your voice is needed. The article begins:

"Congratulations! You have taken the first step towards attempting to communicate your expertise and thoughts to the wider world, which remains poorly served by its traditional sources of information when it comes to complex societally relevant issues like climate change. Your aim to clarify the science (or policy options or ethical considerations or simply to explain your views) is a noble endeavor and we wish you luck and wide readership. But do be aware that you are dipping your blog into sometimes treacherous waters. Bad things can happen to good bloggers. So in a spirit of blog-camaraderie, and in light of our own experiences and observations, we offer some advice that may be of some help in navigating the political climate relatively unscathed."

Be honest to yourself and your readers about the parameters of your blog and your mission.
Know there are people who will misrepresent you for their own agendas, particularly in areas that have a clear ethical dimension, such as environmental or medical related research.
Be aware that the impact you might have is different from the impact you think you should have.
Don't expect the world to be fair.
Don't let completely unfounded critiques bother you.
Don't defame people.
Correct mistakes.
Avoid using language that can deliberately be misquoted. This is hard, particularly as the nature of blog posts is that of a brief, possibly out of context, quotation - accompanied by a pithy remark.
Realize that although you speak for yourself, you will be perceived as writing for your field, or even the entire scientific community.
If you get caught in a blogstorm, it will pass.

Advice for a young climate blogger.

Advice to bloggers and other online contributers from Nature Network.

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

Nature Structural and Molecular Biology provides some insight about Nature Publishing Group's press office in its April Editorial (Nature Structural and Molecular Biology 16, 345; 2009), in particular how it assists authors to help make the general public more aware of the breakthroughs and insights provided by basic science research.
The Editorial describes the splash made by the publication of an article by J. Sui and colleagues on the isolation of monoclonal antibodies that could recognize a variety of influenza strains, paving the way for a broad-spectrum therapy against 'flu and giving hope for the development of a long-sought-after universal flu vaccine.
The NPG press office sends press releases to more than 3,000 registered journalists for articles published by all Nature journals, and helps coordinate press coverage by the media. With offices in the US and UK, NPG's press officers serve as first contacts for journalists both local and internatinally. From the NSMB Editorial:

"The NPG press office is notified of every manuscript that is accepted for publication and is responsible for coordinating the press release of manuscripts once publication dates have been set. For the Nature research journals, research articles are published online every Sunday, and the news embargo lifts at the time of publication on the journals' websites, at 1 p.m. US Eastern time (6 p.m. London time). The press office performs a variety of tasks as each article is prepared for publication. Importantly for our authors, the press office provides additional notification to the authors of a research paper the Tuesday before the particular Sunday a paper is scheduled to appear online, informing them of our embargo policies, which are strictly enforced. [Nature publishes research papers online twice a week.]
In a recently added service, press officers also contact relevant funding agencies and home institutions involved with the work. This gives adequate time for internal coverage by institutional public information or public affairs offices. Advance notice is particularly useful for large agencies, such as the National Institutes of Health, that participate in a large number of research programs and may therefore be contacted about any number of forthcoming research publications.
With backgrounds in the biological and physical sciences, the NPG press officers write the press releases for newsworthy articles published in Nature. They also work with the editors at the Nature research journals to compose press releases for articles that may have wide public appeal. (Usually, articles whose findings have a direct connection to a disease may garner attention, though it can be difficult to predict what will catch the eyes of science journalists.) Author contact details accompany the highlighted papers within a release, along with a list of all papers that are being published in that journal in that particular week. On the Tuesday before the articles will be published online, the press office e-mails a compiled release covering Nature and the Nature research journals for that week to more than 3,000 registered science journalists and media organizations. In some special cases, the press office will also organize a press briefing, at which journalists can speak directly to the researchers about their work."
More about the NPG press office.
More about Advance Online Publication.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 06, 2009
Categories: Author services, Public and media | 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)

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)

Scientists have been too dogmatic about scientific truth and sociologists have fostered too much scepticism — social scientists must now elect to put science back at the core of society, says Harry Collins, director of the Centre for the Study of Knowledge Expertise Science at Cardiff University, UK, in the 5 March edition of Nature (458, 30; 2009 – free to access online for a week). Prof Collins identifies three waves in the history of social science attitutes to scientific research: first, an attempt to understand and interpret it; second, scepticism about it; and third – well, third is what he says social scientists must now do – work out what is right about science, not just what is wrong. He writes:
"This third wave will be resisted. Post-modernists have become comfortable in their cocoon of cynicism. And some natural scientists have become too fond of describing their work as godlike. Others are ready to offer simple-minded criticisms of deeply held beliefs. But the third wave is needed to put science back in its proper place…..
Science’s findings are to be preferred over religion’s revealed truths, and are braver than the logic of scepticism, but they are not certain. They are a better grounding for society precisely, and only, because they are provisional. It is open debate among those with experience that is the ultimate value of the good society.
Science, then, can provide us with a set of values — not findings — for how to run our lives, and that includes our social and political lives. But it can do this only if we accept that assessing scientific findings is a far more difficult task than was once believed, and that those findings do not lead straight to political conclusions. Scientists can guide us only by admitting their weaknesses, and, concomitantly, when we outsiders judge scientists, we must do it not to the standard of truth, but to the much softer standard of expertise."
What do you think about whether, and how, social scientists and others should interpret the “values” of scientific research and “truth” to society at large? We welcome your views at the Nature Network forum hosted by Nature's Opinion editors.

Other current debates at the Nature Opinion forum at Nature Network:
'Untouchable' science.
Blogging: science, journalism or public discourse?
Brain, machine and in-between.
What you need to know, and what you can do for science, in the financial crisis.
Pruning the IRB tree.
Troubles with plastic.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 09, 2009
Categories: Communication, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

As part of Nature’s ongoing celebration of Charles Darwin’s bicentenary, the second Nature Darwin Debate will take place at 1900 h local time on Monday 9 March at Kings Place, London N1 9AG, UK .

We pay for our food, water, health-care and energy, so why not pay for the many ‘services' currently obtained for free from biological diversity? Services such as insect-pollination, central to food production; or healthy forests, which we need for clean water and to stop soil erosion. Shouldn't we invest now in our biodiversity in order to secure our future needs?
PANEL
• James Lovelock, independent scientist and author of Revenge of Gaia. Prof Lovelock is the author of more than 200 scientific papers, distributed almost equally among topics in medicine, biology, instrument and atmospheric science and geophysiology. He is the originator of the Gaia hypothesis and has written four books on the subject, including The Revenge of Gaia (2006). His latest book is The Vanishing Face of Gaia: a final warning, published this year. He is the inventor of the electron capture detector, which made possible the detection of chlorofluorocarbons and other atmospheric nano-pollutants.
• Michael Meacher, MP (Labour) is a long-time campaigner for the environment within party and government. A staunch advocate of renewable energy, he was Minister of State for the Environment between 1997 and 2003. During this time, he played an important role in international negotiations over the Kyoto Treaty and helped pass the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which secured greater protection for Britain’s wildlife areas.
• Sir Crispin Tickell, Director of the Policy Foresight Programme at the James Martin 21st Century School at Oxford University, was Chef de Cabinet to the President of the European Commission, Ambassador to Mexico, Permanent Secretary of the Overseas Development Administration (now DFID), and British Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He has been Warden of Green College, Oxford, and Chancellor of the University of Kent, and has since had other public and academic appointments. He has advised successive British Prime Ministers on environmental issues, and is the author of Climate Change and World Affairs (1977 and 1986).
Chair
• Ehsan Masood, Acting Chief Commissioning Editor, Nature. Ehsan was UK news and developing-world correspondent at Nature in the 1990s. He then became Opinion Editor at New Scientist and subsequently Director of Communications for the environmental leadership training organization Lead International. He has also worked as a consultant to the British Council, the Academy of Sciences for the Developing World and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. He teaches international science policy at Imperial College London and his book, Science and Islam: a history, is published by Icon books this year.

Nature also continues its Darwin bicentenary celebrations with a dedicated online Web Focus celebrating the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species. Included in the Focus is the Nature Insight on Evolution, an interview with Sir David Attenborough, 15 Evolutionary Gems, and a Nature Podcast extra. Read all this and more in the Nature Web Focus.

Further details and booking information for the Nature Darwin debate at Kings Place.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 04, 2009
Categories: Conferences, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

I would like to share an email I received today from my colleague Henry Gee:

This weekend I hosted a Nature Network 'unconference' in Cromer called 'Cromer Is SO Bracing'. The meeting featured a geological field trip, a workshop on crocheting toy marine invertebrates, and the scripting and shooting of a short film called 'Cromer: Darwin's Lost Weekend' (coming to a YouTube page near you soon).
The meeting was blogged, twittered, webcast and friendfeeded as much as possible, so on the off-chance that all this is new to you, you can find out what we got up to through a series of five linked posts on my blog, starting with this one

And progressing in order: Friday lunchtime; pier review; Saturday afternoon; and Sunday.
Delegate Erika Cule has blogged about it here (day one) and here (day two).
The meeting was trailed by the most famous science blogger on the net.
And, believe it or not, you can even buy souvenir T-shirts!

Other, related posts:
Cromer: Darwin's Lost Weekend.
Nature Network CISB09 conference forum.
CISB09 Friend Feed room.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 03, 2009
Categories: Communication, Conferences, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Scientists should have a more active role in encouraging meaningful reporting of science in the popular media. This is all the more crucial given that there are now fewer experienced science reporters and a greater demand for transparency, according to the March Editorial of Nature Neuroscience (12, 235; 2009)
Job losses at CNN (which is cutting its entire science, technology and environmental news staff) The New York Times, Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times and Wall Street Journal are clearly detrimental for the kind of in-depth research required for high-quality science reporting. What can scientists do to engage the public in their work in this shrinking media envirinment, asks the Editorial? Suggestions include writing complementary press releases to those that journals put out when new papers are published (a link to the archive of Nature Neuroscience press releases is provided at the end of this post), and being available to talk to reporters. The Editorial concludes:
"As fewer journalists struggle to cover the ever-increasing body of scientific advances, individual scientists can be more involved in encouraging this publicity. We can actively promote the coverage of science news, encourage realistic stories about the experience of bench scientists, or explain clearly and convincingly how basic science advances ultimately lay the groundwork for applications that benefit all of society. Neuroscience is particularly ripe for this kind of exchange because of the public's inherent interest in the way the brain works. We need to give clear explanations of the work that we do, think about what might make it interesting to the public and make an effort to increase communication with journalists and the general public. It's an opportunity that we can't afford to miss."

Nature Neuroscience

Nature Neuroscience press releases

Nature Neuroscience guide to authors

Contact Nature Neuroscience.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 02, 2009
Categories: 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)

As research into the public perception of nanotechnology becomes more complex and rigorous, it is increasingly clear that greater public awareness of nanotechnology will not, on its own, automatically lead to widespread public acceptance. So starts the Editorial in the current (February) issue of Nature Nanotechnology (4, 71; 2009). The Editorial is part of a special focus of the journal on public perceptions of nanotechnology, consisting in addition to the Editorial of three Letters (reports of original research), a News and Views article and a Thesis article, as well as a library of related articles from the journal's archive. In his Thesis article, Chris Toumey of the University of South Carolina NanoCenter describes new research by social scientists that is presenting a clearer picture of the factors that influence the public perception of nanotechnology and the challenges for those working to increase public acceptance of nanoscience and technology. "Together these studies alert us that reactions to nanotechnology will be shaped by a landscape of values, beliefs, concerns and other strong sentiments that were established in peoples' hearts long before most people heard or cared about nanometres, van der Waal's forces or carbon nanotubes."
Advice to the nanotechnology community provided by authors of the articles collected in this focus includes developing social psychology tools to frame information on controversial policy issues so that people of diverse values can derive the same factual information from it; and an awarness among social nanoscientists of the importance of translating their technical research findings into language that is directly useful to others.

