A summary of the week’s best discussions on Nature Network.

The recent discovery of water on Mars has flung wide speculation and discussion of the possibility of life on the Red Planet. In a most timely blog post, Joanna Scott features an upcoming seminar, “ExoMars: Europe’s Next Step in the Search for Life on Mars,” to take place on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 at 10am PDT, 6pm BST, on Nature’s island in Second Life. The seminar will be given by Jeff Marlow, part of a group developing instrumentation for the ExoMars probe. “Jeff’s specific role in the project is designing the instrument which will look for signs of life on Mars: could water just be the first step?” Check out the talk to hear about Jeff’s work on the ExoMars probe and his take on the discovery of water on Mars.

The path of a scientific discovery from bench to patent – and to the real world beyond – is often unclear to scientists, who are not routinely taught the basics of intellectual property law. A new group on Nature Network, Patent Law Primer, addresses this disconnect between the scientific and legal communities. A recent question about the rights and responsibilities of the investigator in a patent held by the institution was addressed by Rahan Uddin from Peer to Patent: “…institutions may work out some sort of royalty agreement with the investigator/scientist, again this really depends on how much of the investigators own time/resources has been invested in development.”

An understanding of humanities can make for a better scientist, argues Bob O’Hara. The public backlash to the introduction of genetically modified foods took many scientists by surprise. Study of people’s reactions and behavior patterns could lead to more effective techniques in presenting novel findings and developments. “Because science is done by people, we need to understand how people behave as individuals and in groups. This is the job of the humanities, so we need them if we are to be effective as science practitioners.””

Miguel Allende discusses pluses and minuses of two divergent approaches to science in Chile – the science that is carried out at large institutions and smaller, independent organizations. The larger institutions can sometimes be encumbered by bureaucracy and politics, while the smaller institutions lack access to students and teams diverse in their skills base. “A balanced view should see the merit in both approaches to research,” says Allende.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

A summary of the week’s best discussions on Nature Network.

The recent discovery of water on Mars has flung wide speculation and discussion of the possibility of life on the Red Planet. In a most timely blog post, Joanna Scott features an upcoming seminar, “ExoMars: Europe’s Next Step in the Search for Life on Mars,” to take place on Tuesday, 5 August 2008 at 10am PDT, 6pm BST, on Nature’s island in Second Life. The seminar will be given by Jeff Marlow, part of a group developing instrumentation for the ExoMars probe. “Jeff’s specific role in the project is designing the instrument which will look for signs of life on Mars: could water just be the first step?” Check out the talk to hear about Jeff’s work on the ExoMars probe and his take on the discovery of water on Mars.

The path of a scientific discovery from bench to patent – and to the real world beyond – is often unclear to scientists, who are not routinely taught the basics of intellectual property law. A new group on Nature Network, Patent Law Primer, addresses this disconnect between the scientific and legal communities. A recent question about the rights and responsibilities of the investigator in a patent held by the institution was addressed by Rahan Uddin from Peer to Patent: “…institutions may work out some sort of royalty agreement with the investigator/scientist, again this really depends on how much of the investigators own time/resources has been invested in development.”

An understanding of humanities can make for a better scientist, argues Bob O’Hara. The public backlash to the introduction of genetically modified foods took many scientists by surprise. Study of people’s reactions and behavior patterns could lead to more effective techniques in presenting novel findings and developments. “Because science is done by people, we need to understand how people behave as individuals and in groups. This is the job of the humanities, so we need them if we are to be effective as science practitioners.””

Miguel Allende discusses pluses and minuses of two divergent approaches to science in Chile – the science that is carried out at large institutions and smaller, independent organizations. The larger institutions can sometimes be encumbered by bureaucracy and politics, while the smaller institutions lack access to students and teams diverse in their skills base. “A balanced view should see the merit in both approaches to research,” says Allende.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

A new blog focusing on alternative careers in science has spurred debate in the Careers Advice by NatureJobs forum about the value of airing concerns and complaints about current work situations. Ian Brooks says that leaving the traditional academic path is not easy, but one should, “direct your anger and mal-contentment towards building the future and career you want.”

In response to a commentary in Nature on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) program of stockpiling influenza vaccines in preparation for a potential flu pandemic, Brendan Maher asks, “Can a pre-pandemic vaccine curb a major catastrophe?” Steven Salzburg, the author of a related Commentary responds that, “What our governments can and should do is launch a crash program to create vaccines using non-egg based methods. This could allow us to get a new vaccine – if a pandemic strain appears – into production in a matter of weeks.”

Deanne Taylor’s post about a talk given by Richard Hamming of Bell Labs spurred a conversation of what it means to be a great scientist, as well as obstacles which can stand in the way. Mark Tummers says that many scientists are afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being remembered for an objectionable or incorrect comment. “A bad impression will last longer than a good one. So why stick your neck out by asking a question that is potentially ‘stupid’ or a remark that might offend someone who can decided over your future.”

