The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Áine Duffy, a postdoctoral fellow at Weill-Cornell Medical College in New York. I want to thank Áine for her participation.

The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Lizzie Buchen, a science writer for Discover Magazine in New York. I want to thank Lizzie for her participation.

Philanthropic entities, like the Simons Foundation, McKnight Foundation, and the Pew Charitable Trusts, have in the past, and are currently supporting, academic neuroscience research in a variety of ways. However, this source of funding is still not large enough to significantly shrink the gap. Enter Big Pharma, and little biotech, for that matter. The relationship between company and academic lab can take a variety of forms; from collaborative reagent testing/sharing, to complete underwriting of whole parts of the academic lab's program. At the meeting, I talked to PIs, post-docs and students regarding this relationship and everyone seemed to be extremely comfortable and happy with the arrangement. The companies, to their credit, see an obvious need, and are enthusiastically filling it. How enthusiastically? In one instance, a company that was collaborating with an academic lab flew a representative to this AD meeting, if only to hang up a poster for the researcher and remove it after the session was over. These previously-uneasy bedfellows are really not so much anymore. Certainly, there are fields that do not have strong ties to industry, but based on my conversations and observations, those unfortunate researchers tragically working in such areas are not avoiding contact out of elitist machismo, or fear of some "unholy" moral corruption, but rather, because they just haven't found a good "hook" to convince a company their lab's work could reap products or information that could eventually improve the company's bottom line.

I don't really see too many people raising an eyebrow anymore when they are told about a certain academic leaving for industry. The stigma is just not there, like it was when I was a graduate student (when I sat as the student representative on my graduate school admissions board, there was often talk of accepting only students who we could predict were more likely to do something "productive" with their future, and not throw away their education by going into the private sector). In addition, companies, more than ever, are encouraging their scientist employees to work on projects that are not necessarily related to specific product development goals, but rather have basic inquiry as the motivating factor (like at Genentech). In my opinion, by loosening the scope of the research they choose to fund, companies place themselves in a better position to attract elite scientists. These strong thinkers bring obvious intellectual capital to the table, assisting with the company's product development, and are simultaneously kept happy because of the intellectual freedom to pursue other projects. This can only enrich and grow the entire creative research process within the company. So, for the moment, the strong marriage between academia and industry seems to be good for science as a whole. But how long will the honeymoon last?

The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Adam Packer, a graduate student at Columbia University in the lab of Rafa Yuste. I want to thank Adam for his participation.

When it comes to the integration of scientific communication and technology, I am extremely optimistic, and although I don't reject Dr. Harel's idea entirely, I just don't see it taking off in its presently-proposed form.

Sure, I bemoaned the lack of unpublished data being presented at meetings in this blog before, but I draw a distinction here. Presenting unpublished data ready for public consumption is still a vastly safer endeavor than publicly revealing one's approaches for tackling an interesting problem or creating new research tools. In addition, there are countless stories in science describing how one particular experimental strategy looked odd or downright foolish, at least until it produced a fantastic result. It is always exciting to reveal one's seemingly foolish strategy once it has been successful, but until then, most people would rather pursue their hair-brained ideas by themselves. Come on, how many of you out there didn't have a "secret project" that you never told your PI about, at least not until after it worked? Sometimes, we don't want public criticism when we are in brainstorming mode, begrudgingly granting an exception to our study section colleagues.

Guarding potentially wacky experimental escapades is similar to the secretive nature that soon-to-be parents adopt regarding their selected baby names. They are not going to tell you the names until after the birth of the child because, frankly, they don't want your feedback. After the birth certificate has already been filed, you, being the politically-correct individual that you are, will oblige them by complementing on their selection, since it is obviously too late to change anything. I feel the same concept applies to research that yields positive results. I am not suggesting that scientists shouldn't or don't discuss their potential experiments with others, but bouncing ideas off of trusted lab mates and posting them in a public repository are very different beasts. I simply feel that scientists are far from reaching the comfort level required to lay bare their most intimate experimental designs to the general public without first fully testing them to see if they work.

Hindsight is always 20/20. Most of the time, reviewer comments, whether on a publication or an RO1 proposal, are fairly constructive and can improve a paper or grant. After receiving feedback from a small group of peers (the study-section included), the grant writer will likely adopt certain suggestions, and modify other portions of the grant. This makes the proposal a better document and more likely to be funded by the agency represented by the original reviewers, or perhaps by another funding organization, if the author decides to try his/her luck elsewhere. Since any astute reviewer would likely detect the same major flaws, it would serve the author well NOT to leave the grant in a repository, but to instead modify and revise it for the next assessment. What advantage is it to the researcher, or to another funding agency, to have a sub-par grant evaluated again, using up precious time and reviewing resources? Of course, the public repository could be made so that new versions of the grant could be uploaded, appending the older version, but in the interim as the author is revising the grant (which can take months), the weaker version would be sitting there possibly turning off potential agencies (who may not bother to even look at a revision if they found the original version unsuitable) or causing confusion if the authors decide to move in a different scientific direction, with the revised proposal scarcely resembling its parent.