Nature Nanotechnology focus on public perceptions of nanotechnology.

Guide to authors of Nature Nanotechnology.

Nature Nanotechnology: Asia-Pacific and beyond forum on Nature Network.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 18, 2009
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

I always enjoy Frank Gannon's editorials in EMBO Reports, so it is a pleasure to see the latest issue's table of contents alert in my inbox. This month (EMBO R. 10, 103; 2009), Dr Gannon discusses 'convergence', the latest business buzzword, but hardly a new concept to scientists, he writes.
"Research is, and should always be, ahead of its time, and convergence research is no exception. The potential of convergence in the development of new products and in public outreach is enormous and will provide valuable, diverse career options for those scientists and engineers who are ready to expand their skills and knowledge into new domains. The old days of a single skill career are now behind us and we have to prepare for this new and complex environment."
Enoy the rest of the article at EMBO Reports.

This Editorial introduces the EMBO Reports Science & Society Series on Convergence Research, which features viewpoints from authors who attended the 'Doing Society and Genomics—Convergence and Competence Building' workshop organized by Peter Stegmaier for the Centre for Society and Genomics at Radboud University (Nijmegen, the Netherlands) in September 2008. The journal editors hope that this series will help to introduce readers to the new multi- and transdisciplinary developments among the life sciences, social sciences and the humanities. The first article, 'Genomics in school', by Roald Verhoeff, Dirk Jan Boerwinkel and Arend Jan Waarlo, is free to access online. (EMBO R. 10, 120-124; 2009.)

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

Make personal history and come to the first Digital Lives Research Conference. The Digital Lives Research Project is hosting a conference starting on Monday 9 February 2009, and continuing until Wednesday 11 February, at the British Library in London. The aim is to explore a wide range of aspects of digital lives and the curation of personal digital archives in a collaborative conference bringing together researchers, professionals, creators and the digital public.
On 11 February, virtual delegates can join the conference on the Elucian Islands, the Second Life home of Nature Publishing Group and Macmillan Publishers. The programme for the day focuses on the web, and is oriented towards life online and online lives. Topics range from virtual worlds and iScience to cloud computing. Speakers include Dame Wendy Hall DBE and Nature Publishing Group's Timo Hannay. The day finishes with polar explorer Ben Saunders talking about 'Digital Life at the Extremes'. Other highlights include a talk by Georgina Ferry, author of some superb scientific biographies including those of Dorothy Hodgkin and Max Perutz; and a “writers in conversation” session to include Dame Antonia Byatt and Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Benn. I (Maxine Clarke) shall also be attending.
The conference is free to attend on 9 and 11 February, registration required. There is a small registration fee for 10 February, but waivers are available.
About the conference.
Programme and speakers.
Registration details.
Digital lives project team blog.
Information and user guidance about the Second Life version of the Digital Lives conference.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 07, 2009
Categories: Conferences, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first Nature Darwin debate has the title: Are We Still Evolving?, and will take place on Monday 9 February 2009 at Kings Place, London at 7 p.m. local time. Speakers are Henry Gee, palaeontologist, evolutionary biologist and senior editor, Nature; Susan Blackmore, psychologist, writer and visiting lecturer at the University of the West of England, Bristol; and Andrew Pomiankowski, Professor of Genetics, University College London. Chair of the panel is Oliver Morton, chief News and Features editor at Nature. The panellists will be addressing the question of whether natural selection is still shaping humans, given that our survival is often more dependent on technology than genes. What might our species look like 1000 years from now?
Further details, including venue information and more about the speakers, can be found at the Nature Network London events forum.

Discuss this event and the general topic at the Nature Network London forum.

See also further discussion at the Nature Network Opinion forum, to which you are welcome to contribute.

Nature's special celebration of Darwin's 200th birthday - a wonderful collection of articles and interactive content of all types, updated as the year continues.

Fifteen evolutionary gems: free access to 15 Nature publications that illustrate the breadth, depth and power of evolutionary thinking.

The second Nature Darwin debate: What Price Biodiversity?, will take place on 9 March 2009. More details are available here.

Kings Place "Words on Monday" debates.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 05, 2009
Categories: Communication, Conferences, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Can visual arts stimulate creativity in the science laboratory? A new biochemistry building for the University of Oxford might provide the answer, writes Georgina Ferry (Nature 457, 541; 2009). From the article:

"The prime purpose of the art project is to create a stunning physical environment for research. "The senior people [in the university] grasped that if you are trying to recruit the best people in the world, walking them through a building that is dark and dingy is not the best way to get them," says Sansom. Time will tell if money spent on art gives a significant return in scientific discovery."

A 360-degree interactive view of the building can be found here.

See also Martin Kemp's article Laudable Labs? (Nature 395, 849; 1998). "You can read much about the history of science and of architecture in the changing styles and materials used in the building of laboratories. It's a story of fashion, functionality and financial constraints.....We are all too familiar with the messy clutter of disparate laboratory buildings squeezed into congested university campuses. The lab is a major building type, yet we have come to expect little of it — other than as providing functional spaces which almost invariably prove to be inadequate as soon as they are occupied. It would be better if we cared more about the buildings' effects on our visual ambience."

More on creativity at Nautilus.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 04, 2009
Categories: Careers, Communication, Public and media, Support | Permalink | Comments (0)

Chris Toumey of the University of South Carolina asks, in a Thesis article in the January issue of Nature Nanotechnology (4, 5-6; 2009) "where does nanotechnology fit into arguments about the two cultures? Much has changed since 1959, and now we have bright and sincere people from both the sciences and the humanities who want good science and good values in nanotechnology. My favourite example is an eminent scientist at my university who says repeatedly that scientists will have the first word on the future of nanotechnology, but non-scientists will have the last word. Thus does he invite — even dare — non-scientists to claim a place in nanotechnology policy."
The author goes on to discuss some of the ideas espoused in the book Nanovision, by Colin Milburn of the English department of the University of California, Davis. Rather than dismissing some of the book's ideas about the "transcendent" world that may result from the synthesis of new and powerful technologies, Toumey argues that scientists need to address the issues raised about their professional disciplines by those outside the profession, even if this does mean getting to grips with science fiction as well as the terminology of literary theory. He concludes: "It is unlikely C. P. Snow could have imagined that the humanities and social sciences could do to science what science does to nature. But sometimes they can. And when they can, they subvert the divide between the two cultures. Aren't these new cultures preferable to the "two cultures"?"

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 20, 2009
Categories: Communication, 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)

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)

Frank Gannon writes an Editorial in the November EMBO Reports (9, 1055; 2008) about the importance of molecular biology to energy research. From the Editorial:
"Despite appearances, this is not an editorial about politics. It is about how biologists—more specifically, molecular biologists—can contribute to solving these problems. The obvious first step is to make energy production and conservation a prime focus of research, placing it on the same pedestal as curing cancer or developing therapies for HIV/AIDS and malaria. In fact, reducing our reliance on fossil fuels while preserving the environment might arguably be more important than other essential causes; an increasingly uninhabitable planet will affect both current and future generations, not only those who suffer from disease today.
We must therefore revisit our attitude towards certain avenues of research and accept that some of the solutions can only come from molecular biology. For example, after a brief period of enthusiasm, biofuels are now in the 'bad books' for various reasons, but mostly because their increasing production and the associated tax benefits are having an impact on the cost and availability of staple foods. Of course, sustainable food production is another important challenge that requires more research; yet, biologists could engineer energy crops to grow in poor soils and in harsh environments where it does not make sense to grow food crops. I suspect that such crops would eventually be welcomed even if they were genetically engineered. Similarly, we could also invest more into studying natural processes such as photosynthesis; bio-mimicry might help us to engineer more efficient ways for converting sunlight into energy."
Molecular biologists are going to face the problems of an ill-prepared scientific community at a time when the public increasingly expects science to solve our current energy and environmental problems, concludes Gannon. "This is complicated further by public skepticism about the science such solutions will require. Clearly, molecular biologists have to focus their attention on this huge challenge; it is no longer a question of 'if we should' but one of 'how we must'."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 12, 2008
Categories: Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Immunology , in its November Editorial (9, 1199; 2008), asks what the cost will be for science of the turmoil in the world financial markets that has forced the US government to spend huge amouts of money.
The US government has now committed more than $700 billion to ease the financial crisis, following the $85 billion to support AIG and $200 billion for the mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which together will raise the US debt ceiling to approximately $11.3 trillion. For perspective, $700 billion is roughly 3.4 times the 2008 budget of the European Union and 24 times the 2008 budget of the entire US National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The 2009 NIH budget proposed by the Bush administration was already set to stall biomedical research with its zero increase. Even before the present financial crisis, ineffective political lobbying and disengagement of the public on the importance of biomedical research may have contributed to the present state of anemic science funding. Now that combination may join forces with a debt of at least $11.3 trillion to form what could become a prolonged stalemate for government-supported biomedical research.
Nature Immunology suggests that biomedical researchers take a proactive stance: "those who have the ability and knowledge to influence politicians and the public to invest in scientific research must make every effort to be heard loud and clear to ensure the continued advance of the present amount of scientific research, at the very least."

Nature is running a special feature on science in the financial crisis. As the world faces its biggest financial crisis in decades, Nature keeps you updated on what it all means for science. Will your research funding be cut? How secure is your company or research institution? And can the meltdown actually create opportunities for science? Articles, including Editorials, News stories, Essays and other features, can be accessed from this main feature page. See also the journal's regularly updated financial crisis blog.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on November 05, 2008
Categories: Public and media, Support | Permalink | Comments (0)

When a research council in the UK consulted the public about different aspects of nanomedicine, the feedback was loud and clear, as Richard Jones reports for Nature Nanotechnology (3, 578 - 579; 2008). "Given the breadth, and the diffuseness, of nanotechnology as a field, and the wide range of potential impacts it might have, it has sometimes been difficult to maintain a focus and to find issues that people can get a purchase on, with the result that the recommendations can end up seeming, to some, disappointingly generic. In any case, the complex and decentralized nature of scientific decision-making sometimes makes it difficult to see how these deliberations actually make a concrete difference on policy. The results of a new public engagement exercise on the subject of nanotechnology for healthcare, carried out in the UK, directly address some of these criticisms and offer surprising and enlightening insights into potential public reactions to some of the predicted applications of nanotechnology in medicine".
But, asks Richard Jones, "what about broader worries concerning tensions between the involvement of the public in decision-making in science policy and the principle of the autonomy of the scientific enterprise? One answer, of course, is that it is right in principle that the public has a voice in the direction of an activity that involves considerable amounts of taxpayers' money, and that these exercises may help provide some public legitimacy for potentially controversial areas of science. The more provocative suggestion is that in an applied field like nanomedicine, taking the results of public engagement seriously may lead to significantly better decision-making. This is the proposition that now needs testing."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 27, 2008
Categories: Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Science journals have been slow to make themselves audible, according to a Correspondence by Wouter M. J. Achten of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven in Nature 455, 590 (2008). The Correspondence is reproduced here:

Podcasting has become very popular, mainly as a medium for entertainment. But it also holds huge potential for the visually impaired and others, such as dyslexics, who have reading difficulties. Simultaneously reading and listening to read-aloud news articles and scientific papers, for example, could increase readers' concentration and absorption of information. Such audio files would open a new world for the blind or partially sighted.
Software is available that translates text from digital files or directly from the Internet into a listener-friendly audio file, but it is expensive. Some freeware has built-in 'read out-loud' functions, but the quality is generally inferior.
Several newspapers and magazines already offer subscribers podcasts containing complete and navigable issues in read-aloud format. But the scientific press seems to be lagging behind. The Nature podcasts are a good start, but when shall we be able to listen to sections such as Research Highlights, News and Correspondence as downloadable audio?

