My graduate advisor, like many scientists, was not known for his touchy-feely approach to mentorship. But he did occasionally dispense nuggets of advice in the form of a joke. He came out with this one—perhaps told in many laboratories—in response to my frustration at getting equivocal results from experiments that I thought were obvious:

A man who had lost some change on the street at night was frustrated because he could not seem to retrieve it. His friend, wanting to help, asked, “Why do you keep looking in this one place?” The man replied, “Because that is where the light is shining.”

How many scientists keep looking where the light is shining? What do they miss when they fail to explore what’s in the darkness?

I can think of no better example of people searching little-known areas—and striking gold—than one featured in our February issue by Erika Check. In her story “Gut Warfare,” Check describes how, after difficult experiments, HIV researchers have come to view immune cells in the gut as key to the pathogenesis of the virus.

Just a few years ago almost all HIV researchers focused their studies on immune cells in the blood, but the topic of HIV in the gut is now all the buzz at HIV meetings. The findings have the potential to change how HIV is treated and have already shifted the emphasis in vaccine development to mucosal surfaces.

When I first covered this advance as the news and views editor in 2004, I was struck by the fact that some of the earliest evidence for it emerged in the 1990s including a 1998 study in Science. Why did it take so many years for the subject to become the next hot thing in HIV research? Why did so many HIV scientists seem to ignore the early clues?

I don’t know the answer. But in all fairness, the advance required extremely challenging experiments—gut biopsies taken from individuals shortly after HIV infection.

I’ve heard researchers in many fields complain about mindsets that impede progress and restrict grant funding for fresh ideas. Does too much competition make people jump on the same fashionable but obvious project, pummeling each other in the light? I’m not sure what it is, but I do know that as a graduate student, I had a strong practical interest in getting published and getting out of school.

What are some of the untapped areas in your field? Have you seen certain ideas, perhaps easier ones, prevail for long periods of time—while truer answers languished in some hard-to-find dark crevice?

Posted by Charlotte Schubert at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I love sleep. I need at least 7 hours to feel human and when I'm sleep-deprived, it's just so much harder to make sense of what the news articles I'm trying to edit are all about. And I'm not alone in feeling this way.

There's no doubt that sleep is good. Not getting enough sleep can make you, among other things, cranky, forgetful and obese. Scientists are now saying that if you can add on a regular midday nap, say 30 minutes three times a week, you can cut your risk of heart disease by 37%.

This might explain why heart disease is lower in countries where people take siestas, say the scientists, who followed 23,681 Greek men and women ages 20 to 86 for about six years. They published their results in this week's Archives of Internal Medicine.

I think it might also have something to do with the famous low-fat diet in Mediterranean countries. In India, where I'm from, people also take midday naps--something to do with escaping the sun's grueling rays for at least a couple of hours. India has one of the highest rates of heart disease in the world.

But hey, why look a gift horse in the mouth? This is all the encouragement I've ever needed. I asked today if I could nap at work every day. You know, for my health.

My boss Juan Carlos Lopez, Nature Medicine's chief editor, hails from Mexico and spent many years in Spain. Naturally, he fully supports the concept of a midday nap — in theory.

JC, as we call him around here, says he sometimes takes a nap on the weekends, but no more than 15 minutes. "If it's more than 15 minutes, it screws up my whole day," he says.

Suportive boss that he is, he says I can try it if I want, but my colleagues will probably yell in my ear, or something equally pleasant, and wake me up.

Sigh. I guess my daily siesta will have to remain a dream.

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 04:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

So Harvard has gone and elected itself a woman president, the first in the university's 370-year history. That means half of all Ivy league universities now have women at the helm, which is a remarkable statistic.

A few weeks ago, scientists got a little excited that Nobel Laureate Tom Cech and neurobiologist Steven Hyman were being considered for Harvard president. But Drew Gilpin Faust, a historian, became the odds-on favorite after Cech withdrew his name from the race, saying he was choosing to stay on as president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. And who can blame him? The Harvard job, as Larry Summers knows well, is no cake walk.

I'm a bit wary that Faust's appointment will be bandied about as proof that Harvard has addressed its problems with creating equal opportunities for women. But perhaps scientists still have reason to rejoice. The New York Times reports today that:

Asked Sunday whether her appointment signified the end of sex inequities at the university, Dr. Faust said: “Of course not. There is a lot of work still to be done, especially in the sciences.”

Will Drew Gilpin Faust take Harvard's gender inequities to task?

Posted by Apoorva Mandavilli at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)