In a blog post, Corie Lok, the Editor of Nature Network Boston, asks whether science blogs are fulfilling their promise of fostering constructive debate about science, or are they being used for empty banter and rants without the threat of personal retribution? “So what do people feel is the right level of bantering/joking/silliness/criticism/insults/nastiness in the science blogo/commentosphere? Is there even a ‘right’ level?” A conversation about the various discussion threads on Nature Network and beyond follows.

A forum post in the PhD Students group asks whether there are differences between PhDs obtained in the United States as opposed to other countries in world. The conversation reveals that while the time to completion of a PhD varies wildly among countries in Europe and the States, sometimes a PhD is just a PhD. Eva Amsen notes that, “Once you have the PhD, it doesn’t seem to matter – people with those really short three-year UK PhDs seem to get North-American post-doc positions without any problem.”

A new blog focusing on alternative careers in science has spurred debate in the Careers Advice by NatureJobs forum about the value of airing concerns and complaints about current work situations. Ian Brooks says that leaving the traditional academic path is not easy, but one should, “direct your anger and mal-contentment towards building the future and career you want.”

In response to a commentary in Nature on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) program of stockpiling influenza vaccines in preparation for a potential flu pandemic, Brendan Maher asks, “Can a pre-pandemic vaccine curb a major catastrophe?” Steven Salzburg, the author of a related Commentary responds that, “What our governments can and should do is launch a crash program to create vaccines using non-egg based methods. This could allow us to get a new vaccine – if a pandemic strain appears – into production in a matter of weeks.”

Deanne Taylor’s post about a talk given by Richard Hamming of Bell Labs spurred a conversation of what it means to be a great scientist, as well as obstacles which can stand in the way. Mark Tummers says that many scientists are afraid to voice their opinion for fear of being remembered for an objectionable or incorrect comment. “A bad impression will last longer than a good one. So why stick your neck out by asking a question that is potentially ‘stupid’ or a remark that might offend someone who can decided over your future.”

In a blog post, Corie Lok, the Editor of Nature Network Boston, asks whether science blogs are fulfilling their promise of fostering constructive debate about science, or are they being used for empty banter and rants without the threat of personal retribution? “So what do people feel is the right level of bantering/joking/silliness/criticism/insults/nastiness in the science blogo/commentosphere? Is there even a ‘right’ level?” A conversation about the various discussion threads on Nature Network and beyond follows.

A forum post in the PhD Students group asks whether there are differences between PhDs obtained in the United States as opposed to other countries in world. The conversation reveals that while the time to completion of a PhD varies wildly among countries in Europe and the States, sometimes a PhD is just a PhD. Eva Amsen notes that, “Once you have the PhD, it doesn’t seem to matter – people with those really short three-year UK PhDs seem to get North-American post-doc positions without any problem.”

A summary of the week’s best discussions on Nature Network.

With over 70 members, the Berlin group on Nature Network is gaining momentum. The group even has its own online calendar of upcoming NN Berlin events. The group’s administrator, Philipp Selenko, is organizing a series of dinners to take place during the International Congress of Genetics 2008 in Berlin this month, featuring speakers from the Congress. Eric Lander, Oliver Smithies, Mario Capecchi, and Elisa Izaurralde are among the speakers expected to attend.

As a graduate student, Nuruddeen Lewis has had ample opportunity to reflect on how science is done. He shares his reflections on the importance of reading scientific literature, balancing life and lab, and novel approaches to reading while exercising on his blog, Lab Daze. In his latest post, Nuruddeen asks readers for their Most Important Tips to be Successful in Science. Responses range from the philosophical to the practical.

In the Nature Network Italy group, Marco Boscolo asks, “…is politics a world apart from science?” The discussion addresses the relationship between science and politics in Italy and beyond.

The Consortium of Functional Genomics (CFG) is a “large research initiative… formed to define the paradigms by which protein-carbohydrate interactions mediate cell communication.” The consortium is made up of seven scientific cores, including mouse transgenics and microarray, with participating investigators based all over the world. The CFG has recently formed a series of groups on Nature Network in order to ease communication between consortium members.

DIYBio is a Boston-based group which hopes to create an “Institution for the Amateur,” devoted to promoting scientific experimentation by the general public. In a Q&A with Nature Network Boston, one of the group’s organizers speaks about the ethics of scientific experimentation outside of an academic lab, proposed projects, and plans for a future biotech workshop.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

A summary of the week’s best discussions on Nature Network.

With over 70 members, the Berlin group on Nature Network is gaining momentum. The group even has its own online calendar of upcoming NN Berlin events. The group’s administrator, Philipp Selenko, is organizing a series of dinners to take place during the International Congress of Genetics 2008 in Berlin this month, featuring speakers from the Congress. Eric Lander, Oliver Smithies, Mario Capecchi, and Elisa Izaurralde are among the speakers expected to attend.