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 22, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (1)

Gaining the readers' interests should not come at the expense of veracity. Getting the facts correct when communicating science to the general public is essential, according to the latest editorial in Nature Photonics (2, 581; 2008). From the Editorial:

The challenge of delivering rigorous scientific information is greater in this new era of Internet and cable television, as readers are flooded with information. Hence catching the attention of the public is proving increasingly difficult. General media are often forced to look for angles of the story that favour popular interest. One of the ways of boosting public attention, is through making science personally relevant and accessible to non-traditional audiences. Nevertheless, a narrative that can cause a stir in the public's imagination can lead to oversimplification and misinterpretation of the scientific achievement.
Is it necessary to simplify science so that it is more appealing to the general public? Does winning the attention of the public guarantee a long-term relationship between science and society? What can be done to raise the profile of science at no expense of veracity? Certainly open and continuous discussions between both journalists and scientists would help to reach a balanced view on how to report scientific developments to the general public without losing scientific credibility.

Read the full Editorial here.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 20, 2008
Categories: Public and media | 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)

The first in a series of Nature debates, Enhancing the Brain, takes place at King's Place in London on Monday 13 October. Experts in science, science policy and science ethics selected by Nature, the leading weekly international journal of science, will discuss the risks, benefits and extent of how far research can extend our mental and physical abilities. The first of two panel events focuses on research underway that is extending the human brain: from intelligence and emotional tolerance, to sleep needs, memory power and more. What are the risks and benefits to the individual and to society of these developments? Would you boost your brain power? Why, when and why not? Should doctors, scientists, students, teachers or soldiers use such aids? Come along and take part in this mind-stretching evening. Tickets are £11.50.
Chair: Ehsan Masood, acting Chief Commissioning Editor of Nature.
Panel:
• Prof Barbara Sahakian, Professor of Clinical Neuropsychology at Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Cambridge.
• Prof John Harris, Lord Alliance Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester.
• Prof Nick Bostrom, Director of the Oxford University Future of Humanity Institute.
Booking enquiries can be made by email. To check ticket availability please use the King's Place online booking service.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 07, 2008
Categories: Communication, Disciplines, Partners, 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)

Nature Video is proud to present five short films on the future of physics. The films comprise conversations with Nobel prizewinning physicists George Smoot, David Gross, Gerardus 't Hooft, John Hall and William Phillips, and will cover topics including dark matter, dark energy, the Large Hadron Collider, space-time and quantum computing. Recorded at the 2008 Nobel Laureate meeting in Lindau, students willingly don the role of interviewers and make the most of this one off question time.
Two of the five films will be premiered at a special screening in Second Life and you are cordially invited to attend. The screening will take place on 2 October 2008 at 10 a.m. PST, 1 p.m. EST and 6 p.m. GMT. The event is free, but it is necessary to register in advance by email , with the subject line Missions in Space-Time. Instructions are available here on how to create an account in Second Life.
Each of the five films will then be serialized weekly, on iTunes and on nature.com , starting on 3 October 2008.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 30, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the third of Nature's election-themed podcasts available online, the journal looks at where US innovation policy might go under a new president. You can listen or read a trascript at the journal's podcast index page. In the latest podcast, Stephen Ezell of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation says that "substantial amounts of research into basic science must occur before we can ever reach technology and therefore government has a substantial role to play in being a funder of basic and applied research in the United States. When you look at a great number of US companies and industries, specific companies like Google, like (UNCLEAR 14:18), like Oracle, these were all companies that got their initial funding from basic government grants for research in science and technology. Extending and increasing the amount of government funding for research is one of the most important things the next administration can do." The panel goes on to discuss how research could be funded and possible mechanisms for promoting US competitiveness in the global sphere. William Bates of the Council of Competitiveness compares the presidential candidates: "Senator Obama has been very explicit in endorsing doubling of the research budget. Senator McCain speaks about the importance of research, but I think he has been a little more hesitant to embrace a specific doubling goal of the research agencies. They're certainly talking about it and that's a big step in the right direction." Hear or read more via the Nature podcast index.

An archive of the Nature Podcasts, which are all free, can be found here. Each week, Nature authors talk about their newly published papers, on topics ranging from craters formed by asteroid collision, tsunami risk in the Bay of Bengal, the sequence of the grapevine genome, a mouse with obsessive compulsive disorder, a new species of ape, and many more.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 24, 2008
Categories: Author benefits, Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

On Monday 22 September, the UK Resource Centre for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology will be running their first consultation session, A Vision for Science and Society, in the virtual world of Second Life, at Second Nature Island. (Time: 1850 – 2000 GMT/1050 – 1200 PDT.) The UK Government has issued a new consultation document entitled A Vision for Science and Society. The resource centre for woman is keen to ensure that issues of gender equality are part of the agenda and are holding a series of focus groups to discuss the topic. Monday’s event will be held entirely in Second Life and all are very welcome to attend. It will be just over an hour long and will involve informal discussion in small groups on some of the issues. You do not have to have read the report, and men and women are equally welcome. The event is free, but you are asked to book in advance to give them an idea of numbers. You can book by email or telephone. See the UK Resources for Women website for further details.

Another event next week is taking place in the real world (first life) and simultaneously in Second Life. Scientific researchers and web2.0: social notworking? at the British Library in London on Wednesday 24 September from 1800 to 2030 GMT, and is organized by Sarah Kemmitt. This free event is the second in the BL’s quarterly café scientifique exploring varied topical issues in science. Timo Hannay, the Publishing Director of nature.com, will introduce the subject followed by a discussion with the audience. This provocative title aims to stimulate discussion on the following questions: is Web 2.0 all about attitudes or technologies?; what can Web 2.0 do for your research?; as a scientist, are there good reasons for getting involved beyond social ‘notworking’?; and web 3.0: another buzzword or a semantic revolution for science on the web? There is a lively discussion group on Nature Network in which aspects of these topics have been debated in the run-up to the evening. This event is free but pre-registration is required. For those interested who cannot attend in person, details of the Second Life parallel alternative are here.

Several further scientific events are scheduled in Second Life in the next few weeks. Some highlights include:
Sunday 10 February: Darwin Day Monkey Parade
Tueesday 11 February: “Nano-science and the Quantum World” talk on Nanotech Island.
Monday 18 February: “Manatee conservation and classification” talk on Second Nature
Thursday 21 February: George Monbiot talk on climate change on Second Nature.
Friday 22 February: talk by Dr David Grinspoon, an astrobiologist from the Denver Museum of Science & Nature.
Further details and links to the calendar of events can be found here.

See the website Second Nature for more information about Nature's island in Second Life, where there is a video introduction and tutorial for first-time users, and much other information about Second Nature and the events there. If you are familiar with Second Life, you can go directly to Second Nature by visiting this link.
There is a Nature Network Second Life group for those interested in using this virtual world for scientific activities.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on September 18, 2008
Categories: Author benefits, Communication, Conferences, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Although the Euroscience Open Forum is a meeting to be proud of, its organizers should aim even higher, according to a recent Editorial in Nature (454, 552; 2008). The text of the Editorial:

When a small group of academics founded the organization 'Euroscience' in 1997, few would have imagined it could acquire the clout and funds to drive a regular biennial meeting, now attracting 5,000 attendees, in a major European city. The grass-roots society risked being dismissed as a small band of Euro-wonks, although some organizations (including this journal) welcomed its arrival. But last week's third Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF) in Barcelona, Spain, showed that Euroscience's sheer determination in the face of such perceptions has again paid off. Anyone attending the meeting will have been struck by the energy on display, the high attendance of young people, and the active engagement with the media.
Nature was involved in the meeting in several ways, and cannot claim detachment. Nevertheless, informal canvassing of opinions of other participants reinforced the notion that this ESOF meeting was both lively and — to judge by the European movers and shakers present — important. The attendance of participants from the United States and elsewhere outside Europe was also a good sign.
It is still an open question just how influential this forum might become, rather than simply acting as a showcase.

Continue reading "Europe's science forum" »

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 19, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature reports in News this week (453, 1149; 26 June 2008) that a Canadian graduate student dissatisfied with science coverage on online sites such as Google News and Yahoo News has created a news aggregator especially for scientists.
Michael Imbeault, an HIV researcher at the Université Laval in Quebec, launched his fully automated site called e! Science News last month. It has already attracted 300,000 different users, and averages 5,000 visits a day, he says.
News aggregators display headlines and snippets from other media sources, but don't produce their own content. Of the top five online US news sites, three are aggregators — Google News, AOL News and Yahoo News — and only two — CNN.com and MSNBC.com — generate original content. Yahoo and AOL use human editors and source almost all science stories from wire agencies, such as Reuters. Google News uses computer algorithms to aggregate headlines from thousands of news sources, ranking them by how often and on which sites stories appear. Science and technology coverage on Google News, for example, is notoriously devoid of basic science.
The above is taken from the Nature News story, where more information can be found.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 30, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Each year, the Royal Society grants ‘the world’s most prestigious award for science writing’ to a popular science author. This year’s nominees were announced last Thursday (unfortunately, an all-male list). As holiday season may soon be approaching for some, the nominated titles may contain ideas for whiling away some unaccustomed leisure time. Those interested in knowing more about the selected books can click on the links below for a short summary of each:
A Life Decoded, by J. Craig Venter
Coral: A pessimist in paradise by Steve Jones
Gut Feelings by Gerd Gigerenzer
Six Degrees: Our future on a hotter planet by Mark Lynas
The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark
Why Beauty is Truth by Ian Stewart
According to the Royal Society website, Professor Jonathan Ashmore, chair of the judges, said: "All of the six shortlisted books are compelling in their own way and really reflect the breadth and diversity of popular science writing." The winner will be announced at a ceremony at the Royal Society on Monday 16 June 2008 and awarded £10,000. The authors of each shortlisted book will receive £1,000. The winner of the Royal Society Prizes for Science Books Junior Prize will also be announced at the ceremony.
(via Matt Brown at Nature Network London forum).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 19, 2008
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Watch five hours of US cable news, and on average you will see around 35 minutes on election campaigns, another 36 minutes on US foreign policy, and 26 minutes on crime — but only about one minute on science and technology, slightly more on the environment, and only a little over 3 minutes on medicine and health care. (The rest is taken up with other local issues, weather, entertainment and so on.) Science news in the United States has indeed been squeezed to around 2% of the total since the events of 11 September 2001. But it was never that high, hovering around 4–6% from the mid-1970s until 2001. And the drop does not reflect a falling public interest in science, as much as the media's increased emphasis on foreign policy, war and the homeland: the diversity of US news coverage has decreased across the board since 9/11.
These numbers are obtained from a new study by The Pew Research Center, The State of the News Media 2008, and were discussed in one of Nature's editorials last week (Nature 452, 378; 27 March 2008). From the editorial: "The Pew Center's numbers offer another reason not to be gloomy: the Internet is overtaking television as the public's main source of science news. This means that a larger global audience can now access, on demand, a great diversity of science coverage from media outlets around the world. Moreover, the public are no longer just passive consumers of information. The Internet is now the first place people go to look for more information on a scientific topic, such as stem cells or climate change. Thanks to the Internet, in short, one could argue that the overall state of science communication is better now than at any time in the past."
Nature's editorials are free to access online, so please read on at this link.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 01, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