Currently, this grant repository does not exist, but could pre-print servers, like Nature Precedings, act in its place? After all, although they are currently not posting user-submitted research proposals, Precedings has listed some open science proposals. There may even be some interest in this submission category, as indicated by a recent blog post. Do I think that this is a good use of Nature Precedings? The answer is no. A preprint server and grant repository are separate entities and should remain as such. Mixing proposals and non-peer-reviewed research would not benefit the community and could potentially cause confusion regarding the mission of the preprint server. I think that the editors of Precedings are following the right course by limiting the submissions to data and completed experiments. Which means that the preliminary data in grants would be perfectly appropriate to submit, but let's leave out the "Aims" sections.

I mentioned at the beginning of this post that I didn't entirely reject Dr. Harel's idea. The mixing and matching of proposals and agencies, akin to my Monster.com reference, is not a bad one and could work. It is often hard for scientists to keep up with all of the new private foundations and charitable entities willing to provide millions of dollars to push progress in their favorite research area. But perhaps I could limit the scope of Dr. Harel's proposal and suggest that any centralized repository would provide a simple one-page form allowing a laboratory to briefly detail their interests and loosely describe their plans, providing just enough information for the funding agency to "invite" the full proposal, if appropriate, while protecting the ideas of the scientist from general public exposure. These characteristics could potentially promote increased participation by those writing the proposals. With application requests and applications in the same place, it would only be a matter of time before the two found one another. This "limited scope" model of the repository would also still provide a means to preserve Dr. Harel's other good ideas of encouraging joint-funding (if two agencies are both interested in the same project), or inspiring collaborative projects between labs seeking to examine the same questions.

I guess I'll get to work pitching my twist on this idea to the people controlling the money dedicated to special projects here at NPG and see if we can get "Nature Grant Matchmaker" off the ground...

The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Andrew Hires, a postdoctoral fellow at Janelia Farm Research Campus in the lab of Loren Looger. I want to thank Andrew for his participation.

Like the Nature journals' transfer system, the NPRC system is completely voluntary for authors. Editors at one journal know that a paper was reviewed elsewhere only if the author chooses to inform them. If the reviews from the first journal do not seem likely to facilitate acceptance at another journal, the authors are welcome to send the paper to the second journal directly and have the paper considered as a fresh submission. However, if the author feels that the reviews may be helpful, transferring them can accelerate the editorial process at the second journal, reducing publication delays. Each journal will transfer reviews only once, to ensure that each transfer includes the paper's full transfer history within the NPRC system. That is, once the paper has been considered by a second journal, only that journal can transfer the reviews to a third journal.

Referees also have the option of whether to participate in the transfer system. When they review a paper, they are asked to state whether the editors may release their names along with the review in the event that the paper is transferred to another journal. If a referee declines, that review is passed along to the next journal anonymously. It is most helpful to the recipient journal if the reviews are accompanied by the identities of the referees, so we strongly encourage our referees to participate in the NPRC system whenever possible. All editors within the consortium are committed to maintaining the confidentiality of transferred reviews, just as they would for their own review process, and do not reveal the referees' identities to the authors.

Finally, editors have full discretion in deciding how to use transferred reviews. The receiving editor may choose to accept or reject a paper based on these reviews, without further consideration; to send the paper to some or all of the previous referees for evaluation of the authors' revisions; or to request a fresh set of reviews from new referees.

Only comments to the authors are transferred to the receiving journal. Confidential comments to the editors are not passed along. Thus, to ensure transparency in the review process, both at Nature Neuroscience and at other journals after the paper has been transferred, we encourage referees to include all their concerns about the paper in comments to the authors. The small amount of extra time required to word the comments diplomatically for the authors should be more than counterbalanced by the resulting improvement in the peer review process. Many members of the community have strong views on the issue of confidential comments, which can be found on our blog, Action Potential.

Referees should use comments to the editors to communicate ethical concerns and for comments that may reveal their identity or other confidential information; for example, to compare the paper to a related paper under consideration that they have also been asked to evaluate. Comments to editors should also be used to indicate whether or not the referee is willing to have his or her name revealed to the receiving editor if the paper is transferred.

We look forward to your comments below.

