« Time, time, time | Main | Reactions - Milo Shaffer »

Six degrees of Stuart Schreiber

Finally, another way to inject some Hollywood into science: an adaptation of the 'six degrees of Kevin Bacon' game, or if you prefer, just 'six degrees of separation' in general. This one references Stuart Schreiber partially because he's obviously a great scientist in the field of chemical biology, but mostly because the alliteration is nice. If you fall into the California chemical biology contingent, you could play 'Six degrees of Schultz'; whichever floats your boat.

While knowing how I'm connected to Schreiber (me to Vince Rotello, to Harry Wasserman, to Gayle Schulte (then at Yale), to Schreiber; 4 degrees of separation) and Schultz (me to Scott Singleton, to Peter Dervan, to Schultz; 3 degrees of separation) is fun, the non-specific one seems more pervasive amongst conference attendees or just any scientists who are meeting and finding out, yet again, how small the world of science truly is (as when I randomly discovered my current coworker's undergraduate TA was one of my good friends in my postdoc lab). Even amongst people you already know, it's fun to find out how interconnected you are (for example, Nina Goodey, my undergraduate study partner (just moved to Montclair State), connects to me through Steve Benkovic (her postdoc advisor) who was also Singleton's postdoc advisor; perhaps we should rename the game 'Six degrees of Scott Singleton'? Also nice alliteration).

Are there any rules that would need to be changed to adapt this game to the wide world of science? Does someone have to work for someone else, or can just being at the same university at the same time (and presumably knowing each other) count? What about collaborating with someone? Can you count the person who hosted your visit to a university, or invited you to give a talk? These last two are certainly less easy to know about or verify, so perhaps a rule would be that there has to be evidence of the connection in the literature? (in which case, perhaps my connection to Schreiber would be more appropriately recapped as JACS 2001, 123, 7626; JOC 1989, 54, 2785; JOC 1992, 57, 2641; JACS 1987, 109, 4718). What do you guys think? And how do you connect?

While you think about that, I’ve got to go see if I can convince someone to make it six degrees warmer in here…

Catherine (associate editor, Nature Chemical Biology)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3520

Comments

I like the mathematician's approach. Have you heard of an Erdos number?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erd%C5%91s_number

The criteria ia a publication.

I had not heard of the Erdos Number - thanks for that link Linda!

It might be quite fun to make a tree of the connections between "self" and other scientists using this publication criterion. Because my publication record is quite small it is probably a managable project to create say a "3-level" tree. :)

There's already a nifty tool for neurobiologists who want to play this game:

http://neurotree.org/

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the editors before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive. We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately, or notify you in case we decide not publish your comment. Email addresses will not be made public on the blog.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thescepticalchymist at boston dot nature dot com '.

Subscribe

Subscribe to this blog's feeds:

[What is this?]

Recent Comments

Out of 843 total comments,
the most recent were:
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2