The role of scientists in informing the public about their field is addressed by Frank Gannon in this month's (February) issue of EMBO Reports (9, 111; 2008 ). Dr Gannon writes about a perceived "creeping cynicism" among the public, and urges scientists to "instill a healthy dose of optimism about what science can do—albeit in a fair and balanced way. We have to do this for ourselves as well as society at large. We have to explain the complexities of the tasks that lie ahead and, at the same time, highlight the genuine successes that scientific research has achieved. We must counter the cheap shots directed against honest and determined scientists, and reign in those who overstate their work and its implications. But more than anything else, we have to stress time and again that rigorous research is the only way to discover the cures and solutions needed for the twenty-first century."

At the same time, there is a variety of views on this topic being expressed by science writers on their Nature Network forum, in response to Brian Clegg's question "Is balance the enemy of science writing?" In cases where "there is overwhelming scientific evidence in favour of one opinion", writes Brian, "the media’s attempt to provide balance by giving equal weight to both sides of the argument is a mistake. It misleads the public, and does a disservice to science.
Is this true? If so, what should science writers be doing about it?" Or, as Frank Norman puts it, quoting Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne: "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong." A stimulating and very heated discussion follows about the role of the media in (mis)communicating science. To Michael Kenward it is relatively simple: "Look at examples, point out to the perpetrators that their idea of balance is actually no more than giving publicity to the lunatic fringe." Other contributors discuss longer-term goals, such as changing the way science is taught in schools, and rewarding scientists for personal public-education initiatives. Elsewhere on Nature Network, senior Nature editor Henry Gee provides his own unique perspective at his blog End of the Pier Show, in a post entitled Plausible Unavoidability.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 15, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Is it possible to reconcile the caution of most scientists about their results with the demands of the media for headlines and the growing emphasis placed by funding agencies on the economic impact of research? In this month's issue of Nature Nanotechnology (3, 65-66; 2008), Richard Jones urges caution: "scientists may not be at all confident that their own work will have a big impact, but they are confident that science in general will deliver big benefits. On the other hand, the public have long memories for promises that science and technology have made but failed to deliver (such as electricity from nuclear power being 'too cheap to meter'). This, if nothing else, suggests that the nanoscience community would do well to be responsible in what they promise."
The cancer nanotechnology plan of the US National Cancer Institute, for example, is criticized for its opening statement: "To help meet the Challenge Goal of eliminating suffering and death from cancer by 2015, the NCI is engaged in a concerted effort to harness the power of nanotechnology to radically change the way we diagnose, treat and prevent cancer." As Dr Jones writes," a close textual analysis of the document shows that the NCI does not explicitly claim that nanotechnology will cure cancer by 2015; rather, it talks of "challenge goals" and "lowering barriers". But is it wise to make it so easy to draw this conclusion from a careless reading?"

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

Brian Clegg writes on the Science writers' forum at Nature Network: "I’ve recently had an exchange of emails with a respected scientist who has doubts about the validity of some of the science behind the current thinking on climate change. He has been villified as a ‘climate change denier’ " . Regular readers of Climate Feedback, the blog of Nature Reports Climate Change, will certainly have seen examples of imbalanced, passionately expressed, readers' comments directed at climate scientsts.
Brian asks whether this is really the right way for professional scientists to go about things. He points out as one example that Fred Hoyle's espousal of the steady-state theory long after most astrophysicists were convinced by the Big Bang did not result in him being vilified as a ‘Big Bang denier’. Are there some topics within science in which objectivity is always sacrificed for emotion? Nature Reports Climate Change and Nature Reports Stem Cells are providing light, rather than unnecessary heat, on these particular "flashpoint" areas of science -- and Brian welcomes your views in the Nature Network forum. Are there other disciplines that would benefit from the Nature Reports approach?

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 29, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jennifer Rohn, of University College London and Editor of LabLit, reviews three books in last week's Nature: From bench to book (Nature 451, 128; 2008), addressing how web publishing and marketing might put more science into fiction and attract new readers. The books reviewed are: A Version of the Truth by Jennifer Kaufman & Karen Mack; The Gift: Discovery, Treachery & Revenge by Jon Kalb; and The Expeditions by Karl Iagnemma. Jennifer writes: "In a darwinian scrum for the attention of an increasingly distracted audience, authors who want to write fiction about science, but not straight science fiction, have their work cut out. The gates of publication are typically guarded by humanities graduates who may have no scientific affinity. To slip through the net, stories about scientists are often sugar-coated." Only one of the three books reviewed, The Gift, is a serious work of "lab lit" -- and given its "uncompromising approach to technical detail, it is probably no coincidence that the book is self-published", writes Jennifer.
Jennifer herself is subjected to some Q and A on the Authors page in the same issue of the journal (Nature 451, ix; 2008) about her efforts to improve scientists' fictional standing by her LabLit site "to generate interest in fictionalized science by shedding light on scientists in their natural habitat."
"Q. Do you think publishers are prejudiced against publishing fiction about science?
A. Yes. Most publishers balk at the idea of publishing a fictional book about science. For example, the book I reviewed with the most scientific detail — The Gift by Jon Kalb, which delves into the ruthless world of hominid fossil hunting — was not traditionally published. It is available print-on-demand by the author. I think for this genre there is considerable opportunity for print-on-demand."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 17, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Drosophila [fruit fly] courtship is a complex behavior. A new study shows that glia modulate neurotransmission to influence male preference, but the authors should have resisted the temptation to describe their results in tabloid language." Joel Levine of the University of Toronto, begins his Commentary "Glia and romance" (Nature Neuroscience 11, 8 - 10; 2008) with this provocative statement. He goes on to write: "The study by Grosjean et al. [Nature Neuroscience 11, 54–61; 2008] makes an important contribution by calling attention to a neuro-glial element in the circuitry that governs courtship behavior. Furthermore, this study initiates the search for the glutamatergic neurons involved in the processing of courtship pheromones. Apart from its merits, however, this paper has a serious language problem. Throughout, the authors use the term homosexual to describe the behavior of a male mutant that courts both males and females with equal probability." Levine goes on to explain why the use of the term homosexuality to define the flies' behaviour is inappropriate and objectionable.
In a Nature Network journal club discussion of this paper, Nature Neuroscience editor Noah Gray describes the authors' controversial nomenclature, and provides links to some discussion on blogs at the New York Times. Putting this issue aside, questions for the journal club include:
--How could changing the glutamate content in the extracellular space contribute to the altered processing by the appropriate (but unknown) circuits?
--How do these Drosophila courtship behaviours relate to mammalian courtship rituals and what does the current research say about those behaviours?
Via Action Potential, Noah writes the neuroscience online journal club will feature interesting papers from any journal for discussion, in posts written by students and postdocs discussing somebody else's work, in the classic spirit of a journal club.
"This forum is designed to teach the non-specialist about certain neuroscience sub-fields in which they may have some interest, as well as to feature important findings that very well may pertain to the current work of the specialist. Hopefully, the discussion will include the following (and more): questions being asked regarding the data or conclusions of the study; inquiries made as to how to successfully implement particular methodologies; reasons given for why additional data would help the authors solidify their conclusions; suggestions floated as to what the next steps should be in the follow-up experiments."
Another journal club discussion is entitled Extrasensory perception (ESP) fails the test : the Nature Network neuroscience group is clearly setting out to be a lively forum. If you are a neuroscientist, or work in a related discipline, please feel free to join the group and contribute to the discussion.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 15, 2008
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Arthur Kornberg was one of the greatest biochemists of the twentieth century. His career spanned more than 60 years, and such has been the impact of his work on modern biomedical science that his influence will endure for decades." So opens Nature's obituary of Arthur Kornberg, by Tania Baker, at Nature 450, 809; 2007.
Boyana Konforti, Chief Editor of Nature Structural and Molecular Biology, has asked close colleagues to contribute their thoughts and recollections about Kornberg, who died last October. These reminiscences have now been compiled and published together, along with photos, as a permanent record and tribute in the pages of Nature Structural & Molecular Biology. Boyana writes: "In writing these remembrances of Arthur, we have all tried to capture a bit of what he was like, and what working with him meant to us, in the hope that those who knew him will have even richer memories to share and—more importantly—those who didn't know him will get a glimpse of him through our memories. To my mind it is these personal stories (and many more like them) that will be his longest-lasting legacy". The tributes can be seen here: A Tribute to Arthur Kornberg 1918-2007 (Nature Structural & Molecular Biology 15, 2 - 17; 2008). Contributors are Robert S. Fuller, Robert A. Bambara, Tania Baker, Barbara Funnell, Elmar Wahle, Michael O'Donnell, Dale Kaiser, Kirsten Skarstad, Boyana Konforti, Satoko Maki, Tsutomu Katayama, Kazuhisa Sekimizu, Joel H. Weiner, Ronald W. Davis, Lee Rowen, Myron F. Goodman, James Spudich, Suzanne Pfeffer, Charles C. Richardson, Piotr Polaczek, RIch Calendar, Richard Kolodner, Jack Griffith, Bruce Stillman, Paul Modrich, Charles Brenner and Charley Yanofsky.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 14, 2008
Categories: Author services, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two collections of Essays appeared in Nature last year epitomizing the 'big issues' facing science and society -- Connections and Science and Politics . You can now download free digital editions (PDFs) of both these essay series in a simple, one-click operation at the links in the previous sentence.
The Connections series addresses how researchers, from cell biologists to quantum physicists, are struggling to work out how systems involving large numbers of interacting entities work as a whole. In this collection of essays, scientists explain how a systems approach, in parallel with the reductionism that dominated twentieth-century science, promises to yield fresh insight, and in some cases, to challenge the most widely held concepts of their field.
In the nine Science and Politics essays, experienced advisers on science policy to the US, UK and Swedish governments, as well as other senior scientific advisors, reflect on the highs and lows of being at the intersection of science and society. Do scientists devalue their advice to government by emphasizing uncertainty, the series asks, or is there a need for greater humility when science meets public disquiet?
These essays make stimulating reading -- I enjoyed each one in the weekly issue of Nature. If you missed them, I encourage you to download these PDF editions for reading at your leisure.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 04, 2008
Categories: Author benefits, Communication, Public and media | 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Nature Network:

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

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

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

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

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

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)

