MacArthur Foundation awards 2013 ‘genius grants’

Posted on 25 Sep 2013 by Helen Shen

Astrophysicist Sara Seager is named a 2013 MacArthur Fellow{credit}John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation{/credit}

Edited to add Julie Livingston, whom we mistakenly omitted from our list, and to correctly describe the research of Carl Haber.

Thirteen US scientists number among the 24 MacArthur Fellows chosen this year by the philanthropic MacArthur Foundation, based in Chicago, Illinois. The designation honours creative and accomplished individuals in any field with strong potential for future achievements. Winners will receive ‘no-strings-attached’ awards—commonly called ‘genius grants’—worth US$625,000, paid over five years.

Phil Baran, an organic chemist at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, has devised new approaches for synthesizing large quantities of pharmacological compounds from natural sources in the laboratory. He recently developed a cost-effective method for making cortistatin A, a marine-derived substance with potential to treat macular degeneration and cancer.

C. Kevin Boyce, a paleobotanist at Stanford University in California, examines extinct and living plants to link ancient and present-day ecosystems. He has deduced that the evolution of flowering plants influenced the water cycle in the ancient tropics, giving rise to the rainfall patterns and rich biodiversity characteristic of modern rainforests.

Colin Camerer, a behavioural economist and game theory expert at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is using brain scans to understand how people predict the actions of others in complex economic interactions.

Angela Duckworth, a psychologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, focuses on the roles of grit (determination to achieve long-term goals), and self-control (managing immediate impulses) in personal success.

Craig Fennie, a materials scientist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, uses theoretical physics and solid-state chemistry to predict desirable electrical, magnetic and optical properties in new candidate materials. His work could lead to electronic devices with enhanced memory storage or materials with improved abilities to capture solar energy.

Carl Haber, an experimental physicist at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, California, has pioneered a method to extract high-quality sound from damaged or deteriorating analog recordings, such as vinyl records. The technique was used to recover the sound of Alexander Graham Bell’s voice from a recording from 1885, which was released earlier this year.

Dina Katabi, a computer scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, specializes in wireless data transmission. She has developed algorithms to reduce data loss over WiFi networks, and is working to protect personal wireless devices such as pacemakers from unwanted interference and manipulation.

Julie Livingston, a medical historian at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, explores the treatment of chronic illness in Botswana using archival information and ethnographic techniques.

David Lobell, an agricultural ecologist at Stanford University in California, studies the effects of climate change on crop production and food security. His research on maize in Africa indicates that the plant is more sensitive to extreme heat and drought than previously thought.

Susan Murphy, a statistician at University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, is applying statistical theories to personalized medicine. For chronic or recurring problems such as depression or substance abuse, Murphy has developed a model to evaluate how physicians should modify ongoing treatment regimens based on the patient’s current state and their response to previous treatments.

Sheila Nirenberg, a neuroscientist at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, New York, has designed a prosthetic device that could one day restore vision to patients suffering from macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa. The device bypasses the eye’s photoreceptor cells, which are damaged in these conditions, and sends electrical signals directly to retinal ganglion cells—the next stop in the visual pathway.

Ana Maria Rey, an atomic physicist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, is developing theories that could increase the stability of quantum computers, improve atomic clocks, and lead to new insights in quantum entanglement.

Sara Seager, an astrophysicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge who has been a member of the Kepler science team, is focused on finding and understanding planets outside of the Solar System. She has pioneered methods for studying exoplanet atmospheres, and is developing small, low-cost satellites for better observing the planets.

Obama nominates astrophysicist to lead NSF

Posted on 31 Jul 2013 by Helen Shen

Under Cordova's presidency, Purdue University attracted record levels of research funding.

{credit}Mark Simons, Purdue University{/credit}

For more on Córdova’s nomination, see our expanded news story: https://www.nature.com/news/astrophysicist-tapped-to-lead-nsf-1.13496

Astrophysicist France Anne Córdova has been tapped to head the US National Science Foundation (NSF), which has been run by an acting director since March 2013. President Barack Obama announced the pick on 31 July. If confirmed, Córdova would fill the gap left by Subra Suresh, who announced his resignation in February, after serving less than half of his six-year term leading the US$7 billion agency.

Córdova, who earned her doctorate from the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, served as president of Purdue University in West Lafayette, Indiana, from 2007 to 2012. In 2010, she oversaw the creation of the Colombia-Purdue Institute for Scientific Research, which aims to foster scientific collaboration between the Colombia and the United States.

