Collin Diedrich
Julia Hubbard, a research fellow at the Francis Crick Institute in London, has Type 1 diabetes and lupus. Collin Diedrich (pictured), postdoctoral research fellow in HIV/TB co-infection immunology at the University of Pittsburgh, US, has dyslexia. Listen to their top tips for successfully juggling scientific careers alongside illness and disability.
Also, Jack Leeming discusses Nature’s recently published comprehensive guide to scientific careers in China.
A light grey room is filled with 23 grey desks, scattered in pens and books. In one corner sits a refrigerator packed with snacks. Next to it is a rice cooker. The walls are covered in pictures of fun lab memories. Amidst the clutter, some students joke and laugh; chat with a professor about their experimental procedures; analyze data on their laptops and unconsciously wrinkle their brows.
The Ushiba lab
It is a usual morning at the Ushiba lab where I’m doing an internship this summer. I am a rising junior at Macalester College in Minnesota, USA. Before spending two years in a U.S college, I spent all my life in Japan, and expected being back in a Japanese lab to feel natural. But my assumption was wrong.
{credit}Convergent cabbages by Keyong Chang{/credit}
For all of October, we at Nature Genetics have been admiring the lovely cabbages on our cover. The image, created by photographer Keyong Chang, was contributed by the authors of the study on page 1218 of the issue.
But what is the story behind these pretty green cabbages?
Xiaowu Wang, corresponding author of the study, gave us a behind-the-scenes look at the process that led to the picture on our cover.
The image conveys the main idea of the study, namely that Brassica oleracea (cabbage, left) and Brassica rapa (Chinese cabbage, right) have taken similar evolutionary paths to arrive at their similar, but distinct, appearances. During domestication, farmers selected for cabbages of both species to have the large, leafy heads for which they are known. As shown in the study, the farmers were unknowingly selecting for orthologous genes in these two species. Continue reading
This month’s cover features the inspiring block-like karst mountains of the Li River between Guilin and Yangshuo in Guangxi province. The image was inspired by a study in this month’s issue reporting deep sequencing of the MHC region in individuals of Han Chinese ancestry. The study represents an important resource for the study of immune-related disorders in Asian populations. It also identifies loci associated with risk of psoriasis, thus demonstrating the power of this resource.
In addition to simply being a beautiful image evocative of the mountains in Guangxi province, the image also brings to mind the peaks that might be observed in many types of genomic data, such as Sanger sequencing reads, ChIP-seq peaks, etc.
Our own chief editor, Myles Axton, did first-hand research leading to the selection of this cover image. As he found, the Yulong River in Yangshuo is less muddy than the Li River and better for swimming and sightseeing from bamboo rafts (arrow indicates NG editor in the field).
Yulong River{credit}Myles Axton{/credit}
Myles holding a 20 yuan note with drawing of karst mountains.{credit}Myles Axton{/credit}
Guest contributor Chenggang Yan
I’ve spent ten years of my life in research. In those ten years, I’ve never been completely overwhelmed until I accepted a professorship at Hangzhou Dianzi University. Just like many other young scholars, I’m working hard to win a good reputation with my research. I went into science because – like many others – I wanted to do meaningful work, lead a new era, and benefit humanity in some way. But recently I’m finding that’s just not what I spend my time doing.
{credit}Chenggang Yan{/credit}
Guest contributors Zhiyong Jason Ren and Defeng Xing
Once upon a time, we worked in the same lab. Ten years later, we both lead big research labs – in Boulder, USA, and Harbin, China. We have similar backgrounds and research interests, but our journeys were very different. After reading Turning Point: Chinese Science in Transition and Nature’s How to build a better Ph.D, we want to share our stories with young researchers in the hope it might help them navigate their own science adventure.
How did we start?