A presentation and press briefing by Nature Publishing Group (NPG) was held at a high-technology fair in Shenzhen China on Friday 12 October, to announce and distribute the 20-page Spotlight and Regions advertising feature on Shenzhen published in Nature in the 27 September issue. NPG staff gave presentations on publishing activities in China to a packed audience of about 100 from academia, government, industry and the media. A reprint of the Spotlight translated into Chinese was released at the event.
Nature Publishing Group's Shenzhen Spotlight project has involved about 25 NPG staff and freelancers from around the world. David Swinbanks, NPG's publishing director in Tokyo, writes; "After three years of discussion, we were finally given the green light by the Shenzhen local government in early August and had to pull the 20-page feature together by 21 September for the 27 September issue so that copies could be made available at the China High Tech Fair on Friday." As the supplement is also fully online, this was a considerable achievement for all the writers, editors and project-managers involved.
Part of the Spotlight supplement includes a video of a self-pollinating orchid, which can be seen here in all its beauty, showing in a stunning way the incredible power of plant adaptation and evolution.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 23, 2007
Categories: Communication, Partners, Public and media, Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

In the August issue of EMBO Reports (8, 712 - 716;2007), Matias Pasquali argued for a more important role for video to record the work of laboratories as an effective way to portray an accurate view of science to society. He wrote: "By enabling the public to observe a cloning procedure or a microarray experiment, the concept becomes less obscure, and the mysterious and frightening becomes the mundane and ordinary. Studies of the effect of seeing an experiment on a person's perception of science have to be carried out, but exploring new methods of communication is essential to attract the public's attention to everyday scientific topics."
In the current issue of the journal (EMBO Reports 8, 10, 886–887; 2007), Nikos Darzentas and coauthors extend Pasquali's suggestion that communication of science for the next generation of scientists will require the use of other media. They think that social websites such as del.icio.us, WebSphere and YouTube are promising, in that graduate students are probably vary familiar with these web resources. They suggest that educators or science communicators appreciate that many young scientists would rather watch a 'science' video than sift through masses of written information. (A suggestion to use YouTube for scientific outreach was made on Nautilus in April by Clements et al.)
Darzentas et al. also think that journals' and scientists' use of video and web media will help to counteract the detrimental effect of scientific misinformation from non-authoritative sources. They describe their struggles to communicate a dense manuscript on the Net of Life—an intricate network of horizontal and vertical gene flow patterns across the microbial world. They write: "Despite excellent editorial handling, it was the traditional medium of the manuscript that limited the presentation of the data, algorithm and the visualization of the results. During conference presentations, we therefore demonstrated the complexity of this work by a simple sequence of alternative views of the gene flow network. To present the main results to our peers, students and the general public in an aesthetically more engaging way, we created a science communication video—the result of a collaboration between our research group and a digital media company." Videos have an even greater potential than just enhancing communication among scientists, they conclude: "In the near future, it seems possible that journals will look more like video collections that, after peer-review and editorial processing, users can evaluate using a star-rating system. These clips could represent the entry points to the scientific work; first triggering the curiosity of the reader, then directing them to the relevant material and enhancing their interactive experience."
Those interested in this concept might like to look at Nature Precedings, where scientists can upload their manuscripts and other material for online comments and rating by other readers.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on October 08, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

How geneticists can help reporters to get their story right : Article : Nature Reviews Genetics

This article, by Celeste M. Condit of the University of Georgia, Athens, addresses the disgruntlement that many geneticists experience when they read, see or hear coverage of genetics in the mass media. Dr Condit describes how geneticists themselves can play their part in improving that coverage by explaining the forces that shape science news. Her article provides some specific options for reducing hype, countering genetic determinism and preventing the use of genetics to reinforce discriminatory messages: slants that many reporters are inclined to give to their articles.

The full article is available in Nature Reviews Genetics 8, 815-820 (October 2007).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same issue of Nature, (448, 2; 2007) Richard Wilson writes: As director of the public-participation organization Involve , I would like to add [to the Editorial's argument] that we need a more mature relationship between science and society, whereby both sides are open about their concerns and aspirations and realistic about what they can offer.
Too often science is equated to evidence. But having, in an earlier role, commissioned scientific research for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am aware that the answer you get can depend to a large extent on who does the research and how their contract is configured. Because trust is built through experiencing openness and honesty, the public need to understand science, warts and all.
A good start would be to move away from portraying narrowly calculated technological risks as accepted facts (when they rarely are) to being open about the great expanse of uncertainty that scientists are constantly navigating.
Science is almost always a journey into the unknown. That includes unpredictable benefits and uncertain costs.

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

Christoph Bartneck and Matthias Rauterberg of Eindhoven University of Technology remind readers of Nature's Correspondence page (Nature 448, 644; 2007) that the Nobel physics prize, should be given "to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics".
Drs Bartneck and Rauterberg point out that 77% of Nobel prizes in physics have been given to discoveries, compared with only 23% to inventions. They go on to write:

"Discoveries and inventions depend on each other. Many discoveries were only made possible through the invention of certain measurement instruments, and without earlier theories, many inventions would have been inconceivable.
The fundamental difference between the two, however, is that the result of an invention is typically an artefact or process, whereas a discovery is an abstract theory. Although both require prior theories and a process of experimentation, and both have a utilitarian function, discoveries aim to be as general as possible, whereas inventions strive to be concrete.
A closer look at the 17 inventions that won Nobel prizes before 2005 reveals that 11 of them (64%) are measurement instruments, for example the scanning tunnelling microscope.
Only three winning inventions have had direct practical applications to society: the gas regulator-controlled buoys made by Nils Gustaf Dalén were subsequently used in lighthouses; the transistor invented by John Bardeen, Walter Brattain and William Shockley is widely used in electronic devices; and Jack Kilby's work on the integrated circuit led to the development of personal computers.
Awarding more Nobel prizes for inventions would encourage inventors to tackle important problems such as global warming or the gap between the developed and developing worlds. The award given to Kilby for the development of the integrated circuit is a good example.
The invention of the electric telephone, first patented by Graham Bell, was a missed opportunity for a Nobel prize to acknowledge an invention that has brought the world closer together. But there is still hope for Tim Berners-Lee's invention of the World Wide Web."

Do readers have any additional suggestions?

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 09, 2007
Categories: Awards, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

Action Skeptics: Famous Fictional Scientists is not, as one might at first glance think, a list containing names such as Arrowsmith's, that have graced the pages of mainstream fiction, but rather an attempt to identify famous scientists in popular culture. In a limited but amusing set of biographies, Action Skeptics identifies Dr Emmett "Doc" Brown of Back to the Future; Dr Peter Venkman, Dr Raymond Stantz and Dr Egon Spendler of Ghostbusters; Reed Richards of the Fantastic Four; and Professor Hubert J Farnsworth of Futurama. Dr Hiram K "Brains" Hackenbaker from Thunderbirds is suggested in the comments. I wouldn't agree that the scientists named are "famous" in the sense that Frankenstein and Dracula are iconic characters in the horror genre. Indeed, a couple of commenters have noted that (apparently) all but one of the scientist examples is in "fact" an engineer. But it is a brave attempt as well as a funny one, and I doubt anyone could come up with more famous examples of the chosen genre.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 03, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

Via The Seven Stones: the Royal Society seeks your views on the emerging area of synthetic biology. According to the society," this is your opportunity to shape the focus of the Royal Society's policy future work in this important area. We welcome views from individuals or organisations by 27 August 2007."
Synthetic biology is an emerging area of research that can broadly be described as the design and construction of novel artificial biological pathways, organisms or devices, or the redesign of existing natural biological systems.
Biologists have traditionally sought to understand how life works. In contrast, synthetic biologists seek to design and build new biological systems. The application of engineering principles to the design and construction of complex biological systems is likely to provide a step change from the tweaking of existing genomes usually described as genetic engineering.
Here is the Royal Society's "Call for views" document.

See the Nature newsblog for Oliver Morton's reports from the second Synthetic Biology conference at the University of California, Berkely, 20-22 May 2007.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on August 02, 2007
Categories: Disciplines, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Let's see: plane ticket, sun block, toothbrush, mp3 player – you are all set for a summer break. Wait, some reading? Well, here comes the dilemma between the latest page-turner and the pile of research article PDFs on your desk. Why not compromise and pack a good popular science book?" So starts the July editorial in Nature Methods (4, 535; 2007), aptly entitled "summer reading". What follows is an eclectic sample of the editors' reading lists. If you have some favourites to add, please do so at Methagora, the Nature Methods blog, which also carries an extended list of "staff picks".

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 27, 2007
Categories: General, Public and media, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

Chemist Jean-Claude Bradley, a friend of Nautilus's comments section, writes a post on Useful Chemistry blog about indexing molecules in Second Life

He writes: "As I've recently commented, there has been media interest in the use of the virtual online world Second Life for chemistry. We also recently demonstrated on Drexel Island that it was possible to visualize molecular docking using the molecular rezzer developed by Andrew Lang.
Nature Island [Second Nature is Nature's island in Second Life] also hosts several common molecules, including buckyballs. As more people start to experiment with representing chemicals and chemistry research in Second Life it would be nice if such examples were discovered by a simple Google search."

Check out the rest of the post, contribute to Prof Bradley's collaborative wiki "molecule indexing" project if you can (which seems to be working, from the comments to the Useful Chemistry post) --- and maybe even take a trip to Second Life.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 20, 2007
Categories: Partners, Public and media, Publications, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (1)

As outlined on her Mind the Gap blog at Nature Network, Jennifer Rohn and her partner in design Wynn Abbott have devised a competition to challenge fashion designers, from students all the way up to celebs, to reinterpret lab coats for the twenty-first century. The brief: the coats must still discharge a protective function, but they must also be fun, fresh, sexy and original in design.
Further details of this LabLit/SciCult competition to reinvent the humble lab uinform are provided here, together with a nice sketch by Vera Bravo to get people's creativity started.
Jennifer writes: "We will make a formal call for designs within the next few months and our panel of judges will make a decision on the shortlist in autumn. If all goes to plan, we will coordinate with London Fashion Week in Spring 2008 and host a gala catwalk event at which the overall winner will announced. In addition to the main prize, we will also give out awards for the best accessories, such as gloves, masks and safety goggles. If anyone’s interested in getting involved or needs more information, let Wynn or me know! So come on, people, pimp my coat! I’m tired of putting on the same old stained, shapeless one every morning."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 13, 2007
Categories: Awards, Partners, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nature Reports Climate Change is dedicated to authoritative in-depth reporting on climate change and its wider implications for policy, society and the economy. With weekly updates, Nature Reports Climate Change ensures you are up-to-date with arguably the most far-reaching challenge of this century.
On the associated blog Climate Feedback, Olive Heffernan reports on last weekend's "biggest global media event of all time…and by far the largest climate awareness event in history. Al Gore’s concerts for a climate in crisis were watched by an estimated 2 billion viewers (at the events, on TV and an unprecedented number online) and took place over 24 hours on seven continents (thanks in part to the somewhat lesser known band Nunatak taking a break from field work!)"
See Olive's Climate Feedback post for her take on the likelihood of this concert succeeding in its "call for change".