Earlier in her career, Córdova worked in the Earth and Space Sciences Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, and went on to lead the department of astronomy and astrophysics at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. In September 1993, Córdova was named NASA’s first female chief scientist.

“She’s a very accomplished academic researcher,” says Umar Mohideen, chairman of the physics and astronomy department at the University of California, Riverside, where Córdova served as chancellor from 2002-2007. “She’s managed academia, and those are qualities that would make her a good choice.”

Córdova now begins the sometimes lengthy process of winning confirmation from the US Senate — normally an easy process for candidates to lead NSF. But her nomination comes at a time when Republican lawmakers in the Senate have used procedural tactics to slow consideration of Obama administration picks. EPA chief Gina McCarthy was confirmed on 18 July after a historic delay caused by political infighting, and Obama has struggled to fill several other top science positions.

Neuroscientists brainstorm goals for US brain-mapping initiative

Posted on 06 May 2013 by Helen Shen

More than 150 neuroscientists descended on Arlington, Virginia this week to begin planning the Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative—an ambitious but still hazy proposal to understand how the brain works by recording activity from an unprecedented numbers of neurons at once.

President Barack Obama announced the initiative on 2 April, which will be carried out by three federal agencies—the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)—alongside a handful of private foundations. Most neuroscientists have relished the attention on their field, but have also been left wondering what it means in scientific terms to “understand” the brain, what it will take to get there, and how much will be feasible in the programme’s projected 10-year lifespan. They gathered at an inaugural NSF planning meeting taking place from 5-6 May to discuss their ideas and concerns.

“The belief is we’re ready for a leap forward,” says Van Wedeen, a neurobiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, and one of the NSF meeting organizers. “Which leap and in which direction is still being debated.”

The NSF group invited researchers representing neuroscience, computer science, and engineering — as many as would fit in the hotel conference room. Another estimated 200 or so followed the meeting by live webcast on Monday. Roughly 75 participants accepted NSF’s open invitation to submit one-page documents outlining the major obstacles currently impeding neuroscience research.

Many researchers stressed the importance of developing more sophisticated theoretical models of the brain. “We want to know the principles of neuronal function, not just recording of their activity,” says Huda Zoghbi, a molecular neurobiologist at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

Others warned of the need to plan for a data deluge. “We’re spectacularly underprepared to capture the data that are going to be generated,” says Randal Burns, a computer scientist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland. Existing brain imaging techniques can generate 1 terabyte of data per day, and proposed technologies may be poised to far exceed that rate, he says.

One day earlier, the same hotel hosted the first face-to-face meeting of the NIH ‘Dream Team’ — a panel of 15 neuroscience researchers appointed by NIH director Francis Collins to lead the agency’s efforts on the BRAIN Initiative. The first NIH meeting and its agenda was closed to outside scientists and the public. “We’re just trying to get ourselves organized,” explains Bill Newsome, a neuroscientist at Stanford University in California, and co-chair of the NIH group, who stayed to attend the NSF meeting as well. He says that the NIH group will begin collecting public input in the coming weeks via a new website.

US budget cuts inevitable as science agencies brace for next fight

Posted on 01 Mar 2013 by Helen Shen

Francis Collins{credit}NIH{/credit}

After months of anticipation and weeks of escalating political rhetoric, the axe is about to fall. At 11:59 p.m. tonight, US federal agencies will absorb across-the-board budget cuts — known as sequestration — to all government programmes, including 5% decreases in science and other non-military operations.

The cuts, which would save US$85 billion this year and reduce the federal deficit by $1.2 trillion over the next nine years, have already started to be felt among scientists, as agencies delayed making decisions in anticipation. But with the writing on the wall, science agencies began opening up this week about their plans for the cuts — and they include a greater degree of flexibility than typically advertised (see ‘Science agencies prepare for cuts’). Outgoing US National Science Foundation director Subra Suresh issued a statement on 27 February indicating that the agency expected to maintain funding for already-approved research grants while eliminating about 1,000 new grants.

In a news conference on 25 February, Francis Collins, director of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), projected that the agency would not complete funding for certain multi-year grants (see ‘Starvation diet’). Collins said that certain NIH contracts and support for conference travel might also be affected. “Pretty much all of those things will begin to happen on March 1 but obviously the impact will grow over the course of the following weeks,” Collins said.