It was 2006 when we first met at Penn State and became lab mates and close friends. When it became time to decide on a career path, Ren chose to become an assistant professor in the U.S., while Xing returned to his Alma Mater in China. In an “ever-lasting” U.S. tenure track system, Ren was handed a well-structured guideline for new principal investigators (PIs), while Xing got a pile of applications on his desk, so he could recruit from various young talent programs.
Ren (L) and Xing (R) in 2006
For Ren, winning the position meant he started the job as decision-making group leader, though he didn’t receive much training. For Xing, it meant joining a big group with an established platform and shifting gradually from a team player to team lead. Continue reading
For anyone considering a career in science, the Asia-Pacific region might offer some interesting careers. Opportunities for scientific jobseekers in Asia-Pacific abound, especially as research and development (R&D) spending as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) has risen in all six countries since 2000. But moving overseas is a big decision. This first Naturejobs Career Guide provides practical advice, first-hand accounts and useful facts and figures for those considering a change.
China‘s rise as a global powerhouse in science and technology is reason enough to think about a move to Asia. For example, the government has committed large sums to high-profile projects such as thorium-based nuclear power plants, as well as basic research spending, which has historically received less funding than in other developed countries. It has also launched a series of major R&D-based projects such as a space station and the China brain project, dedicated to research into artificial intelligence and neurological diseases.
A little to the east, South Korea is second only to Israel in the proportion of its GDP it spends on R&D, and Japan is not far behind. The country is focussed on recruiting overseas researchers and encouraging basic science, and is using research to drive development.
Singapore has built up its research and innovation capacities rapidly since the turn of the century by luring foreign talent with offers of large salaries. Between 2011 and 2015, 16.1 billion Singapore dollars (US $12billion) was invested in science and research by the island city-state, a 20% increase on the previous five-year period. A majority of this funding is ear-marked for collaborative projects between academic institutions and industry, hoping to drive innovation and translational science.
Australia and New Zealand are playing to their strengths by focusing limited resources on the fields in which they excel. New Zealand is renowned for its Earth science and agricultural research. It has a multi-cultural environment and is proud of its collaborativeness. The Australian government, on the other hand, is focussing it’s spending efforts on large physics and astronomy projects, as well as medical research.
For each of the six countries in the Asia-Pacific region, Naturejobs has collected first hand accounts of what it’s like to move, live and work there are a researcher.
{credit}Ratch/Shutterstock{/credit}
Chinese research institutions are looking to poach their ex-pats back, but are the schemes and lifestyles they offer something that westernised easteners can get used to? Quirin Scheimier has been speaking to some who are taking the leap. Continue reading
Each year, young researchers from all over the world meet with Nobel prize-winners on the German island of Lindau to discuss the big questions in science. The 2011 meeting focused on the world’s greatest health challenges and how to tackle them, and the Nature Video team was on hand to capture the conversations on camera.
The young researchers in these films are working on malaria, cancer, viruses and more. They are also learning how to be scientists: how to write grant applications, how to collaborate with other research groups and how to find the right career path. See what advice the laureates offer — and what questions they have in return.
There are five films in the series, and one will be published each week from 15 September to 13 October.
29 September: Bench or bedside? with Ferid Murad
Camelia-Lucia Cimpianu is trying to decide between a career as a researcher or a practising doctor. In this film, she seeks advice from Nobel Laureate Ferid Murad who faced the same dilemma as a medical student in the 1960s.
22 September: Combating cancer with Edmond Fischer
Nobel Laureate Eddie Fischer was born in Shanghai in 1920. Since then, China has emerged as an economic superpower. Now it’s becoming a scientific heavyweight too. Tong Qing belongs to the newest generation of Chinese scientists. She decided to study cancer after a family friend became ill with breast cancer. In this film, she tells Fischer about life and research in China today.
To see more videos, go to the Nature Video Lindau collection website.
If you have any problems loading the videos, please try updating your Flash player.
This week’s guest blogger is James Wilsdon, Director of the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society since 2008. Prior to this, he was Head of Science and Innovation at the think tank Demos. His publications include ‘See-Through Science’ (Demos, 2004) ‘The Public Value of Science’ (Demos, 2005), ‘The Atlas of Ideas’ (Demos, 2007) and ‘China: the next science superpower?’ (Demos, 2007).