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

Here are three letters from the several received by Nature in response to its Editorial of 24 May, Unwise Branding (Nature 447, 353; 2007). All three responses were published in the journal's Correspondence section on 5 July. An online commenting facility was provided at the time of publication of the Editorial. The opportunity to comment is again provided via the comment link below this post.

Terrorists are activists who renounce non-violence
Sarah Reichard, Thomas M. Hinckley & H. D. Bradshaw, Jr
As faculty members whose research was affected severely by a 2001 firebomb attack by the Earth Liberation Front (ELF), we object to the assertion in your Editorial 'Unwise branding' (Nature 447, 353; 2007) that charging ELF arsonists with terrorism could amount to erecting an "unbreachable wall" to dialogue between them and scientists.
The ELF and its sister the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) use violence against civilian targets to further a political viewpoint: this is the definition of terrorism. Calling the ELF and ALF terrorist organizations is a simple statement of fact. There is no need to mince words in a vain effort to placate groups whose members, through a dangerous combination of wilful ignorance and willingness to enforce their world view 'by any means necessary', eschew reason in favour of senseless violence.
Some ELF and ALF apologists believe that 'property damage' (including destruction of research buildings at universities) does not qualify as terrorism. Perhaps the ELF statement from which we quote below will give those apologists a glimpse of the perspective shared by those of us whose names and addresses have been posted on ELF or ALF websites (which link to instructions on firebomb construction and deployment). After the firebombing of a US Forest Service laboratory in Pennsylvania in 2002, the ELF declared: "segments of this global revolutionary movement are no longer limiting their revolutionary potential by adhering to a flawed, inconsistent 'non-violent' ideology. While innocent life will never be harmed in any action we undertake, where it is necessary, we will no longer hesitate to pick up the gun to implement justice, and provide the needed protection for our planet that decades of legal battles, pleading, protest, and economic sabotage have failed so drastically to achieve."
Simply put, ELF and ALF members are anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-human fundamentalists — certain that they have privileged access to some universal truth, deaf to alternative arguments, blind to evidence and determined to intimidate those who disagree with them. They are self-righteous in firebombing the very institutions (such as ours) that sponsor research and open discourse to understand and improve the state of the Earth for all its inhabitants. ELF and ALF terrorists have built the wall of naive, intolerant fundamentalism between themselves and us — only they can breach it. Rational people are, and always have been, waiting on the other side in the hope of receiving some form of communication other than a bomb or a bullet.
College of Forest Resources and Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle.

Activists: arson risks killing innocent people
Mike Fainzilber
Your Editorial 'Unwise branding' (Nature 447, 353; 2007) is against equating animal-rights activism with terrorism. In it you state that "there is no such objective thing as a terrorist". This statement is yet another example of the moral blindness invading public discourse in the United Kingdom.
It is straightforward to define terrorism in an objective and legally egalitarian manner, for example by defining as a terrorist any person who uses violence to further his or her ideology, without taking into consideration the likelihood that innocent people may be injured, maimed or killed by such violent acts. Arson fuelled by ideology would certainly fit this definition of terrorism, and the animal-rights arsonists discussed in your Editorial were apparently not deterred by the possibility that people might be injured or killed in the fires they set.
Your second concern, regarding "who will be willing to publicly break bread with a terrorist, reformed or otherwise", is answered by current reality in Northern Ireland, South Africa and other places around the globe.
Biological Chemistry, Weizmann Institute, Rehovot.

Activists: some walls are not meant to be breached
Beverly E. Barton
Your Editorial 'Unwise branding' (Nature 447, 353; 2007) stated: "We should avoid building an unbreachable wall between criminal activists and their victims." Am I mistaken, then, in the purpose for incarceration of criminals after conviction?
Department of Surgery, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 06, 2007
Categories: Animal experiments, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Dr Philip Strange writes in Nature's Correspondence page this week (Nature 448, 22; 2007):

Your Editorial 'Never had it so good?' (Nature 447, 231; 2007) claims that British science is in "rather good shape". Those in British universities who apply for research grants might not fully agree.
In the case of the UK Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC), the new Labour government in 1997 made more cash available. As a result, the success rate for grant applications went up to about 40% in 1998–2000. Since then, however, there has been a steady decline to the present success rate of about 25%, leaving 10–15% of applications rated of international quality but unfunded. During the same period, the number of applications to the BBSRC has increased from about 1,200 a year in 1998 to about 1,900 a year in 2005. This may reflect a decline in other sources of funding from bodies such as the Medical Research Council, or a preference among applicants for funders who, unlike charities, include an amount for overheads.
This situation is not good news for British science, in that about 75% of applications to the BBSRC are now rejected, representing a huge waste of effort and ideas.
One obvious solution is to put more money into the system, to increase the success rate among applications ranked as internationally competitive. Another suggestion is to change the system for submitting and assessing applications, placing more of the onus on the universities, perhaps via a quota system for applications. A third is to weight the system more in favour of applicants' published track record and less in favour of the proposed science (with a special track for first-time applicants).
Above all, let's try to do something about this crazy situation in which so many grant applications fail, with the result that so much time is wasted for applicants, reviewers and administrators.
Philip Strange
School of Pharmacy, University of Reading, UK.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 05, 2007
Categories: Careers, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

In today's era of start-ups, spin-offs and university–industry collaborations, it pays to be knowledgeable about patents and how they can help. So starts the Editorial in the new issue of Nature Photonics (1, 355; 2007)

"All too often scientists are deterred from patenting by misconceptions about how expensive or time-consuming the process might be. True, the cost of filing and maintaining a patent has to be considered carefully, but the financial or commercial benefits may be worth it."

Read on at the Nature Photonics website.

Further information about patents in photonics is provided in the Commentary "Patenting photonics research" by Andrew Fearnside later in the issue (Nature Photonics 1, 357-359; 2007).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on July 03, 2007
Categories: Author benefits, Disciplines, 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)

From Sara Abdulla:
A unique cultural venue opened in London this month. The Wellcome Collection is the first permanent home for the massive, maverick history-of-medicine collection that pharmaceutical entrepreneur Sir Henry Wellcome (1853–1936) gathered throughout his life. Thirty million pounds (US$60 million) and decades in the making, the free venue has three galleries, one of the world's most important history-of-medicine libraries, an original programme of live events, a members' club, a bookshop, a café, a conference centre and Pablo Picasso's Bernal mural.
Wellcome's fortune also created the Wellcome Trust, Britain's main bioscience research funding agency. The trust has now remodelled the compact 1930s building it recently vacated to realize Sir Henry's vision of a 'Museum of Man' and to extend its public engagement activities.
--------
The second floor brings the trust's vast library into the twenty-first century. Virtual browsing stations and WiFi now complement the graceful galleries long beloved by science-and-society scholars (and TV crews in search of instant gravitas). The top floors house The Wellcome Trust Centre for the History of Medicine at University College London, where much of this thoughtful activity starts.
And what of the members' club? Will it become biology's Algonquin Hotel? Quite possibly: it is inside a thrilling new museum, beside a leading medical school, opposite London's new European rail terminus and encircled by scientific publishers. What better place to raise a glass to humane curiosity, the legacy of Sir Henry Wellcome.

For the rest of this review, see Nature 447, 1056 (2007).

The Wellcome Collection
by the Wellcome Trust, 183 Euston Road, London.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week saw the much trailed departure of Tony Blair as UK prime minister. In a Commentary (Nature 447, 1053; 2007) in the current issue of Nature, Sir Robert May, the government's chief science adviser from 1995 to 2000, reflects on the Blair legacy. In many ways, he says, science and engineering prospered. Yet there is general discontent amongst scientists in UK universities, and many current trends are potentially damaging. Blair's successors — Gordon Brown initially — will have much to do if the country is to continue to thrive scientifically.

...why is there discontent among scientists in UK universities? Are we perhaps revealing an inherent, Eeyore-like glumness? I think not. Although student numbers, faculty positions and research funds have all increased, they have not done so in equal proportions. Student-to-staff ratios are almost universally higher than 15 years ago. And research funding — despite its increase in real terms — has not kept pace with the increasing number of active researchers, themselves spurred on by the demands of the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), which every few years rates individual academic departments. Life seems harder than it used to be. Even more important, in my opinion, than higher teaching loads and the increasingly fierce competition for grants, is the extreme growth of bureaucracy — too often masquerading as accountability. The ballooning of the civil service since 1997 means that there are now more conscientious administrators who hold meetings and send out forms to be filled in. And universities have matched or exceeded the growth in bureaucrats seen in the civil service. This growth is only partly justified by need. One issue that Brown might address is that the current number of central administrative staff is roughly equal to the number of faculty for four major UK universities; this would certainly raise eyebrows at many top US universities.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 29, 2007
Categories: Careers, Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

From this week's issue of Nature, Correspondence page (Nature 447, 908; 2007).

Your News story 'Anger at "unfit" museum design' (Nature 447, 239; 2007) reports some people's belief that the design of the Natural History Museum's Darwin Centre Phase Two is unfit for purpose, as the building will not have room to house the entire insect and plant collection.
The crux of the issue is that the public is being given access to our science, and this takes space. Building new facilities for the entirety of our collections, research and public access in one go is not feasible, with current funding. Instead we are taking it by stages. With the completion of Darwin Centre Phase Two, we will have more than half of our 70 million specimens in high-quality storage.
Balancing the needs of collections, research and public access will help us to advance knowledge of the natural world and to communicate this to the public. It will mean some changes in how we work and it will take time to adjust. However, we think that the new building will lead to a long-term improvement in the way we carry out and communicate the museum's work in taxonomy and systematics.
We have received a high level of support for this project, and are confident that it will be a real benefit to the museum, the scientific community and the wider public.
Richard Lane
Natural History Museum, London.

See here for the News story on which Dr Lane's letter comments, which reports criticisms of the directors of the Natural History Museum over their plans to split parts of its world-renowned collection of biological specimens on a permanent basis. Some of the museum's curators are angry that plans for a new building to store the bulk of the museum's entomology and botany collections remain unaltered three years after being branded unfit for the purpose by museum staff, according to the News story.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 22, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

