It’s time to map the brain

Nature Methods are devoting a special focus to neuroscience and Erika Pastrana shares some details in the Methagora Blog :

To understand the brain we need to know how and when neurons fire in the living animal while it performs naturalistic behaviors. We need to know the underlying wiring patterns and anatomical configuration of the circuits and we need to be able to develop testable models of how behaviors arise from the underlying function of the cells in the brain.

Obtaining this type of systems-level information about the brain has not been easy up to now. But thanks to technological development, this is rapidly changing.

You can read the special focus in full here.

The presence of a chemical is not the same as presence of risk

This week’s Soapbox Science post is by Dr. Joe Schwarcz’s, a chemistry professor at McGill University. Schwarcz looks at how the public perceive the word “chemical.”

“Chemical” is not a dirty word. Nor is it a synonym for “poison” or “toxin.” Chemicals are the basic building blocks of all matter and classifying them as “safe” or “dangerous” is inappropriate. But of course there are safe or dangerous ways of using chemicals. In any case, chemicals are not to be feared or worshipped, they are to be understood. And perhaps the most important point to understand is that the presence of a chemical does not equate to the presence of a risk.

You can hear more of Dr. Schwarcz’s thoughts in his guest post. 

World’s research funders launch open-access action plan

The heads of some 70 research funding agencies from around the world said this week that they had agreed to encourage open access to science publications resulting from their spending. Richard Van Noorden explains more in the News Blog:

But the funders, gathering in Berlin for the second annual meeting of the Global Research Council, a voluntary but potentially influential discussion forum, did not commit to  joint specifics in their seven-page action plan.

Instead, “working out individual details must remain a task for individual organizations”, Peter Strohschneider, the president of Germany’s main research-funding agency, the DFG, told reporters at a press conference. The same broad agreement without detailed how-to recipes applies to another agreement the council released today, a one-page statement on principles for research integrity.

Further details can be found in Richard’s post, feel free to share your thoughts in the comment thread.

The potential for solar energy in the UAE

In the House of Wisdom Blog, Mohammed Yahia is looking at solar energy in the UAE:

Steve Griffiths

Taking into account the rising cost of fossil fuels, the United Arab Emirates could economically generate more than 20GW of electricity from solar energy by 2030, said Steve Griffiths, executive director of Institute Initiatives at Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi.

Griffiths predicts that the Middle East will be investing over US$250 billion by 2017 to produce over 120GW of clean energy. This will include energy from natural gas, nuclear energy and renewable sources. This, however, will depend on having clear, transparent policies that stimulate deployment.

He contends that solar energy could be an important, currently under-utilized source of energy in the region, which is among the sunniest in the world.

More on the future of solar energy in the UAE in Mohammed’s post.

First-in-class cancer drug approved to fight melanoma

In the News Blog, Heidi Ledford reports that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved the first cancer drug to inhibit a protein — called MEK — that acts in a pathway that fuels tumour growth:

The drug, called Mekinist (trametinib), was approved on 29 May for use in advanced melanomas with specific mutations. Other MEK-targeting drugs are being studied in a wide range of tumours, including lung and thyroid cancers.

The FDA approved Mekinist together with another drug, called Tafinlar (dabrafenib), which targets cancer-driving mutant forms of a protein called BRAF. The agency also approved a medical test for those BRAF mutations. BRAF inhibitors, one of which is already on the market, elicit rapid and dramatic responses, in some cases wiping away nearly all signs of the disease. But the responses are short-lived, and the drugs boost survival by only a few months.

More information on Mekinist can be found in Heidi’s post. 

Negative Results

Matt Shipman’s latest post looks at a journal editor’s perspective on publishing negative results:

To get some input on publishing negative results, I thought it would make sense to reach out to the publishing community. So I contacted Damian Pattinson, editorial director of PLOS ONE, with my questions. Damian, in turn, asked for input from Eric Martens, a senior editor at PLOS ONE. [Note: I contacted other journals as well, and will share their responses if/when I receive them.]

In which a journal editor weighs in on getting negative results into the hands of people who can use them. (Image: North Carolina State University)

Continue to Matt’s post to read his Q&A with Martens on whether negative results matter, why there are so few publications on negative results, and what the publishing community can do about it. Join in the conversation and share your opinions in the comment thread.

BARREL mission balloons fly high

Measurements taken by a fleet of eight-story-tall balloons released earlier this year are helping scientists make new discoveries about our planet. SciLogs blogger Liz O’Connell elaborates in her latest post:

The 20 balloons lofted into the pristine cold air above Antarctica this year represent half of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration project BARREL: Balloon Array for Radiation belt Relativistic Electron Losses. Another 20 balloons scheduled to be released in early 2014 will complete the data set. The project is part of NASA’s ‘Living With a Star’ program designed to help us understand how the Sun and Earth interact, and how the environment their interaction produces can influence human technology.

Learn more about this unusual project in Liz’s post.

Can Bald Fish Get Lice

Finally, Scitable blogger Alexis Rudd investigates whether animals without fur or feathers, like fish, can get lice:

The answer is both yes and no. Yes, fish do get lice, but they are very different from the lice you might have had in grade four. Your lice were insects, but the lice found in the ocean are not. Like crabs and lobster, oceanic lice are crustaceans. Crustaceans and insects are actually both a part of the same phylum (arthropoda), and may even be directly related. But because fish lice don’t have lots of fur to hang onto, they have to be creative, attaching to their host using suckers and their antennae.

While suctioned onto or grabbing the fish with their antennae, lice feed off the mucus, skin, and muscle, often causing bleeding and infection. For a large, healthy fish, a few lice are unpleasant but seldom fatal. However, too many lice can kill a fish, especially a small one.

Continue to Alexis’s post to see pictures of a hump-back wale covered in lice.