With just hours left on the clock, lawmakers were looking past sequestration to a more threatening deadline later this month. The temporary spending bill that has since last fall sustained the government at 2012 budget levels expires on 27 March. Republicans and Democrats must pass another ‘continuing resolution’ or craft a more comprehensive 2013 budget agreement to avert a government shutdown. “Everybody agrees shutdown of the government is irresponsible,” says Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative affairs for the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland. She says that risk could provide inescapable pressure for both parties to compromise on spending cuts and tax hikes to reach a budget agreement.

Some observers, including Francis Collins, hope that any budget agreement ahead of the 27 March deadline could lessen the blow of sequestration. “I will remain hopeful until somebody tells me it’s not possible,” he said.

Image credit: NIH

US lawmakers propose easing limits on foreign scientists and engineers

Posted on 30 Jan 2013 by Helen Shen

The United States is starting to look like a more welcoming place for foreign scientists and engineers. On 29 January, a group of US senators proposed legislation to vastly increase the number of visas for skilled workers. And earlier this week, President Barack Obama and a group of lawmakers separately floated more sweeping proposals to liberalize immigration policy.

The Senate bill, sponsored by two Democrats and two Republicans, is the most concrete of the new measures: it would add at least 50,000 spots to the 65,000 allowed each year for H-1B visas, which are used by employers to hire technically trained workers. Computer programmers and information-technology specialists accounted for about 42% of H-1B workers between 2000 and 2009, according to government estimates.

The bill includes a provision that would probably expand the number of H-1B visas even more: if the annual limit is reached within 45 days of the application period, an additional 20,000 visas would be granted.

The bill also offers some expanded opportunities for scientists and engineers to obtain permanent residency and citizenship through other employment-based visas. Unlike with H-1B visas, immigrants admitted with EB visas can eventually apply for citizenship (see Immigration: Waiting for Green). Under the proposed law, several groups would be exempted from EB caps — including people who earn US advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), as well as exceptional professors and researchers.

“This bill is a common sense approach to ensuring that those who have come here to be educated in high-tech fields have the ability to stay here,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (Republican, Utah), who co-sponsored the legislation. “It’s good for workers, good for businesses trying to grow, and good for our economy.”

Continue reading →

Now, where did I put that Ebola?

Posted on 18 Jan 2013 by Helen Shen

After a series of anthrax attacks in 2001, the US tightened regulations on research using many pathogens, including Ebola, pictured in a transmission electron micrograph.{credit}CDC{/credit}

In the first study of its kind, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) unveiled statistics on problems related to the handling of hazardous biological agents, such as Ebola, SARS and anthrax, at hundreds of academic and government research centres.

Laboratories that work with biological select agents and toxins — materials highly regulated for their potential to cause human disease — reported that pathogens were inadvertently released 639 times between 2004 and 2010. During the same period, laboratories also reported losing 88 samples, although bookkeeping errors accounted for all but one. The remaining lost sample was accidentally destroyed by a commercial courier.

The study, published in the current issue of Applied Biosafety, says that no occurrences of theft were reported.

Over the 7-year period, laboratories reported 11 lab-acquired infections, at an average annual rate of 1.6 per 10,000 authorized workers. Ten of the infections were traced to bacterial sources, and one was due to fungal exposure. None of the infections were fatal, and none were reported to have spread to other people.

The infections could not be linked to obvious breaches in personal protection, such as torn gloves or cuts from sharp objects. Instead, the authors suggest that workers probably acquired infections from the release of aerosols containing the harmful agents. The team says that it is continuing to analyse reports of pathogen releases and lab-acquired infections to identify possible gaps in safety procedures.

“The bottom line is we have a lot of success to report, if you consider that it’s a program that regulates over 300 [laboratories] across the US,” says report co-author Robbin Weyant, director of the CDC’s division of select agents and toxins.

Current regulations date back to counter-terrorism legislation passed in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States. A Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry concluded that microbiologist Bruce Ivins, who worked at a government biodefence laboratory, was responsible for mailing anthrax spores that killed five people and sickened 17 others.

In recent years, government scrutiny and restriction of research on infectious agents has escalated to the point of slowing scientific progress, says Michael Buchmeier, deputy director of the Pacific Southwest Center for Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Diseases at the University of California, Irvine. He says the report suggests that theft and accidental loss of dangerous pathogens from research laboratories are not as widespread as some people have predicted.

