Action Potential

Nature Network Journal Club: Curbing cocaine addiction using gene therapy

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:28:42 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper discusses a potential therapeutic strategy involving the upregulation of the dopamine receptor D2R that may be beneficial in the treatment of cocaine abuse and addiction.

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.

Nature Neuroscience turns 10!

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:20:29 -0500

Our May editorial takes a brief look back at some of the history of Nature Neuroscience. We also present some of the most-cited papers over the past decade. This is an interesting exercise, as it provides an opportunity to reflect on the interests of both the authors and readers over the past decade.

Nature Network Journal Club: Giving sounds the silent treatment

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:36:16 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper provides evidence that in unanesthetized animals, sounds are sparsely represented in the auditory cortex.

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.

Big Pharma and academia becoming more and more cozy

Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:22:46 -0500

I recently attended the Alzheimer's Disease Keystone meeting in Keystone, CO and became more acutely aware of something than ever before: academia and drug companies really like one another. Sure, the latter always loved the former, since collaborating with university-based scientists often made the publications arising from the private sector look a little more legit. On the contrary, the reciprocity in this relationship has not always been there. There is without a doubt some sub-disciplinary differences in this complex relationship, but in the basic science departments that I lurked around, if you were associated with a company (or worse, left academia for a position there, succumbing to the power of the Dark Side), there was always talk of whether or not you could be trusted. Because companies need publications to prove the legitimacy of their product, right? And the legitimacy determines how much money everyone makes, right? So with such conflicts of interest, could the scientist, or the data being produced by these people, be trusted?

Nature Network Journal Club: Neuronal dynamics mediate efficient coding

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 14:41:25 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper discusses the role for brief adaptation in the improvement of population-based encoding accuracy during sensory information processing.

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.

What to do with your unfunded proposals - place them in a centralized repository?

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:34:59 -0500

I would say no. Grant proposals are a precious commodity, especially in this day and age of reduced funding and evaporating money. However, in a recent Nature correspondence, Dr. Noam Harel describes his vision for a centralized grant repository, ideally open to the public, where researchers could place their best ideas, allowing various funding agencies to discover the plans most-suited to their respective agendas. Dr. Harel likens this potential web manifestation to something like eBay, Facebook or Google, but for scientists and funding agencies. A more apt analogy might be Monster.com, with both sides searching for their ideal match, and a long-term relationship (perhaps I am now making it sound more like eHarmony.com...).

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.

Nature Network Journal Club: Getting a GRASP on synapse location

Sun, 30 Mar 2008 14:09:07 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper proposes a new strategy to track the location of select synapses using split fluorescent proteins.

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.

NN Joins Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:21:20 -0500

When the community is overburdened by peer review, it's everybody's problem. As of today, Nature Neuroscience has become part of the solution by joining the Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium, a flexible system that allows voluntary participation by authors, referees and editors. Here are more details, from our April editorial:

Nature Network Journal Club: Sticky matters configuring a synapse

Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:03:45 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper explores the in vivo function of neurexins in the coordination of pre- and postsynaptic apposition using Drosophila.

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.

Haihong Ye: Amazing changes in Chinese neuroscience over the past decade

Mon, 17 Mar 2008 13:47:45 -0500

[This is the inaugural post for a new feature at Action Potential. Periodically, we will provide insights from a regional correspondent on the interesting news, changes, or issues particularly affecting neuroscience in a particular location. Today's post is from one of our Asian correspondents, Haihong Ye of the Institute for Biophysics in the Chinese Academy of Sciences. She reflects on the dramatic changes that have occurred within Chinese neuroscience during her decade-long absence from this now-flourishing community. We examined these issues in our March editorial, but now invite you to provide your opinion. - N.G.]

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.

Nature Network Journal Club: Drug craving and internal state

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:59:31 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper is on the role of insular cortex in drug craving and the behavioral signs of abstinence-related malaise.

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.

Neuroscience and Web 2.0: Participation may vary

Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:51:30 -0500

In the last couple of years, after the recent explosion in the number of resources where scientific discussions can take place rapidly and without boundaries (i.e., using the internet), one could easily have predicted that we were on the cusp of a revolution; the way in which scientists communicated with each other regarding data was about to change forever. Although poster session chatter at your favorite scientific meeting was never going to be replaced, now researchers could interact, trade ideas and get feedback from anyone, anywhere, at any time. Sounds pretty good, right? Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like neuroscientists are taking advantage of these cool new offerings. I could extrapolate to biology in general, but for more simplicity (and other obvious reasons), let's stick to what we know best.

Retraction reaction

Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:54:44 -0500

Nobel prize-winning neuroscientist Linda Buck has retracted a 2001 Nature paper. In the retraction in this week's Nature, the authors report difficulty replicating the data and 'inconsistencies' between the original data and figures and data printed in the paper. Buck told Nature reporter Heidi Ledford that the figures and data in question were contributed by the first author, Zhihua Zou, who was unavailable for comment.

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.

Nature Network Journal Club: Crossing the threshold to consciousness

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 13:29:29 -0500

The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper is attempting to understand the neural mechanisms that distinguish between conscious and unconscious processing, and is from a collaborative group in Paris.

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.

Anti antidepressants

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 11:14:40 -0500

By now, you've likely read a shocking headline questioning the effectiveness of the latest generation of antidepressants. Kirsch et al. report that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are only slightly more effective than placebos at reducing depression in a meta-analysis of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) data. Are these data really worth all the fuss?