Nautilus

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)