This year, the editors want input from the scientific community. Go here to see the nominees and cast your vote. Interestingly, you can vote positively or negatively for a technique as well as leave comments in discussion forums. Although the ultimate choice will still remain an editorial decision, at least the editors will get feedback from the community.

This is some great use of Web2.0 to get the community engaged and I hope that you will participate.

What does mirror self-recognition really mean?

Janelia East and the quest for round scientists

I've greatly enjoyed my year+ on AP and want to thank all of the readers and commenters who provided me with the incentive and motivation to continue doing this. Let the debates continue...

In the UK, there is increasing grumbling that this is Not A Good Thing, with many university staff members warning that some of the tactics involved in raising these revenues will dilute the value of the degrees that are being doled out.

This stems from a change in Swiss law back in 2004, which suggested that the dignity of animals had to be considered (see Article 120). As the accompanying editorial points out, using a subjective concept like dignity as our guiding compass in determining the moral legitimacy of research proposals is not only absurd, but dangerous.

I’ll leave you to read the editorial for more of the background as to why we examined this relationship, but I will repeat a few keys things here. The main purpose of this post is to provide more of the details behind the data and analysis, and to initiate a good discussion.

A recent Nature editorial extends the previous discussion that began in the AP post "Retraction reaction", concerning the retraction of a paper from the lab of Nobel Prize winner Linda Buck. The editorial touches on the issue of a significant weakness in the scientific process. Namely that save for a select few in the "know", the community-at-large rarely learns of what went wrong in a study, leading to its eventual retraction. This is indeed a concern and an on-going problem.

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.

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.

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.