At the 1908 Olympic Games in London, China failed even to field a team. Eighty years later, in Seoul, they finished in 11th place. And in 2008, as Beijing played host to the most spectacular Olympics in history, China topped the table for the first time, with a tally of 51 gold, 21 silver and 28 bronze medals.
If this is what China can achieve in sport, how quickly can it become a leader in science and innovation? This is one of the questions that prompted the Royal Society’s recent report Knowledge, Networks and Nations. The report maps the global landscape for science in 2011 and charts the growing strength of nations such as China, India and Brazil; as well as the emergence of newer players in the Middle East, South-East Asia and North Africa.
In both science and sport, the Chinese government has set ambitious, long-term targets and mobilized vast resources to achieve them. Just as the $40 billion spent on the Beijing Games dwarfed anything that had gone before, so China is now at an early stage in the most ambitious programme of research investment the world has ever seen. Since 1999, China’s spending on R&D has increased by almost 20 per cent each year. It is now spending US$ 100 billion a year on research, and hitting its target of 2.5% of GDP by 2020 will require a further tripling of investment, to around $300 billion a year.
Quantity of input doesn’t necessarily result in quality of output, but these investments are starting to yield results. Since 1981, the number of peer-reviewed papers produced by China has increased 64-fold, and it is well on target to become the leading producer of scientific publications within this decade, perhaps as soon as 2013. China’s Olympic triumphs flowed in part from its careful targeting of medal-rich sports like gymnastics, shooting and judo. In the same way, it has focused its research investment on disciplines where the opportunities are greatest.
Alongside globalisation, a second theme of the ‘Knowledge, Networks and Nations’ report is collaboration. The scientific world is also becoming more interconnected: over a third of all articles published in international journals are internationally collaborative, up from a quarter 15 years ago. This is happening for a variety of reasons. Advances in communication technology and cheaper travel have played a part, but the primary driver is scientists themselves, seeking to work with the best of their peers and to access complementary resources, equipment and knowledge. So at a time when budgets in many countries are under pressure, our report makes a strong case for continued investment in collaboration, as vital to high-quality research, and to our capacity to address the big social and environmental challenges that we face today.
The ‘Knowledge, Networks and Nations’ report is one recent example of the contribution that the Royal Society makes to public policy. We’ve been doing this for a long time: our earliest report, on the state of Britain’s forests, was delivered to King Charles II back in 1664.
But today, scientific advice to underpin policy is more important than ever before. In 2009, the Royal Society established a Science Policy Centre to strengthen the independent voice of science in UK, European and international policy. Each year we publish half a dozen reports, usually produced by groups of our Fellows and other experts. We also run workshop and seminars, as well as engaging directly with policymakers and with the media.
Above all, we want to make the Royal Society a hub for debate about science, society and public policy; to act as ‘honest brokers’ of the choices that confront scientists and policymakers in the 21st century.
Last year, the Royal Society celebrated its 350th anniversary. As historians such as Steve Shapin have described, in its early years, the Royal Society was a ‘house of experiment’. Hooke, Boyle, and the Society’s other founders – ‘ingenious and curious gentlemen’ as they styled themselves – met regularly to conduct experiments, to peer through newly-invented telescopes and microscopes, and to dissect strange animals.
Today, while the Society funds the work of several hundred research scientists through its grant schemes, no actual experiments take place within its four walls. Science moved out long ago into the universities and corporate R&D labs. But in other ways, the Society remains a house of experiment. Only now, the experiments that take place are in those messy and contested commons and borderlands between science, politics and society.
This, as I see it, is one of the primary responsibilities of a national academy of science in the 21st Century – to be honest and open in our recognition of the shifting politics of knowledge. To ask and to help answer the burning social, ethical and political questions raised by and for science today.