As a graduate student, Nuruddeen Lewis has had ample opportunity to reflect on how science is done. He shares his reflections on the importance of reading scientific literature, balancing life and lab, and novel approaches to reading while exercising on his blog, Lab Daze. In his latest post, Nuruddeen asks readers for their Most Important Tips to be Successful in Science. Responses range from the philosophical to the practical.

In the Nature Network Italy group, Marco Boscolo asks, “…is politics a world apart from science?” The discussion addresses the relationship between science and politics in Italy and beyond.

The Consortium of Functional Genomics (CFG) is a “large research initiative… formed to define the paradigms by which protein-carbohydrate interactions mediate cell communication.” The consortium is made up of seven scientific cores, including mouse transgenics and microarray, with participating investigators based all over the world. The CFG has recently formed a series of groups on Nature Network in order to ease communication between consortium members.

DIYBio is a Boston-based group which hopes to create an “Institution for the Amateur,” devoted to promoting scientific experimentation by the general public. In a Q&A with Nature Network Boston, one of the group’s organizers speaks about the ethics of scientific experimentation outside of an academic lab, proposed projects, and plans for a future biotech workshop.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

In the Science in Brisbane forum, William Burns brings up a recent report that states Australia has fewer PhDs in the workforce than other countries. The report recommends that Australia seek to increase the number of doctorate level employees in the workforce. Burns wonders whether that recommendation is worthwhile, “Aren’t we (us lot with PhDs) an impractical, overly-analytical bunch?” While the response to the posting is split, Jon Moulton suggests that, “Without Ph.D.s in the workforce, who will design those new tools the academic Ph.D.s like to use in their research?”

Ever wonder how reviewers for journal articles are chosen? In the Ask the Nature Editor group, Ravi K wonders how one can become a reviewer for a Nature Journal: “Is it purely on invitation basis, or can one volunteer their services in their area of research?” A number of Nature editors respond.

On the heels of an article in Wired, which suggests that scientific modeling may soon be an outdated approach, David Basanta asks, “Does any one else think that traditional science is a thing of the past and that cloud computing will drive us modelers to the employment office?” The ensuing discussion covers issues ranging from open data to the potential for a “cultural shift in the way we look science.” Bob O’Hara continues the discussion on his blog.

Tai-Chung Huang is in the process of deciding whether UK or US-based graduate programs are the best fit for his goals. He asks, “…for admission to UK’s school, what matters most? The past publications? recommendation letters? or the hard-selling of introducing oneself via email?”

Nature Network users test their knowledge of scientific legends by attempting to identify the scientists pictured on a mural at the Royal Institution of Great Britain (Ri). Guesses range from George Clooney to the more probable Ludwig Mond. The plot thickens when Matt Brown clarifies that, “…these [persons] are not scientists, but architects and benefactors connected with the Ri.” A number of them remain clouded in mystery. Take a crack at identifying these historic individuals yourself.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

In the Science in Brisbane forum, William Burns brings up a recent report that states Australia has fewer PhDs in the workforce than other countries. The report recommends that Australia seek to increase the number of doctorate level employees in the workforce. Burns wonders whether that recommendation is worthwhile, “Aren’t we (us lot with PhDs) an impractical, overly-analytical bunch?” While the response to the posting is split, Jon Moulton suggests that, “Without Ph.D.s in the workforce, who will design those new tools the academic Ph.D.s like to use in their research?”

Ever wonder how reviewers for journal articles are chosen? In the Ask the Nature Editor group, Ravi K wonders how one can become a reviewer for a Nature Journal: “Is it purely on invitation basis, or can one volunteer their services in their area of research?” A number of Nature editors respond.

On the heels of an article in Wired, which suggests that scientific modeling may soon be an outdated approach, David Basanta asks, “Does any one else think that traditional science is a thing of the past and that cloud computing will drive us modelers to the employment office?” The ensuing discussion covers issues ranging from open data to the potential for a “cultural shift in the way we look science.” Bob O’Hara continues the discussion on his blog.

Tai-Chung Huang is in the process of deciding whether UK or US-based graduate programs are the best fit for his goals. He asks, “…for admission to UK’s school, what matters most? The past publications? recommendation letters? or the hard-selling of introducing oneself via email?”

Nature Network users test their knowledge of scientific legends by attempting to identify the scientists pictured on a mural at the Royal Institution of Great Britain (Ri). Guesses range from George Clooney to the more probable Ludwig Mond. The plot thickens when Matt Brown clarifies that, “…these [persons] are not scientists, but architects and benefactors connected with the Ri.” A number of them remain clouded in mystery. Take a crack at identifying these historic individuals yourself.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

Nature Network is an online meeting place for scientists all around the world, designed to facilitate discussion, form connections, and keep in touch. The following is the first in a weekly series of articles highlighting the best conversations on Nature Network. Check back here every Monday for a round-up of the previous week’s activity on Nature Network.