Hurricane Sandy relief bill clears first barrier, stirs debate

Posted on 16 Jan 2013 by Helen Shen

Relief funds could go towards man-made beaches and barriers around coastal cities such as Milford, Connecticut.{credit}Marilee Caliendo, FEMA{/credit}

The US House of Representatives on 15 January passed the second and third installments of a piecemeal Hurricane Sandy disaster-relief plan, adding about US$50 billion to the $9.7 billion in flood insurance funds that were authorized on 4 January.

Just a small amount of money would go to science agencies. The measure includes $136 million for the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve weather surveillance and forecasting capabilities, and $15 million for NASA to repair facilities damaged by the storm.

The Senate is expected to consider disaster aid legislation next week.

Hurricane Sandy relief discussions had been delayed since December, as House Republicans scrambled to reach a deal on the ‘fiscal cliff’, allowing an earlier Senate-approved $60.4-billion aid measure to expire. Many fiscal conservatives resisted rushing approval of costly long-term projects as part of an emergency-relief package. In recent weeks, as the House revisited the issue, legislators carved the package into three separate bills, as disagreements mounted over which projects to fund and at what cost.

The latest agreement includes $17 billion to address immediate recovery needs and $33.5 billion for longer-term efforts — including $2.9 billion for construction projects by the Army Corps of Engineers “to reduce future flood risk”. Some scientists have expressed reservations about supporting the restoration of coastlines and, especially, arming them further with levees, seawalls and man-made beaches.

Jeffress Williams, a retired US Geological Survey coastal geologist, says that the notion that coastlines will be rebuilt in a smart way is “just not realistic thinking”. He and a growing number of researchers believe that such physical barriers may disrupt coastal ecosystems and ultimately fail against the rising sea levels and more severe storms projected to result from global climate change.

Others worry that including such projects in emergency legislation will circumvent opportunities for scientific input. “We should make sure we’re absolutely vetting the projects to decide with very good science where it will work, where it won’t work,” says geologist Robert Young, who directs the programme for the study of developed shorelines at Western Carolina University in Cullowhee, North Carolina.

Fish biologists claim political interference over salmon studies

Posted on 09 Jan 2013 by Helen Shen

Threatened coho salmon have prompted environmental objections to dams on the Klamath River in Oregon.{credit}E. R. Keeley, USGS{/credit}

Seven US fisheries scientists have raised a formal complaint claiming that a supervisor threatened to eliminate their research division after the team produced controversial model predictions of survival and recovery of the threatened coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) in the Klamath River Basin in Oregon.

“This falls into the basket of obstruction of science for policy or political ends,” says Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), based in Washington DC. The watchdog group filed the complaint of scientific misconduct on 7 January to the Department of Interior on behalf of the scientists who work at the US Bureau of Reclamation in Klamath Falls, Oregon.

For years, federal research on Klamath Basin fish and wildlife has been caught in an intense debate about whether to tear down a series of hydroelectric dams on the Klamath River. Many environmentalists have blamed the dams for salmon die-offs and ecological decline, but some researchers have questioned the magnitude of expected benefits from dam removal.

The letter alleges that Klamath Basin area office manager Jason Phillips violated the agency’s scientific-integrity policy, adopted in 2011 as part of US President Barack Obama’s nationwide initiative to protect science from political interference. According to the letter, the scientists believe Phillips intended to shut down the research group — known as the Fisheries Resources Branch — believing that the team’s work on salmon and other fish contradicted the plans and findings of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

In an 8 November statement to the union that represents the scientists, Phillips outlined plans to reassign the scientists to other parts of the Klamath Basin office as vacancies arise and to gradually eliminate the Fisheries Resources Branch. In an interview, Phillips said that those plans have nothing to do with the group’s scientific results. “It’s never been about the findings causing problems,” he says. “Results are results.” Phillips acknowledges that he has fielded complaints from the FWS and NOAA about how some scientists in the group have responded to comments and criticisms during standard scientific reviews.

Pete Lucero, a regional spokesman for the Bureau of Reclamation, says that the move is part of a routine and periodic reorganization to increase efficiency. Lucero says that personnel conflicts represent one area of inefficiency.

The Bureau of Reclamation encountered other personnel issues in 2011 when it fired its scientific integrity officer Paul Houser after he questioned the accuracy of figures to be published about a dramatic rise in Chinook salmon numbers projected if the dams were removed (see ‘US integrity effort hits troubled water’). Lucero maintains that the two cases are unrelated.