For readers who are interested in knowing more about the virtual world Second Life, there is a nice article on the Booksquare blog called Publishers Explore the Metaverse in which the writer has trawled Second Life to see what (book) publishers are up to there. Perhaps more directly relevant to readers of Nautilus is a post called A sampler of science in Second Life on Troy McConaghy's Nature Network blog, Science in the Metaverse.
After seeing all the online activity there, Nature journal authors might want to consider giving a virtual talk in Second Life. Drop a line in the comments, if so, or contact Joanna Scott of our web publishing department (Joanna Wombat in Second Life).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 20, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Excerpted from Nature 447, 779 (2007).
Paul Stevenson reviews the book The Open Laboratory: The Best Writing on Science Blogs 2006,
edited by Bora Zivkovic. Lulu: 2007. 336 pp. $19.85, £10.99
The Open Laboratory is a collection of writing from science blogs, selected and published by the energetic biologist-blogger Bora Zivkovic with the help of the blogging community. In the run-up to the first conference of science bloggers earlier this year in North Carolina, Zivkovic took it upon himself to collate the fifty best posts put up by the end of 2006. Topics include micro black holes, bird migration, human sleep patterns, evolution, quantum mechanics and psychology. The writing ranges from PhD students enthusing about concepts from their research areas, to opinion pieces on themes such as the rights and wrongs of particle-physics funding, intelligent design and political interference in science policy.
This wide-ranging book provides something — hopefully many things — for everyone. Particularly enjoyable is browsing entries about areas of science away from one's own research interests. As a physicist, I learned a lot about the origin of mitochondria from the representative entry of Carl Zimmer's award-winning blog The Loom. I was pleased, too, to see entries from some of the highly trafficked blogs that I habitually read and enjoy, such as The Panda's Thumb and Cocktail Party Physics.
By their nature, blogs are dynamic. A post typically bristles with links out to elsewhere on the web and accretes an ever-changing exchange of comments between readers and the author. To capture this energy and texture in a static book is a challenge that the editor fully acknowledges in his introduction. The solution Zivkovic fixes on for The Open Laboratory is to pick posts that he feels work in isolation, to list links as footnotes and to omit the comment strings.
The entries highlight the great variety of styles that can thrive in the blogosphere. Most of the pieces are a little chattier than the usual book or magazine article, but those chosen are formal enough not to grate on the printed page. Occasionally, the prose is loftier than a typical popular science book. Some even veer too much towards the tone of a research article — leaving terms like suprachiasmatic nucleus or a zygomaticomaxillary suture unexplained.
The book works well enough as a standalone anthology of science writing, but I share the editor's hope that it will prompt eager print readers hitherto unfamiliar with the vibrant young medium that is science blogging to have a look, and maybe even have a go. Nominations for next year's anthology are already being sought.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 14, 2007
Categories: Awards, Public and media, Publishing, Writing | Permalink | Comments (0)

From this week's Correspondence page (Nature 447, 775; 2007): Ours is a world in crisis. We are despoiling our habitat, outstripping our resources and failing to provide an acceptable living standard for much of the world's population. Although academic institutions are equipped to help remedy these problems by informing the leaders of tomorrow, they often fail to do so. Increasing pressure for specialization has led universities to trade breadth for depth in curricula, thereby depriving students of an understanding of complex, interconnected global issues. For example, solutions to our energy crisis span economics, engineering and politics, yet the typical student is exposed to only a portion of this spectrum.
Here, we propose a first step in addressing such shortcomings. We, the undersigned graduate students, have created a campus-wide 'State of the Planet' course at Cornell University under the mentorship of faculty members Tom Eisner and Mary Lou Zeeman.
Our goal is threefold: to improve understanding of complex issues; to add global context to disciplinary education; and to motivate action and involvement. To this end, we recruited experts, mostly resident faculty members and community leaders, to address the challenges we agreed were paramount.
Administrative support was quick to materialize, as was a pool of enthusiastic participants. We launched the course in January 2007, after campus-wide publicity highlighting its multidisciplinary nature. Our 250 current students come from 45 different majors ranging broadly across the humanities and basic and applied sciences. In lectures, experts familiar with our most pressing global problems emphasize how solutions span disciplines. Students participate in discussion groups led by graduate assistants, where they not only build on ideas presented in lectures, but also set up projects aimed at solving problems.
Mid-semester student evaluations have been overwhelmingly positive, with 93% saying that the course has changed their views on education, career plans and lifestyle, and 95% believing that their peers should also take this course.
Comments include: "This course has influenced my perspectives on almost everything, from the food I eat to how long I leave my computer on" and "The course demonstrates how many different skills and backgrounds can help shape policy that is instrumental for the planet."
We are continuing to expand our course in the hope that it will become a campus-wide requirement. Our vision is that other universities will adopt similar courses as a curriculum component for all students. We extend an open invitation to like-minded people at other institutions to join us, and others launching parallel efforts, in what we believe will be a modest but fundamental change to university education.
We maintain the optimistic belief that, given the right information, people will change their habits and their world. But the burden is on us, as educators, to motivate this change.
Krystal L. Rypien, Jill Anderson, Jason Andras, Rulon W. Clark, Gretchen A. Gerrish, James T. Mandel, Marie L. Nydam & Daniel K. Riskin
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Cornell University.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on June 14, 2007
Categories: Careers, Disciplines, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Wellcome collection's Medicine Life + Art opens on 21 June in London. The venue is open every day, with galleries open from Tuesdays to Sundays. Exhibitions and events are free. There is also a library, conference centre and club, as well as a cafe and the inevitable shop.
The exhibitions present a rich picture of the cultural and social implications of medicine past and present, through three galleries including exhibits and artworks from Henry Wellcome's original collection, as well as current medical topics such as obesity, genetics and malaria through the eyes of scientists, artists and patients. The opening programme includes exhibitions about the heart as well as sleeping and dreaming, examining each subject from a scientific, cultural and social perspective.
For more information and details of how to get there, see the Wellcome collection website.

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

Free Association: Selfish factoids

Why do editors prune appealing afterthoughts and out of focus information to leave only the highly-scrutinized core of the research paper?, asks Myles Axton, Chief Editor of Nature Genetics, in the Free Association blog post above. ‘Appealing’ is the key word, that stuff has a life of its own and can literally beg you to add it to your papers. “Add me”, the factoid pleads, “and your work will make it into the news, will get discussed”.

Myles continues: Selfish factoids can even infect Matt Ridley, probably the most accessible and informative science writer alive. I enjoyed reading his “Origins of Virtue- Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation” but found this: Chapter 1, footnote 29. “I am indebted to David Haig for the information that human beings have B chromosomes at the rate of 2-3 per cent of live births.” Myles looked into this assertion, or to put it his way, performed a "reality check". Read on at the Free Association post.

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

From the editors of Nature China: Join some of the Nature journal editors for a day of presentations on "how to publish in Nature journals". The meeting is on 11 June at the Shanghai Information Center for Life Sciences Hall, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Registration is free. The line-up includes: David Swinbanks, Publishing Directorof Nature Publishing Group; Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature;Terry Sheppard, Chief Editor of Nature Chemical Biology; Rachel Won, an Associate Editor of Nature Photonics; Felix Cheung, Associate Editor of Nature China; and Xiaolin Zhang, head of AstraZeneca Innovation Center, China.

For more details and to book your place, send the organisers an email. A second meeting will be held on 9 June 2007 at the National Science Library of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, but registration is full.

The Nature China website highlights the best research coming out of mainland China and Hong Kong, providing scientists from around the world with a convenient portal into publications drawn from across all scientific disciplines. Each week, our editors select the best published research and provide a summary of the results. By organizing this research into a comprehensive, regularly updated, one-stop web portal, we hope to help you quickly reach the resources you need to study, and to keep you up-to-date with the most significant research coming out of mainland China and Hong Kong.

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

If you are in striking distance of London on the evening of Tuesday 19 June and want to find out more about this Second Nature in Second Life that you keep reading and hearing about, then please attend a free event, "Science in Virtual Worlds", in association with the Royal Institution and Nature Network.

It’s when you’re flying next to a Saturn V rocket or climbing around a protein molecule that you realise the potential for science in virtual worlds. In an online place like Second Life, you can do things that are dangerous, expensive or downright impossible in real life (or ‘meatspace’). That’s why scientists have begun using such places to conference, teach, build and experiment, in fields from astrophysics to neuroscience, chemistry to psychology. Fancy a stroll through a four-dimensional house? Log on and do it in Second Life.

Online worlds are social spaces too, and that makes them attractive to social scientists. How do we develop meaningful relationships with people we’ve never seen or heard? How do those with autism or schizophrenia fare? Do gender roles or moral codes alter? How does information travel and how can there be economies, uprisings and fads? What are the ethics of studying the denizens of these worlds — are they different from real world citizens? Join Aleks Krotoski , Dave Taylor and Nature Publishing Group's Joanna Scott at the Apple Store on Regent Street for a free event on how science is expanding into virtual life.

Venue: The Apple Store, 235 Regent Street, London W1B 2ET: See the Royal Institution website for more details.
See this previous Nautlius post about opportunities to present your work virtually on the Second Nature island.
This previous Nautlius post describes more about Second Nature and Second Life.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 29, 2007
Categories: Communication, Partners, Public and media, Publications | Permalink | Comments (0)

Equating animal-rights activism with terrorism increases the penalties for offenders and will please many of their victims. But it is not in the interests of science. So states this week's lead Editorial in Nature (447, 353; 2007)

Last November, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act was signed into law in the United States. It creates tough penalties for damaging property, making threats and conspiring against zoos, animal labs and the like. Leaving aside the merits of this act, its very name enshrines into law the idea that destructive activists are terrorists.

As one of the communities targeted by these activists, scientists may be tempted to embrace this rhetoric. Indeed, many people have personally felt terrified by the actions of the most extreme. But 'terrorist' is a word so debased and loaded by political use that, if it has any meaning at all, it is counterproductive. There is no such objective thing as a terrorist. A criminal is a person who has been convicted of a crime. We can examine a person's records and make an unemotional determination of whether or not they are a criminal. But a terrorist is, in practice, a person who fights for a cause we do not believe in using methods that we do not approve of. Calling someone a terrorist is a value judgement.

The full text of the Editorial is available here (site licence or subscription required).

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 24, 2007
Categories: Animal experiments, Ethics, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

prospect : how headlines affect science jobs : Naturejobs
Paul Smaglik writes:
A website is often the first point of contact people have with a laboratory — a sort of digital window into the workings of the place. Most lab websites articulate research programmes and give names and contacts of the lab's members. Good sites also provide ways to seek collaborations. And excellent ones allow potential future members to see what past and present lab participants have gone on to do.

If I was searching for a new lab, I'd want to know that the previous members have published under the principal investigators and have gone on to positions that I'm interested in exploring — whether in academia, industry or government, both on and off the bench. I'd also want to know about lab culture. Do the members interact both professionally and socially? Do they have some sense of humour and a culture of cooperation?

To explore these 'best practices', graduate student, stem-cell scientist and blogger Attila Csordás is hosting a laboratory website competition on his blog Partial Immortalization. Csordás' thesis is that few lab websites take full advantage of the medium's technology and don't give visitors the information they want about a group's science and culture. "Am I alone with my opinion that most academic laboratory web pages simply do not meet any advanced, current, dynamic web standards, although this would be crucial for them?" Csordás writes in his blog. He provides a few examples of sites in his discipline that come close, but is challenging life-science labs around the world to share their best efforts. Taking on this challenge will help labs sell their science — and might also attract promising young scientists to their groups.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 23, 2007
Categories: Careers, Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (1)

The Geological Society of London, one of the world's oldest national scientific and professional societies for earth scientists, is opening up its archive of published material free to anyone for four weeks from 17 May to 18 June.
The Lyell Collection represents the digitized content of the society's extensive range of publications, covering journal and book articles from the mid 1800s to the present. The Lyell Collection was created to mark the Geological Society of London's 200th anniversary, and is one of the largest integrated collections of online earth science literature.
Although a subscription will be required for full access from June 18, many aspects of the service will remain entirely free for public use. This includes a sophisticated search functionality, access to summaries and abstracts and e-mail alerts about new content as it is added.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 21, 2007
Categories: Access, Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Are you a scientist with some fascinating results to discuss? Have you just published in Nature and are burning to tell the world about your new work? Would you like to see what it is like to give a virtual talk? We are looking to try out some events in our amphitheatre and meeting area at Second Nature in Second Life .