The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Margaret Ho, a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute of Molecular Biology, Academia Sinica Taiwan in the lab of Cheng-Ting Chien. I want to thank Margaret for her participation.

Over the past 10 years, especially the last five, the whole world has been amazed by the Chinese economy. To me, however, the improvement in biological science research in China is much more amazing. In the summer of 1998 I left Beijing and went to the US to pursue a Ph.D. in neuroscience. In 2007, after nine years of graduate study and post-doc training abroad, I came back to Beijing, seeking opportunities for further career development. What a difference some strong funding and visionary directives, not to mention a decade, can make.

What’s the driving force behind these amazing achievements? I think it’s the convergence of (1) government investment, (2) a backflow of internationally-trained scientists and (3) efforts made by the international science press:

(1) The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) is a major funding agency for basic science research in China. The budget for the NSFC was 1.85 billion yuan in the FY 1998 and 1999 combined. This number has increased to ~ 6 billion yuan in FY 2008 alone (1.8 billion will go to biology-related research), an average 21% annual increase for the past ten years. A similar, or even greater increase, has happened in other funding agencies, such as the Ministry of Science and Technology. Since 2007, the central government has stressed the importance of science and technology for the continued growth of the Chinese economy. We expect that government funding will continue to rise for a while longer.

(2) Many Chinese scholars, who went abroad in the 1980s or earlier have now established themselves as successful international scientists. Some have reached a stage in their career where they want to do more for Chinese society. China can now provide them with genuine opportunities to play leading roles in shaping the future of Chinese basic research. Some of them (Mu-Ming Poo, Xiaodong Wang, Yi Rao, Yigong Shi, just to name a few) have become the directors of the various institutes, centers and departments in China, implementing the infrastructure of a modern research institute onto the “old” Chinese system. On the other hand, younger scientists, like me, after completing a PhD or post-doctoral training abroad, are attracted by the exciting job opportunities and improved living standards back home.

(3) Another driving force also comes from abroad. In the past few years, major scientific publication groups have started to operate in China. They make efforts to help Chinese scholars publish in English, and provide services to help institutions raise their profile and international awareness of their top research.

The Chinese neuroscience community, like all other basic research communities, is in a fast growing phase and thus still faces a lot of challenges. Despite the increase in government funding, the grant size is generally small. In FY 2008, an average free application grant from the NSFC is ~300,000 yuan for 3 years, only ~US$14,000 a year. Most of the big grants (>1 million yuan) go to only a few institutes and labs in Beijing and Shanghai, a major reason for why these two cities have dominated the neuroscience landscape. One of my friends is a professor in Xiangya Medical School in Hunan province, one of the top five medical schools in China. It’s difficult for her to get grants from the NSFC. These labs live on small grants from local sources, and address questions that are not that “sexy”, very much like the situation in Beijing 10 years ago. As a developing country with a GDP per capita of just over US$2000, and millions of people still struggling to make ends meet, it’s difficult for the Chinese government to match the research budgets of Japan, Europe or the US. To support a large, productive and creative basic research community, we need to think of better ways to attract funding from other sources, such as through international collaboration, interest from pharmaceutical companies, and perhaps even from private donations or philanthropy from the Chinese nouveau-riche.

Another serious challenge for China is still the continuous loss of scientific personnel to the developed world. Although I argued above that this trend is beginning to reverse, each year, many talented and bright blossoming scientists still go to the US or European countries for graduate school or post-doctoral training. Until recently, only a small fraction of these individuals eventually came back. Although there are reasons to be optomistic regarding the reversal, does China need to do more in order to keep them home (e.g. playijng a more active role), or wait for this initial trickle of brain-drain-reversal to continue and (hopefully) broaden?

We must continue to promote the successful policies that have brought us here, while simultaneously establishing new and innovative strategies to nurture future growth. Conducting ground-breaking research, work that is uniquely Chinese, will undoubtedly contribute to the growth of the economy and the well-being of the Chinese people. The future looks bright and it is an exciting time to be a Chinese neuroscientist.

The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Ben Saunders, a graduate student at the University of Michigan in the lab of Terry Robinson. I want to thank Ben for his participation.

This is the highest profile retraction that I can recall in neuroscience, but so far, there has been little fallout. Perhaps that's because the original findings were notable only in the neuroscience community rather than in the general public. Regardless, it indicates that neuroscience and its well known labs are not immune from fraudulent data. Although I admire Buck's swift and direct action, it concerns me that the first author has been assigned the lion's share of the blame. This seems like a familiar refrain, and I find it troubling.

The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Alfredo Pereira, Jr, an adjunct professor at São Paulo State University. I want to thank Alfredo for his participation.