Houser, now a hydrologist at George Mason University in Fairfax, Virginia, says, “If this is a precedent that they want to eliminate any research group that is controversial, I think it’s a really bad precedent.”

NIH sends chimps to sanctuary with help from animal activists

Posted on 18 Dec 2012 by Helen Shen

Chimpanzees at the New Iberia Research Center in Louisiana will soon have a new home.{credit}Meredith Wadman{/credit}

In the latest step towards shrinking chimpanzee research in the United States, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced on 18 December a plan to retire its stock of 113 research animals from the New Iberia Research Center (NIRC) in Louisiana to Chimp Haven, a federally funded sanctuary in Keithsville, Louisiana.

“These animals have made important contributions to research to improve human health, but new technologies have reduced the need for their continued use in research,” said NIH director Francis Collins in a press statement, echoing the findings of an NIH-solicited report by the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) last year.

Collins declared the NIRC chimpanzees ineligible for research in September, but at the time said that the NIH planned to move only ten animals to Chimp Haven owing to limitations on space there, as well as a lack of NIH funds for new construction at the sanctuary. The remaining chimpanzees were slated for transfer to the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in San Antonio, one of two other US centres that conducts NIH-funded chimpanzee research.

Although the NIH had pledged that the NIRC animals would be off limits for invasive research at the San Antonio facility, animal activists pushed for the transfer of more chimpanzees to the Louisiana sanctuary, which carries out no such research at all. Chimp Haven is limited to non-invasive behavioural studies.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has pledged to raise US$500,000 towards the $2.3-million construction project needed to move all the NIRC chimpanzees to Chimp Haven. Additional fundraising will be undertaken by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, an independent non-profit organization that supports NIH work.

Wayne Pacelle, president of the HSUS, called the new plan “a ray of light for captive chimpanzees”.

The transition is expected to take 12–15 months, with half of the animals moving into existing structures at Chimp Haven over the next four months and the rest following as construction is completed.

Although the HSUS and the NIH are collaborating on moving the NIRC chimpanzees, the two groups continue to hold opposing views on animal research in general.

“When people can join together to solve a problem, it doesn’t mean they agree on all issues,” said Kathy Hudson, NIH deputy director of science, outreach and policy, in a press conference. Hudson added that recent decisions to scale back chimpanzee research have no bearing on NIH support for other animal studies.

The NIH continues to fund invasive research on 115 chimpanzees at the Texas Biomedical Research Institute and 167 at the Michale E. Keeling Center for Comparative Medicine and Research in Bastrop, Texas, according to an October census. A working group within the agency is now re-evaluating all NIH-supported chimpanzee projects in light of proposed IOM standards for scientific necessity, and is expected to report its findings on 22 January.

“When we receive those recommendations, we’ll have a thorough review of animals available,” said James Anderson, NIH deputy director for programme coordination, planning and strategic initiatives.

Brazil copes with ‘mad cow’ fallout

Posted on 11 Dec 2012 by Helen Shen

{credit}Wolf Seeds do Brasil, Wikimedia Commons{/credit}

The first apparent case of ‘mad cow’ disease in Brazil has sent reverberations halfway around the world and left agricultural officials scrambling to reassure the public that the country’s prodigious volume of exported beef remains safe.

On 6 December, researchers at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, UK, confirmed the occurrence of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) — commonly known as mad cow disease — in an animal that died two years ago in the southern state of Parana.

The cow, aged 13 at death, died one day after inspectors discovered the animal lying down with stiff limbs, a possible sign of BSE. Brazilian agricultural officials had sent samples from the animal for follow-up testing in the United Kingdom after earlier post-mortem tests yielded contradictory results.

In BSE, proteins called prions misfold and aggregate to form lesions in the brain, leading to a fatal brain-wasting condition in cattle. Humans exposed to BSE can develop a similar disorder called Creutzfeldt-Jacob Disease (CJD).

Secretary of agricultural defense Enio Marques called the case “an old and isolated occurrence that brings no risk to public or animal health in the country”.

Initial microscopic examination of the tissue in April 2011 revealed no signs of the disease, but subsequent biochemical tests had been delayed for several years by a case overload at a regional testing centre, according to an official government report. The animal was listed as a low priority for re-testing as it exceeded the age range most at risk for BSE. A second test in June 2012 — this time for BSE protein markers — yielded a positive result.

In response to the final test results, Japanese officials announced on 8 December the halting of beef imports from Brazil.