If you are interested in trying out a talk, presentation or question–answer seminar in this novel format, please do get in touch with us. Some of the events that have previously taken place in Second Life include:

•Dr Eric Chaisson, Director of the Wright Center for Science Education at Tufts University, author of the book Hubble Wars, talking about his work and answering questions from the audience.
•What can the world's most powerful computers do now? Rez Tone, who works with IBM's Blue Gene research project, explained his membrane protein science effort, including questions and discussion.
•The Spaceflight museum held a presentation about BLAST (Balloon-borne Large-Aperture Sub-millimeter Telescope), a scientific ballooning project dedicated to understanding the origins of the Universe.
•Kevin Warwick, Professor of Cybernetics at the University of Reading, gave a talk entitled "Upgrading Humans: Why not ?”

If you would like to participate in this cutting-edge initiative, please contact Joanna Scott to suggest a topic and to find out more about this strange but exciting new format. You can contact her in the usual world directly by email or find her in Second Life, where she is known as Joanna Wombat. I would also be happy to forward any emails sent to her via the Nature journals authors' email address, or you can drop a comment to this post.

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

Scientists have a crucial role in educating the public about the importance of science if we are to have any hope of facilitating future innovation. A few notable scientists have taken this duty to heart, altering their career tracks to promote science and education. So states Nature Structural & Molecular Biology in the May issue's editorial (14, 353; 2007)

But what makes one place more conducive to innovation than another? Certainly money invested in science and education is an important part of the equation, but other factors are equally critical. The quality of education the next generation receives is essential to give them the knowledge and skills needed to drive innovation. That can be achieved only with higher levels of success across disciplines. The ability to recruit and keep the world's most talented people is also of key importance. By not giving visas to leading foreign scientists and thus sending foreign students to other countries, the US has severely limited the potential for scientific exchange in this country. Finally, it is important to create an environment where people are encouraged to think creatively and where risk-taking is rewarded.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 04, 2007
Categories: Careers, Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Euan Adie, on his Nature Network blog FnL, posts about Shelley Batts' Retrospectacle review of a paper about treating fruit with natural volatile compounds to make it last longer, in which she included a figure and chart from the paper (the source was cited). An editorial assistant at the Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture – where the paper was published – threatened her with legal action unless she removed the images immediately. The blogosphere reacted with predictable speed and free-expresssion, documented in Euan's FnL post.
Euan goes on to ask whether the reaction is, in the cold light of a couple of days later, reasonable, looking at the incident both from the point of view of the publisher concerned as well as the blogger. As he puts it: "Storm in a teacup or dark conspiracy?" There is a good debate in the comments to the FnL post, so if you are interested in weighing up these pros and cons, and would like to add your take, please take a look.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on May 02, 2007
Categories: Access, Policies, Public and media, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (1)

"Brian", a graduate student in geology, at his blog ...Or Something..., reviews science podcasts. Under the microscope are Nature's weekly podcast, Science Friday, Science Times, Science Talk and PopSci's podcast. Here's what Brian writes about the Nature podcast:

This is one of the longer ones at about 25-30 minutes and is published once a week. This podcast sums up 3 or 4 of the prominent articles that are reported in the weekly journal Nature. The format is typically a phone interview with one or more of the authors of a study in that week's issue. This is the most technical of all the podcasts listed here.

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

Reuben Clements, Navjot Sodhi, David Bickford, David Lohman and Mary Posa write:

The explanatory power of videos has been harnessed by at least one online scientific journal explicating molecular biology protocols (Journal of Visualized Experiments). YouTube , which has arguably become the world's online video-sharing nexus, is a free website containing more than 70 million video clips and commanding a monthly viewership of around 20 million people. Scientists should therefore consider broadcasting environmental messages through this pipeline, which connects to an audience that primarily consists of impressionable 12- to 17-year olds.

The concept of YouTube appears well-suited to improve online eco-literacy. An inexhaustible supply of short documentary clips that are viewable anytime could fare better at public outreach, as opposed to full-length versions shown at fixed times on television networks. The video commentary function on YouTube also allows scientists to contribute informed opinions.

YouTube's connectivity is another powerful feature. Videos with similar themes can be 'tagged' to one another or hyperlinked to environmental weblogs to deliver stronger messages, or even act a platform for investigative journalism, where anonymous contributors are relatively safe from the repercussions of whistle-blowing. As an example, we uploaded a video documenting deforestation within Lore Lindu National Park in Sulawesi, Indonesia .

Despite its frivolity, the most viewed clip on YouTube has attracted more than 44 million views. If the scientific community can contribute expert opinions and persuasive videos on a regular basis, YouTube could be an effective conduit to foster a deeper understanding of our roles as environmental custodians.

Reuben Clements, Navjot Sodhi, David Bickford, David Lohman and Mary Posa
Department of Biological Sciences,
National University of Singapore

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 25, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (3)

My friend and colleague Julie Clayton received an email about the opening of a Nature-inspired play in Baton Rouge, Lousiana. The email, from Vince LiCata of the Department of Biological Sciences at Louisiana State University, explains that Julie's News Feature "Out of Thailand, into Africa" (Nature 430, 136-137; 2004) was one of the inspirations for a play about the life and work of Krisana Kraisintu that he has written with Ping Chong.
Cocktail is the story of the achievements of Thai pharmaceutical scientist Dr Kraisintu in establishing the manufacture of affordable HIV treatments in Thailand and sub-Saharan Africa, as described in Julie's Nature News Feature. Dr Kraisintu developed the first triple-drug-single-pill tablets for treatment of HIV (now called fixed-drug combinations or FDCs). She also was the first to introduce such improvements as flavoured tablets for children. Cocktail depicts "the arc of her struggle against the multiple forces, both political and financial, that she eventually overcame."
The authors think that this is the first ever professionally produced play co-authored by a scientist and a theatre artist. The play is now in rehearsal and will open at Swine Palace Theater in Baton Rouge on 20 April and will run till May 6.
Dr Kraisintu plans to see the play during the second week of its run. She will be a "Chancellor's Distinguished Lecturer" and will give talks on her work. For more information, please contact Dr LiCata or see the theatre's website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 19, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

A reminder that tickets are now on sale for the Royal Institution evening public lecture series on polymathy and science chaired by Oliver Morton, Chief News and Features Editor of Nature, programme organized by Sara Abdulla, publisher of Macmillan Science books and of Nature Network. Do come – and please spread the word to others who might.
On Wednesday of this week, 18 April, John Whitfield will talk on D’ Arcy Wentworth Thompson: ‘The last man who read everything’ Wednesday's lecture follows from last month's talk by Andrew Robinson on Thomas Young: ‘The last man who knew everything’
These lectures will be followed by a debate on 16 May 'What happened to the polymaths?', about whether interdisciplinarity is alive, dead, possible, desirable, vice or virtue.
Venue: The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE
Tickets: www.rigb.org ; (+44) 0 20 7409 2992
Details: 7-8.30pm. £8/£5 Ri Members, RCS Fellows/Members and concessions. (The Royal Institution is on tour while its building undergoes a refurbishment.)

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 16, 2007
Categories: Communication, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Goals for Public Policy - Scholarly Communications Statement of Principles | RIN

The UK's Research Information Network (RIN) has brought together research institutions, publishers, funders and libraries, who have reached agreement on a statement of "the principles and goals at the heart of the scholarly communications process". The signatories so far include:
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP)
The British Library
The Consortium of Research Libraries in the British Isles (CURL)
The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers
The Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC)
The Publishers Association
Research Councils UK (RCUK)
The Research Information Network (RIN)
The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL)
The Wellcome Trust.

The statement can be downloaded as a PDF (8 pages). The organizations have signed up to seven principles, including the aims and quality of research; recognition and reward; dissemination, publication and access; and preservation of printed and digital output.

According to an article in Research Information, "Michael Jubb, director of RIN, admitted that ‘at one level, the statement states the blindingly obvious’, but he was keen to point out that this is the first time that all the major players have agreed on what the goals of scholarly publishing are. ‘The next step is for us all to discuss how best to achieve these goals,’ said Jubb."

Posted by Maxine Clarke on April 12, 2007
Categories: Access, Public and media, Publishing | Permalink | Comments (0)

In this week's Nature, Hanno Wuerbel of the Justus Liebig University of Giessen, points out that although a large majority of the public is supportive of the principles of animal experimentation to improve biological knowledge, human and veterinary health, nature conservation and animal welfare, the public also expects strict adherence to the 3R-principle (replace, reduce, refine) to minimize animal numbers, pain, suffering and lasting harm.
A set of News Features in Nature (444; 807-816; 14 December 2006) identified considerable scope for advancing the 3Rs. Dr Wuerbel proposes that journals could play a much more effective role by including a 3R section in the methods section of published papers: first, to allow authors of controversial papers to detail their measures to minimize pain, suffering and lasting harm in the animals; and second, to allow authors to describe novel tools or techniques applied in the published work that serve the 3Rs.
More details about the proposal are described in the Nature Correspondence. We welcome views from authors and other scientists about the proposed policy.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on March 14, 2007
Categories: Animal experiments, Public and media | Permalink | Comments (17)

"Climate change, medicine, the food we eat, the way we give birth, the way we die. Science governs every aspect of our lives. But can we trust politicians to make the right decisions for us about those vital issues?" Former UK government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society, and many times Nature author Lord May, examines the "crucial but uneasy relationship between politics and science" on Radio 4, Thursday 15 Feb, 2100-2130 GMT in a programme entitled "Scientists advise ministers decide. "

Past, current and indeed future science programmes can be heard via the BBC radio 4 science website.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on February 13, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)

Pipes is a new application from Yahoo that lets the user "remix feeds and create new data mashups in a visual programming environment". Although this is rather technically expressed, Pipes is a graphical environment for a specific type of programming that takes the form of a kind of flowchart. It is a browser-based application that lets the user input RSS feeds, then filter them for text, images or other data -- which the user can then process and merge with other feeds, making the output (another RSS feed) reusable for anybody. There are lots of good examples on the Pipes site.
A more detailed commentary on Pipes, calling the application "a milestone in the history of the Internet" can be found on O'Reilly Radar, but there are plenty of other analyses on many Internet sites and blogs.
Alf Eaton at Nature Publishing Group has already created a pipe of all the NPG blogs, by combining their RSS feeds and filtering by user-defined keywords. Have a try, at the link provided.
http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pCo8Tmy32xG5lPXzXqIxGw/

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

The editorial in the February issue of Nature Immunology, "Increasing public awareness" (subscription required) discusses ways in which scientists and universities can benefit from mobilizing the power of public support.

"In the academic scientific community, a furor rages over the ever-tightening National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget that funds non-bioterrorism-related biomedical research. This past year, the topic was a fixture among the headlines of science journals and magazines, but it was buried deep in the 'issues' sections of most political candidates' websites and was rarely featured in mainstream news periodicals."

Scientists need to communicate to the US public so it is more aware of the situation and the role it can play in demanding more support for research. The editorial discusses several examples of how scientists have raised public consciousness, and provides some suggestions for more of the same. As the editorial concludes: "Whether the NIH budget will rebound anytime soon is not known. It therefore is up to scientists and universities to tap every available resource, particularly one as powerful as the American public".

From: Nature Immunology 8, 109 (2007); doi:10.1038/ni0207-109.

Posted by Maxine Clarke on January 22, 2007
Categories: Public and media | Permalink | Comments (0)