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.
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?
A woman in the US has decided that she loved her pit bull (named Booger) so much, that having him all over again is definitely worth the $150,000 price tag. I saw this story in the BBC, reporting how a Korean company, RNL Bio, has taken its initial order for pet dog cloning, the first such venture of commercial scientific canine cloning (a pet cat was first cloned in 2004). The lead scientist at RNL Bio, Dr Lee Byeong-chun, had previously worked with disgraced stem cell scientist Dr Hwang Woo-suk, whose fraudulent publications created quite a stir (we referred to that scandal on Action potential here.)
The client, Bernann McKunney, gave RNL Bio ear tissue from “Booger”, preserved by an American biotech firm before the dog died 18 months ago. Ms. McKunney had become quite devoted to her dog after she claimed it saved her life, coming to her aid while she was being attacked by another dog, an encounter that cost her an arm. For those of you wishing you had the six figures required to re-create your close canine companion, never fear, RNL Bio’s marketing director, Cho Seong-ryul believes that the cloning costs should come down to be under $50,000, as the industry begins to “take-off”.
If a disease affects men and women differently, does the disease’s mechanism differ by sex? My guess would be no. However, a recent article has me wondering. Schizophrenia symptoms, age of onset, and disease course differ in men and women, and some researchers report increased risk of schizophrenia in men relative to women. Now Shifman et al. report a single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) associated with schizophrenia in women but not men in a recent article in PLoS Genetics.
The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper is on selective nociceptor inhibition, from the lab of Clifford Woolf at Harvard.
The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Damien Samways, a post-doctoral fellow at St. Louis University in the lab of Terrance Egan. I want to thank Damien for his participation.
The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) at Harvard University voted Tuesday to adopt an open-access policy, providing a free repository for finished papers, according to a recent press release. This move will allow for greater dissemination of scholarly work conducted at Harvard, says Stuart Shieber, a professor at FAS. Shieber states that a combination of a restrictive publishing system and the “astronomical” cost of journals have led the Harvard professors to support such a venture. An official description of the proposal that was actually discussed by the FAS on Tuesday is here.
As my colleague from Nature Precedings, Hilary Spencer, points out in a recent Nature Network forum, this entire policy is very vague with regards to what is meant by the scholarly article or the “final version.” Is that the final, journal-produced PDF? The peer-reviewed, unpublished, non-copy-edited version? The non-peer-reviewed pre-print? According to an analysis written up on TheScientist.com, this mandate would require that published articles be submitted. However, go back and re-read the original proposal and tell me where it says that explicitly.
The next installment of the Nature Network Neuroscience group journal club is now live. The paper focuses on the generation of new hair cells from avian mesenchymal tissue.
The contributor discussing this paper for the neuroscience group is Shelley Batts, a graduate student at the University of Michigan. I want to thank Shelley for her participation.
The Darwin Day celebration was initiated by Dr. Robert Stephens and was held at Stanford University on April 22, 1995 to celebrate the scientific accomplishments of Charles Darwin. In subsequent years, the event was changed to be on or around the birthday of Darwin (February 12, 1809) and has had many illustrious speakers take part, including Richard Dawkins and Donald Johanson. The celebration has become a global one, with museums, academic institutes, private foundations, and others sponsoring some form of a tribute to this famous scientist.
A consolidated list of this year’s events, held around the world, is here. Tell us what you plan to do on Darwin day, and if you take part, report back here on what you learned, disagreed with, or experienced. If we get a nice response here, perhaps we can prepare an event synopsis for ARJ, in case their readers miss out on the celebration.
In mid-January, the Science and Engineering Indicators 2008 was released by the National Science Board. The goal of this report is to provide quantitative information about US science for private and public policymakers, as mandated by law.
This study is full of interesting information, and feel free to point out any gems that you dig up. For now, let’s focus on a couple of sections, namely science education and the section entitled “Public Attitudes and Understanding.” In science education, there are both reasons to cheer and be alarmed; as for the public understanding of science….be afraid…be very afraid.