Euan Adie, a Nature Network blogger, brings to Nature Network the science blog buzz surrounding California’s recent cease and desist order targeting direct-to-consumer genotyping companies. Euan elaborates that two issues California legislators have with the genotyping companies are that “…that the labs they [genetic companies] outsource to aren’t always licensed and secondly that they’re breaking a Californian law that requires all genetic tests to be ordered by a physician.” The resulting discussion addresses whether physicians are good resources for interpreting genotyping results and whether the government should have the authority to legislate whether individuals can seek to sequence their own DNA.

Pub nights are expanding beyond the London and Boston hubs. New York Nature Network users came together for their third meet-up while Toronto hosted its first. The New York meet up brought together scientists from disciplines as disparate as neuroscience, computer science, and glaciology.

The organizers of The Source Event, a science career fair taking place in London on September 26, 2008 (organized by NatureJobs), have organized a question and answer forum in which attendees can ask speakers about their background and for advice on their own career direction. In one such exchange, Daniel Weekes, a cell biology post-doc, asks Jim Loftus, a research recruitment manager at Pfizer, how an academic researcher, “…how important is previous industrial experience when applying for a job in industry?”

The recent publication of a Nature commentary on research integrity and the prevalence of academic misconduct, prompted an in-depth discussion of the current framework of regulating scientific fraud and how it may be bettered. In a forum, Brendan Maher, a news editor with Nature, asks, “How could better policies push back against this seeming flood of misconduct?” The conversation continues on Richard Grant’s blog, The Scientist.

The pros and cons of maintaining blogrolls, or lists of links to other blogs, are discussed in the Nature Networks Bloggers Unite forum. Neil Saunders suggests that, “All I get from a blogroll is a very long list of blogs, with obscure titles telling me nothing about their content. Furthermore, a lot of them are likely to be inactive or dead, since the blogroll creator will have realised that maintenance is a complete pain.” Neil suggests that FriendFeed is a better option, while Heather Etchevers and Maxine Clarke volunteer wikis and Connotea as tools for maintaining a community NN group blogroll.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.

Nature Network is an online meeting place for scientists all around the world, designed to facilitate discussion, form connections, and keep in touch. The following is the first in a weekly series of articles highlighting the best conversations on Nature Network. Check back here every Monday for a round-up of the previous week’s activity on Nature Network.

Euan Adie, a Nature Network blogger, brings to Nature Network the science blog buzz surrounding California’s recent cease and desist order targeting direct-to-consumer genotyping companies. Euan elaborates that two issues California legislators have with the genotyping companies are that “…that the labs they [genetic companies] outsource to aren’t always licensed and secondly that they’re breaking a Californian law that requires all genetic tests to be ordered by a physician.” The resulting discussion addresses whether physicians are good resources for interpreting genotyping results and whether the government should have the authority to legislate whether individuals can seek to sequence their own DNA.

Pub nights are expanding beyond the London and Boston hubs. New York Nature Network users came together for their third meet-up while Toronto hosted its first. The New York meet up brought together scientists from disciplines as disparate as neuroscience, computer science, and glaciology.

The organizers of The Source Event, a science career fair taking place in London on September 26, 2008 (organized by NatureJobs), have organized a question and answer forum in which attendees can ask speakers about their background and for advice on their own career direction. In one such exchange, Daniel Weekes, a cell biology post-doc, asks Jim Loftus, a research recruitment manager at Pfizer, how an academic researcher, “…how important is previous industrial experience when applying for a job in industry?”

The recent publication of a Nature commentary on research integrity and the prevalence of academic misconduct, prompted an in-depth discussion of the current framework of regulating scientific fraud and how it may be bettered. In a forum, Brendan Maher, a news editor with Nature, asks, “How could better policies push back against this seeming flood of misconduct?” The conversation continues on Richard Grant’s blog, The Scientist.

The pros and cons of maintaining blogrolls, or lists of links to other blogs, are discussed in the Nature Networks Bloggers Unite forum. Neil Saunders suggests that, “All I get from a blogroll is a very long list of blogs, with obscure titles telling me nothing about their content. Furthermore, a lot of them are likely to be inactive or dead, since the blogroll creator will have realised that maintenance is a complete pain.” Neil suggests that FriendFeed is a better option, while Heather Etchevers and Maxine Clarke volunteer wikis and Connotea as tools for maintaining a community NN group blogroll.

If you’d like to nominate a conversation you’ve read or taken part in on Nature Network for next week’s roundup, please email us at network [at] nature.com.